[1000mp] INrad Collins vs Yaesu Collins 500 Hz Filter for 1000MPs

[Pete Smith]

I disagree slightly with Ian and Earl, at least if you are using your 
sub-receiver for contesting and DXing, and not trying to have it perform 
like the main receiver.  The wider skirts can be quite useful for trying 
quickly to locate a split pileup and look for a crack in it, where the 
Inrad 400 may be so steep-sided as to cause you to miss stuff that is much 
off frequency.

73, Pete N4ZR

At 02:50 PM 8/10/2004, Joe Giacobello wrote:

>Ian, thanks for that inf.  It was extremely useful because I just obtained 
>an Inrad Collins filter.
>
>Tnx es 73 de Joe
>
>Ian White, G3SEK wrote:
>
>>Earl W Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Has anyone measured or judged any difference in performance between
>>>these guys?"
>>>==========
>>>The INRAD and the Yaesu Collins 500 Hz mechanical filters are identical. 
>>>I recommend the INRAD 400 Hz crystal filter for the 455 kHz I.F. to 
>>>avoid the broad skirts of the mechanical filter.
>>
>>The INRAD 400Hz filter makes a dramatic difference to the sub-RX, because 
>>that one filter is all the skirt selectivity you have.
>>
>>I found the Collins filter almost useless in the sub-RX because its 
>>skirts are so broad. The much steeper skirts of the INRAD filter really 
>>bring the sub-RX to life for CW and RTTY, both as a second RX and for 
>>spotting in split pileups.
>>
>>Imagine you're listening to CW at 700Hz in the center of the passband. 
>>Interfering signals at 200Hz and 1200Hz will be at least 30dB weaker 
>>through the INRAD filter, and signals further down the skirts are weaker 
>>still. Data for both filters are on the INRAD website - but the important 
>>thing is that you can *really* hear it!
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>1000mp mailing list
>1000mp at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/1000mp