[Elecraft] adding 250Hz filer, any improvement?

[Jessie Oberreuter]

      I've noticed this effect myself.  At super narrow bandwidths, the 
signal and remaining noise are both essentially on the same frequency. 
With nothing else around to provide a base-line reference, discrimination 
becomes a function of real-time delta power measurement rather than tone 
detection.  My ears and brain are more sensitive to frequency information 
than power information, and perform poorly under such conditions.  I 
suspect this is true for most other people as well.  Open the bandwidth up 
a bit, and the ear/brain system is back on familiar ground.
      Some experiments are suggested, eg replacing the signal with a clean 
generated tone at the dynamic power level as measured by the DSP, 
injecting surrounding "clean" white noise around the filter, or both if we 
want to make it sound like radio even if, at this point, it's a virtual 
signal :).


On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Scott Ellington wrote:

> I agree with both Don and Bill.  There are really two issues:
>
> In the presences of just noise, the DSP with a wider crystal filter is adequate.  The additional noise reduction of a narrow crystal filter is negligible.  (QRM is another matter.)
>
> The brain/ear system, at least for many operators, is very good at copying weak signals in noise, even with a broad bandwidth.  If there's no QRM nearby, I always find it easier to copy with a larger bandwidth, though anything above 500 Hz makes little difference.  (Except for quickly tuning across a mostly empty band.)  The 250 Hz bandwidth, in my experience, ALWAYS makes it harder to copy weak signals, unless there is adjacent QRM.  For that reason, I prefer to operate with 400 Hz bandwidth most of the time, switching to a narrower bandwidth only when necessary.
>
> This seems to contradict signal theory, which says that a narrower bandwidth improves S/N ratio until the filter bandwidth is equal to that of the signal.  What signal theory fails to take into account is the matched filter in a CW operator's head.
>
> 73,
>
> Scott  K9MA
>
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 7:51 AM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
>
>>  Ed,
>>
>> If there are no strong signals on the band or nearby your receive
>> frequency, then any filter, even the stock 2.7 kHz is sufficient.  The
>> only purpose of the roofing filter is to keep strong signals out of the
>> receiver passband so they do not activate the AGC and de-sense the
>> receiver for the signal you are trying to hear.
>>
>> 73,
>> Don W3FPR
>>
>> On 2/9/2011 3:07 AM, Edward R. Cole wrote:
>>> Let me ask a filter question for a different situation.  I am
>>> interested in receiving very-weak CW and currently have the 2.8 KHz
>>> and 400-Hz 8-pole filters.  Will narrowing the DSP bw down to 200-Hz
>>> work as well as using a 200-Hz filter?  There are no strong stations
>>> either nearby or on the band.
>>>
>>> BTW I am impressed with the 400-Hz filter on the K3 when compared to
>>> the 400-Hz DSP on my FT-847 (no surprise).
>>> I find trying to hear extremely weak-CW that narrowing down to 200,
>>> 100 or even narrower makes the difference.
>>>
>>> I left a blank filter space on the main receive for adding a narrow
>>> SSB filter at a later time.  I also have the 13-KHz filter for
>>> FM/AM.  Sub-Rx has 2.8 and 13-KHz.
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> Scott Ellington
> Madison, Wisconsin
> USA
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>