[Elecraft] Field Day rig experience
WILLIE BABER
wlbaber at bellsouth.net
Fri Jun 15 00:50:45 EDT 2018
Since it is meant for public consumption, maybe Wayne won't mind that I reproduce this, that Wes also cited (from the Elecraft website), written by Wayne, N6KR: Maybe we can agree that Wayne and Elecraft ought to know. And so end of thread.
-----------------------------------
What "Roofing Filter" means to Elecraft
There's been so much discussion about this topic that I'd thought I'd better try to clarify why we used the term when discussing the K3S.
A "Roofing filter" is simply a filter in the radio's first IF through which all signals must pass before they will be "seen" by later receiver stages. The narrower this filter is, the less exposure later stages will have. Thus a "narrow" roofing filter is desirable -- but "narrow" is relative, as I'll explain.
The term "roofing filter" has most often been used in relation to triple- or quadruple-conversion receivers. Such receivers have an IF above the highest RF band covered; it's typically something in the range of 30 to 70 MHz or higher. But "roofing" as a term should be interpreted as "protective," not "high in frequency." A roofing filter protects later stages, including amplifiers, mixers, narrower filters, and DSP subsystems, just as the roof on your house keeps rain out of all of the rooms. But a roofing filter can be equally at home at a low first IF, if that is how the radio is designed. It still provides the same protective function.
When we released the K2 in 1999, we never described our 1st IF crystal filters as roofing filters. We had only one IF, so the receiver model was simpler; there were no narrow filters at later stages that required protection.
But now, we find that the term is in widespread use. Average hams now think of roofing filter bandwidths as the standard of comparison between receivers. This is why manufacturers have jumped through hoops to try to provide the narrowest possible roofing filters. Many operators have an understanding (justified) that a roofing filter that is wider than the communications bandwidth will not best protect the receiver's later stages. So the term now seems appropriate to use even in a radio such as the K2, K3S, or Orion, all of which use low-frequency IFs (5 to 9 MHz).
In recent years, the roofing filter has become the centerpiece of receiver redesign:
Suppose that manufacturer "A" initially designed their receiver to use a 15- or 20-kHz roofing filter. Yes, this allows the receiver to handle NBFM and other wide modulation modes; it may also be selected to constrain the signal bandwidth ahead of a noise blanker or spectrum scope. But it comes at a price. If you're using CW mode, you'll have much narrower filters selected at the radio's 2nd and 3rd IFs. Yet the 1st IF roofing filter allows a broad swath of signals into the earlier stages. You don't need this energy in your passband. It can cause trouble.
Manufacturer "A," realizing they have a problem with dynamic range at close spacing, then announces that they've had a breakthrough: they can now offer a 6-kHz, or more recently 3-kHz roofing filter. This will certainly improve the situation for SSB and AM operation, but it still opens the barn door in CW or DATA modes, because the bandwidth is a factor of 10 wider than needed for communications.
So why don't they offer much narrower roofing filters that can be switched in for CW and data modes, or at times when adjacent-channel SSB QRM is very high? It's because they can't make filters any narrower at such a high IF.
Enter the "down-conversion" rig (K2, K3S, Orion, etc.). By converting to a low first IF, the designer can easily create narrow filters that are compatible with the required communications bandwidth. This is why we are offering filters with bandwidths as low as 200 Hz.
And yes, these are still "roofing" filters, because they limit exposure (bandwidth), thus protecting later stages (in the K3S case, the IF amp, 2nd mixer, and DSP).
73,
Wayne
N6KR
CWops #1085
CWA Advisor levels II and III
http://cwops.org/
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 6/14/18, K9MA <k9ma at sdellington.us> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Field Day rig experience
To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018, 8:28 PM
There are at least two excellent
reasons for the narrow crystal filters
in
the first IF of the K3(s). (Wayne can correct me if
I'm wrong.)
One, of course, is to
reject the image of the second IF. However, the
dynamic range of the ADC in the second IF, by
itself, just isn't enough
to provide
the 140 or so dB we need. The combination of the ADC/DSP
and
the crystal filter does the trick, even
though 8 MHz crystal filters
aren't all
that great. As I recall, there were some earlier DSP only
receivers, but their dynamic range was
poor. Crystal filters are
expensive, but
until we have fast ADC's linear to at least 24 bits,
they're necessary to get that kind of
dynamic range.
I've
often wondered if any other communication system requires
the close
in dynamic range we do. Why
would anyone design a system that allowed
signals 2 kHz apart to differ in strength by
140 dB?
73,
Scott K9MA
On 6/14/2018
20:33, WILLIE BABER wrote:
> Wes,
>
> "A "Roofing
filter" is simply a filter in the radio's first IF
through which all signals must pass before they will be
"seen" by later receiver stages. The narrower this
filter is, the less exposure later stages will have. Thus a
"narrow" roofing filter is desirable -- but
"narrow" is relative, as I'll
explain."
>
>
What Elecraft said (above) is exactly what I said.
Moreover, Elecraft's explanation is required because the
term roofing filter is now applied to up-conversion in
multiple conversion radios (with relatively wide first I-F
filters compared to what is achievable at a low first I-F)
which is what the term initially sought to rebuff in the
first place, also my point.
>
> 73, Will, wj9b
>
> CWops #1085
> CWA
Advisor levels II and III
> http://cwops.org/
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 6/14/18, Wes Stewart <wes_n7ws at triconet.org>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
Re: [Elecraft] Field Day rig experience
> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018, 4:47
PM
>
> Will,
>
> First of all I
have said before and will repeat
> it,
I detest the term "roofing
>
filter." That said, by the generally
> accepted definition, you are wrong.
See
> Elecraft's take on this:
>
> http://www.elecraft.com/K3/Roofing_Filters.htm
>
> If you will
think in
> Wayne's terms, the
post-mixer filter is a
>
"protective"
> filter, not
a
> mode-specific filter. So the
question becomes, how much
>
> protection is necessary? In
> Elecraft's case, quite a lot,
IMHO. With its QRP
> DNA, Elecraft
uses post crystal filter
> circuitry
that minimizes current
>
consumption. The trade off for this is the
> need for a bank of pricey crystal
> filters
> to
limit the frequencies that the circuitry is exposed
> to.
>
> Now what if the
>
subsequent circuitry doesn't require this much
> protection
>
because it is more robust? We
> now
have direct-sampling radios that can digitize
> a whole ham band with good performance.
If the
> BW was limited to 10-15 kHz
in an
> up
>
conversion configuration they should be even better.
The
> limitation now
> becomes LO phase noise, but
> newer synthesizer designs overcome that
obstacle.
> Another thing to note is
that IMD in crystal
> filters is
reported to be inversely
>
proportional to BW. So a wider filter might
> actually be better from that
> perspective.
>
Some Elecraft filters exhibit passive IMD BTW.
>
> Wes N7WS
>
> On 6/14/2018
8:01 AM, WILLIE BABER wrote:
> >
Hello Wes,
> >
> > I took a look. Both designs are
using
> the idea of "roofing
filter" to refer to
>
up-conversion radios similar to the use of up-conversion
> 3khz filters as roofing filters in Icom
radios.
> >
>
> "Roofing
> filter" (a
mode specific filter after the first mixer
> including narrow cw filters) only makes
sense in the
> context of the
history of superhet design and in
>
particular the use of one broad 15 khz first I-F (so that
> all modes may pass through it) typical
of all Japanese
> radios until
recently. Calling a 45 mhz filter at the
> first I-F a "roofing filter"
as noted in the info
> you sent
entirely misses the point of what roofing filter
> means. Or, to put it another way, all
Ten-Tec radios had
> roofing filters
in them (and were ssb and cw only) well
> before the term roofing filter was
coined! Which is why an
> Omni C
will out perform any wide (15 khz) first I-F Japanese
> radio, even those built well after the
1980 vintage Omni
> C.
> >
> >
Unless mode
> specific up-conversion
crystal filters can be made and as
>
narrow as 200 hz (this is possible with down-conversion)
> then "roofing filter" and up
conversion
> doesn't make sense
historically or in reality.
> >
> > Actually, Icom says
> that did it with 1.2khz filter at 64
mhz in the Icom 7851,
> though I'm
not convinced the filter is that narrow, and
> 1.2khz is far from the 200hz filter
that my K3 has in it
> (however, the
placement of this filter is why the 7851 is
> among the best radios in Sherwood's
chart, on cw).
> >
> > It is possible to
> make very narrow and precise crystal
filters as narrow as
> the 200 hz
inexpensively, and this is the point of having
> multiple roofing filters at the first
I-F. So, this is the
> origin of the
term roofing filter---in comparison to the
> barn-door up conversion first I-F.
> >
> > 73,
Will, wj9b
> >
> > CWops #1085
>
> CWA
> Advisor levels II and
III
> > http://cwops.org/
>
>
> >
>
--------------------------------------------
> > On Wed, 6/13/18, Wes Stewart<wes_n7ws at triconet.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject:
> Re: [Elecraft] Field Day rig
experience
> > To:elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> > Date: Wednesday, June 13,
2018, 3:08
> PM
>
>
> >
>
Certainly not to disparage the
>
> K3(S)
> architecture (I have
two of them) there is
> >
nothing inherently wrong with an
>
up-conversion
> > receiver, if
modern
> hardware is used.
> >
> >
See:https://martein.home.xs4all.nl/pa3ake/hmode/g3sbi_intro.html
> >
> >
and my friend
> Cornell's,
> > Star-10
>
transceiver.
> > https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eb33/5c12858779a653d9b9b93ca20120aebb7616.pdf
> >
> >
Wes N7WS
> >
> >
> >
On 6/13/2018 11:38 AM, WILLIE
>
BABER
> > wrote:
> >
> >
Robert is talking about the
> >
> crystal filters, also known as roofing
filters now-days,
> > that are
typically placed after the
> first
mixer (I
> > mistakenly
typed
> "ahead" but I
meant
> >
>
"after" as Robert notes), though there is a
> post
> >
amp and NB before these filters
> in
K2 and K3.
> > >
> > > The idea is that a
> > crystal filter right after the
first
> mixer gives high
> > dynamic range
> because high selectivity comes before
the
> > receiver has developed
stages of gain
> that otherwise
could
> > cause blocking
> or IMD, especially when selectivity
is
> > postponed to the second
mixer while
> ignoring gain
> > distribution in prior
> stages of the receiver. This basic
> >
> idea was
popularized in Solid State Design for the Radio
> > Amateur, and it was applied to
Ten-Tec
> radios for decades
> > (at a 9 mhz
> I-F).
> >
>
> >
>
>
> > Roofing filter gets
defined in
> relationship to
Japanese
> > radios that
> had up conversion 15 khz filters at the
first
> > I-F, and generally
lower dynamic range
> as a result,
(but you
> > got all modes,
> general coverage, and optional
crystal
> > filters at the
second I-F).
> > >
> > > Good
> for everyone radios.... but with
> >
> lower
dynamic range and phase noise from the early
> > synthesizers. This is why
Ten-Tec
> radios were so popular
> > among
>
contesters, especially Omni V and VI (modified with a
> > narrow cw filter at the first
I-F).
> > >
> > > 73,
> Will, wj9b
>
> >
> >
> >
>
______________________________________________________________
> > 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
> > Message delivered towlbaber at bellsouth.net
> >
>
______________________________________________________________
> > 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
> > Message delivered towes_n7ws at triconet.org
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________
--
Scott K9MA
k9ma at sdellington.us
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to wlbaber at bellsouth.net
More information about the Elecraft
mailing list