[Kenwood] am filters

Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:59:47 -0500

And if I may join in on this (if someone has not pointed this out already):

Every INRAD filter is crystal-based, which provides for greater and far more
critical signal handling/shaping capability and flexibility.  As for those
from manufacturers (Ten Tec excepted, as they also use crystal-based units
not only in their filters but also in their mixer!), those filters are
ceramic-based, which are simply not as effective except in cost.

Do not get me wrong; they do a decent job -- but not with the kind of
results that crystal-based filters can deliver! Keep that in mind; I've come
to view INRADs with the same kind of opinion I have for 4WD vehicles in
Michigan in winter (or summer) - a mandatory option!

Thom  N8DXR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron & Madhavi" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Kenwood] am filters

> They are supposed to have better skirts and provide smoother slope tuning
> etc. The other point is that INRAD sells filters at 8830 and 455 Khz
> (Kenwood IFs) in a wider range of Bws than the stock Kenwood filters. All
> depends on what one looks for. Some like the wider Inrad filters (2.8Khz)
> for the hi-fi SSB audio work.
>
> 73,
> Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dale smith <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:16 PM
> Subject: [Kenwood] am filters
>
>
> > Why are the inrad filters better than the Knwd?
> >   Tnx..de/dale
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > Your moderator for this list is:
> > Larry Wilson KE1HZ [email protected]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kenwood mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kenwood
>
> - - -
>
> Your moderator for this list is:
> Larry Wilson KE1HZ [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kenwood mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kenwood
>