[ICOM] IC-736 reception

[Juan Pablo Mercé LU4DX]

Hi Adam !!

Mny tnx for answer.
As me think, to eliminate the noise before it enters.
See http://www.sp5pbe.waw.pl/~zygi/RigMods/IC-736/ic-736-2.html.
It is installed both filters, the INRAD 314 (455 2.1khz) I think that
replacing the original FL30 ?. You also installs the INRAD 110 (9 Mhz 2.1
khz) in an empty slot ?. I understand less Polish than English. :-)
All the ways which serious better to install INRAD #314 or #110 or is it
imperative both to obtain a remarkable improvement ?
If we look at the cost, to install both it costs the same thing that an
external AF DSP with all the functions and usable in several rig !!


Cheers,
Paul LU4DX

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Farson" <farson at shaw.ca>
To: "'ICOM Reflector'" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:08 PM
Subject: RE: [ICOM] IC-736 reception


Hi Paul,

All things being equal, an IF filter inside the AGC loop will always be
better than an external (post-AGC) filter. A filter within the AGC loop will
remove strong out-of-band signals before they develop AGC voltage and swamp
the receiver.

The Inrad 9 MHz SSB filter needs to be wired in. Care must be taken with the
wiring, to avoid signal leakage around the filter. The Inrad 455 kHz SSB
filter will not fit in the IC-736 unless the CW option slot is rewired to be
selected in SSB mode.

Cheers for now, 73,
Adam VA7OJ/AB4OJ


-----Original Message-----
From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of Juan Pablo Mercé LU4DX
Sent: 14 December 2005 05:25
To: icom at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [ICOM] IC-736 reception

Hi all,

Somebody test the INRAD SSB narrow filters in a IC-736 ?
Does it improve the reception or is a external DSP filter better?

Tnx in advance.

Paul LU4DX



Scanned for viruses by Blue Coat
http://www.WinProxy.com/
----
Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/