[Icom] FL-80 versus FL-103 filters

Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:52:41 -0800

Hi Dave,

My recommendation to you is to leave the FL-80 in place, and replace the
FL-96 with an FL-44A or an Inrad 109 (455/2.4). This will improve the basic
(default) adjacent-channel selectivity and PBT operation. You can then move
the FL-96 to the 455 kHz option slot, and install the FL-103 in the 9 MHz
option slot. You can then have the best of both worlds by operating split,
with the 2.4 kHz filter pair on receive, and the 2.8 kHz filters on
transmit.

The FL-103 passband curve is here:
http://www.qsl.net/ab4oj/icom/filters/filters.html

I believe that the FL-103 has a slightly better shape factor than the FL-70.

Reduced receiver selectivity is too high a price to pay for a slightly wider
occupied bandwidth on transmit.

Cheers for now, 73,
Adam VA7OJ/AB4OJ

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of David Hammond
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 14:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Icom] FL-80 versus FL-103 filters

Hi Everyone,

I am thinking about substituting the FL-80 in my newly acquired IC775DSP
with
either an FL-70 or FL-103. Both are SSB filters at 2.8 kHz bandwidth at the
9 MHz IF frequency  (9.0115 MHz)

Can anyone enlighten me as to the differences in mechanical or electrical
specifications on these filters?

I may be swapping  the FL-80 along with an INRAD #109 into the narrow SSB
positions.

Thanks for any information.

BTW, this radio is awesome.

73 de N1LQ-Dave