Customize RX filters (right click & configure)

  • 39
  • Idea
  • Updated 1 month ago

Hi All,

I was talking to the guys from Flex this weekend at the ARRL Centennial convention the subject was brought up about future ability to be able to right click RX filters per mode and customize and save them. PowerSDR had this feature. For example, edit the 1.6K button, rename it to 2.0K and change the low cut and high cut to 300/2300 Hz.

I'd like to see how much interest there is in this ability. I know I would like to have different filter buttons than the default six buttons.

Dave, wo2x


Photo of David Decoons wo2x

David Decoons wo2x, Elmer

  • 1178 Posts
  • 239 Reply Likes
  • Happy.

Posted 4 years ago

  • 39
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 3998 Posts
  • 1230 Reply Likes
I LOVED that feature in PowerSDR!  I hope this is included in the ever-expanding persistence in SmartSDR.
Photo of np2g

np2g

  • 271 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
Yep that would be perfect Both low and high cut accessable with memory . 
Photo of Lee

Lee, Elmer

  • 677 Posts
  • 285 Reply Likes
That was a suggestion of mine from the early days of the SDR-1000 and I think it was implemented by Eric.  I always wanted to have one spot dedicated to the narrowest bandwidth possible.  

73 W9OY
Photo of Ned K1NJ

Ned K1NJ

  • 301 Posts
  • 75 Reply Likes
  Thanks for that, Lee.  I made custom filters for cw and each digital mode
that I used.

Ned,  K1nj
Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 316 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
This is a highly desirable feature, especially for contesting and CW operation. Another nice touch for the CW ops would be to save an IF Shift offset along with the high cut/low cut frequencies.
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1709 Posts
  • 581 Reply Likes
Hi Charles,
On CW, I usually set the filter to 100 unless there is another signal very close and then 50 may be be better.  I tried some different settings even narrower (30 and 10) but didn't see or hear any improvement.   I also tried offsetting the filter but still didn't see any difference.   The 50 hz filter on the 6700 seems to do the job.  Maybe I just couldn't find a situation (i.e. contesting simplex pileup) where it would help.  Or maybe I'm not setting it correctly.  What has worked for you?

Regards, Al / NN4ZZ  
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com




In the snapshots below there aren't any close by signals, they are just to show the filter settings.  


 
Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 316 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes

Hi Al,

A small IF shift below the center frequency allows me to adjust the "pitch" of the background band noise so that it is in contrast to the pitch I have set by the PITCH control in the P/CW panel.  This is a throw-back to the passband tuning days of the R4C where the passband tuning knob could be "swished" higher or lower.  Some ops prefer a high pitch background noise, but this is very fatiguing to my ears.  I like to listen to a low "growl" of the background with the CW signal standing out in contrast at around 400-450 hz.  Adjusting the IF shift becomes less and less effective (or even noticeable) as the filter width drops below 250 hz because the IF bandwidth itself is so narrow that the contrast between the pitch of the background noise and the CW note becomes negligible.

By the way, what program are you using for your screen captures?

Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1709 Posts
  • 581 Reply Likes
Charles,
Ok I'll play with it some more.   Agree, I don't like the high pitched background noise either.   I just couldn't get any noticeable change so far but will keep playing with it.   I've found the RX equalizer helps too.  Here is my CW setting.



I'm expecting the improved NR and APF will further reduce the background noise.   Just have to wait a while to see when we will get those DSP improvements and how they work. . 

I've been using HyperSnap for screen captures for a long time, probably over 15 years.  I first used it at work to help users provide better information when reporting errors.  We bought an enterprise license and it was worth it in time savings alone.   It has a lot of nice features.  They also have a nice tool for capturing video. 

http://www.hyperionics.com/

Regards, Al / NN4ZZ  
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com


Here is a snap of the Hypersnap screen and some of the HELP.  



Photo of Ned K1NJ

Ned K1NJ

  • 301 Posts
  • 75 Reply Likes
  Hmm...  I can't seem to get the filter zoom below 50 Hz.  I'm using version 1.2.1
(one version behind) and a 6500.
  Am I version limited or is the 6500 feature limited?

Ned,  K1NJ
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1709 Posts
  • 581 Reply Likes
Hi Ned,
I wonder if the filter is really going down to 30 HZ and 10 HZ.   Although that is what is displayed, I couldn't hear any difference compared to the 50 HZ filter.    

The 6700 has that extra level of panadapter zoom that is not available on the 6300 or 6500. Notice the width of the YELLOW line on 50 HZ snapshot and the frequency values at the bottom.    

If the filter is not really that narrow, it could be a display anomaly.   Maybe Eric or Steve can comment.

Regards, Al / NN4ZZ  
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com.  


Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 318 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes

> "I like to listen to a low "growl" of the background with the CW signal standing out in contrast at around 400-450 hz.  Adjusting the IF shift becomes less and less effective (or even noticeable) as the filter width drops below 250 hz because the IF bandwidth itself is so narrow that the contrast between the pitch of the background noise and the CW note becomes negligible."

Charles,

I do the same here for CW widths that exceed about 500 Hz. On larger CW widths, I always pull the lower skirt to the CW offset frequency -- in my case it's 600 Hz.  This ensures "single signal" reception so that close-in signals on opposite side of the center frequency are fully suppressed.  Also, by setting the lower skirt to the offset, the full CW audio background is maintained. (i.e., the growl you mentioned). 

Paul, W9AC 

(Edited)
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1709 Posts
  • 581 Reply Likes
Ned & Stan,
I did some more experimenting and made a short video.  The setup is 2 slices with one set for a 50 HZ filter and the other set for a 10 HZ filter.    There is a carrier at 14.016.8

First - the 50 HZ slice will move up and over the carrier so you can hear when the signal first is heard and when it stops being heard.  It then rests at a frequency a little below where you first hear the carrier and the sound is muted.

Second - the 10 HZ filter is un-muted and moved up and over the carrier.  You will notice although the BLUE filter line is much narrower, the sound starts and stops at the same locations as the 50 HZ filter.  

Does this support the theory that the 10 HZ filter is still 50 HZ wide?  And that only the display is 10 HZ wide?    Thoughts?

Regards, Al / NN4ZZ  
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com




Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 3988 Posts
  • 1228 Reply Likes
I have no test data to prove it, but I have observed a difference in response on my 6500 when dragging CW filters narrower than 50. (Usually 25-30) But I only find it usefull on noisy bands like 160/80 under certain conditions. Usually 50 is enough. And I also use the RXEQ with 500 all the way up and all the rest at bottom. I use a 500 Hz side tone so don't need the 1k slider up at all. APF is helpful, but still needs a little bit of tweaking.
Photo of Stan - VA7NF

Stan - VA7NF

  • 416 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes

Watch the S meter closely.  In both cases it rises as you approach the carrier, holds steady across the blue, drops as you move away from the carrier.  From much earlier conversations you can view the skirts of the filter and watch the AGC function.

The filter top (blue portion for 10 or 50Hz) is flat and the skirts are the same on either pass.

I am impressed with how well this filter functions.  Steve has said the filters could be made sharper at the expense of more delay.  Not necessary in my opinion.  Perhaps the mathematicians and coders can improve the skirts; but it can wait, at least after NB. 

Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 3988 Posts
  • 1228 Reply Likes
It is hard to imagine better skirts on these filters, especially the SSB "Brick Wall" filters.  The CW filters are nothing short of amazing in my book!  I understand that the Digi filters have a bit less slope performance, but that is to reduce latency.  Still, they are better than anything I have ever used before, and a generation better than PowerSDR's, which were my previous favorite!
Photo of G4BIM

G4BIM

  • 42 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Great suggestion Dave, looking forward to seeing that on later versions

Peter G4BIM
Photo of W4NTG

W4NTG

  • 9 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
AMEN!
Photo of Stan - VA7NF

Stan - VA7NF

  • 417 Posts
  • 95 Reply Likes

At 10Hz the slope of the filter sides is the main factor.  On a solid carrier you can see the signal strength decrease as you pass the carrier out of the bandwidth. 

Oh the joy of 1Hz tuning and a 10Hz filter.  Quite some rig to have such control.

Now I notice the keying modulation on a CW signal (why I said a solid carrier above because the keying sideband affects the signal strength as I tune across an sending CW signal)

Photo of Lee

Lee, Elmer

  • 677 Posts
  • 285 Reply Likes
The issue is one of bandwidth vs data transfer.  A carrier has basically no bandwidth.  As soon as you start keying a bandwidth develops.  A 10hz filter therefore may be too sharp to be able to demodulate the information contained in the signal.  The bandwidth generated is a function of data rate.  A 100 wpm CW signal has a wider bandwidth than a 10wpm CWsignal.  Signal to noise on the other hand is also a function of bandwidth.  As the band width decreases the relative signal to noise increases.  So what you want is the least bandwidth capable of sustaining intelligent demodulation at whatever the data rate is.  My experience for most CW is about 25hz-30hz bandwidth.  Does this really matter?  If you are trying to receive a signal basically under the noise it matters.  It's not dramatic but subtle.  If you add things like diversity which again often adds a subtle improvement pretty soon you are copying what you could not copy before.  The point of course is you want to design filters for signals with bandwidth, and not just something that is amazingly sharp on signals with no bandwidth. 

73  W9OY 
(Edited)
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 3969 Posts
  • 1222 Reply Likes
Right on point, Lee.  Combine 25-50 Hz filters, tweak the audio chain noise with the RXEQ, add a little APF, fine tune the AGC-T to find the "sweet spot" (or carefully adjust gain level with AGC OFF) and I am copying signals that I never would have even noticed before.  Add a super-zoomed panafall display that lets me see a signal before I even begin to tune for it, and "the hits just keep on coming!"   

I am really looking forward to customizable filter buttons.  I would gladly lose the widest one or two CW filters and add a 25 Hz at the other end.  I hardly ever use anything even as wide as 400Hz, but then I am seldom on the receiving end of a CW pileup, or running a frequency during a contest.  (This may change when my tower and Log Periodic go online!)
Photo of Ned K1NJ

Ned K1NJ

  • 301 Posts
  • 75 Reply Likes
  Ken and Lee,
      Just updated to 1.2.17 to see if it would make a difference.
However I still cannot drag the filter so that the number in the middle of
the bottom of the tuning trapezoid to less than 50.  Are you both able to
do that with your 6500 and 6300?

Ned,  K1NJ

Photo of Ned K1NJ

Ned K1NJ

  • 301 Posts
  • 75 Reply Likes
      Figured out how to do this by grabbing the vertical filter edges instead
of moving the mouse up/down at the base of the filter center line.  All OK.

Ned, K1NJ

Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 316 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
Hi Paul,

That's what I was trying to say. Not a lot of readers are goint to know what we are talking about unless they are CW veterans of PBT or IF Shift. Thought I would just mention saving IF offset with the filters as a possibility, I doubt that this will get any traction among the faithful.
Photo of David

David

  • 286 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Is this on a feature addition list and in the high or lower priority range?

The ability to custom the default RX bandwidth filters would a great help. I would like to change the SSB low from the 100 default to something more in the 200-300 range. I find that to help improve intelligibility of many stations that have too much bass/lows in the audio. I have tried the EQ but find cutting at the source best.
Photo of KC2QMA_John

KC2QMA_John

  • 547 Posts
  • 187 Reply Likes
YES, YES, YES Customize RX filters! Seems so obvious to me!

These are the kind of simple features we are all waiting for.

Already looks like a lot of votes at the top of the page.

Photo of Peter K1PGV

Peter K1PGV, Elmer

  • 541 Posts
  • 315 Reply Likes
Yes, please. Custom filter widths. It's hard to believe this isn't a basic feature, it's so easy to implement.

Peter
K1PGV
Photo of Steven G1XOW

Steven G1XOW

  • 282 Posts
  • 119 Reply Likes
yes, yes YES!

2 years have past, why is this obvious feature and clear user benefit getting knocked back in preference to other very minor tweaks?
Photo of KC2QMA_John

KC2QMA_John

  • 547 Posts
  • 187 Reply Likes
I don’t mind paying for great software but I just hope I wont have to pay to get simple features like these.

Please remember to vote at top of page if you like this idea.
(Edited)
Photo of Dan -- KC4GO

Dan -- KC4GO

  • 339 Posts
  • 68 Reply Likes
A test using Spectrum Lab software (http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/spectra1.html) and the Flex 6500 DAX audio between 50 Hz and 10 Hz  CW filter setting. Clearly it makes a difference to the band pass.
Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gpcTVs7PtoYnVaUUxoY0RiSnM/view?usp=sharing

I have included the link for Spectrum Lab Software latest version.
Photo of Rich McCabe

Rich McCabe

  • 1024 Posts
  • 221 Reply Likes
Older thread but found it after taking delivery on a new M radio. I miss the ability to program filters as mentioned above.  The 250 filter is my most common used CW filter and its not available in the right panel and only available on the slice. I was able to set filter widths on my "non smart" Icom transceivers so seems like the SMARTEST radio should be able to do it.

That said what brought me here was functionality of my new 6600M. I probably should start a new thread but will add it here unless told otherwise.  Toggling through 8 filters on the BW select on the new radios (and Maestro) does not work well. That's to many filters and if you go past the one you want you have click 6 or 7 times to get back.  Typically 3 filters is enough and some might argue they want 4 of their choice.

I would like it see a press and hold on the filters so you can choose knob delectable filters.

In the photoshop below I added a tab on the corner of the filter but could be a star or anything else.

I am sue there will be a lot of changes in the future with the "M" interface as the amount of users is going to dramatically increase but I think thinks would be a great addition.

Rich

Photo of Jim K4JAF

Jim K4JAF

  • 340 Posts
  • 91 Reply Likes
I also would like programmable filter widths.  As far as toggling through all filter widths, you can mark your favorites and then toggling only sees these so maybe 3 or 4 (your choice) instead of 8.  
Photo of Rich McCabe

Rich McCabe

  • 1017 Posts
  • 220 Reply Likes
Well I have a red face. LOL

Not only is that feature available, its exactly what I photo shopped.

OK, I better get the manual out again :)

Sorry for the waste of bandwidth.  And yes, I still want programmable filters.

Rich
Photo of KC2QMA_John

KC2QMA_John

  • 547 Posts
  • 187 Reply Likes

At this point I have giving up on waiting for new features in SSDR I just take them as they come. At the current pace that SSDR is being developed it may be 4 to 8 years before SSDR has a feature set including so many of these basic features.

Now don't get me wrong what FRS has achieved with SDR radio is nothing less than remarkable and what SSDR and the 6000 series does today it does very well. I like many of you know that the 6000 platform are the finest radios available today.

My hope now is after the dust settles with the launch of the new radios and amplifier that FRS puts a lot more resources into SSDR development.

(Edited)
Photo of Tim - W4TME

Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager

  • 9152 Posts
  • 3470 Reply Likes
It will.
Photo of Rich McCabe

Rich McCabe

  • 1024 Posts
  • 221 Reply Likes
I agree with all this John. I guess there are pros and cons to dealing with small company's.

I personally think Flex has the best thing going for HF radio. But, I doubt anyone will argue that some updates don't come as fast as we would like.

That said, I sure hope we don't lose the small company feel and support that we currently have if they grow large enough to handle the above mentioned updates.

It's often hard to have both. I am still bitter over large company treatment from Yaesu on a FT-980 in the mid 80s and have never bought another of their products since.

Rich
Photo of Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson

  • 104 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
My feeling about Kenwood match yours about Yaesu, but I reserve real hatred for Microsoft.
(Edited)
Photo of Rich McCabe

Rich McCabe

  • 1024 Posts
  • 221 Reply Likes
I did find this in the manual but it was not easy. I have an edit suggestion for the manual.

I could only find a single reference on how to custom set the filters that are selectable via the knob under "HOW TO OPERATE SINGLE SIDEBAND MODE (SSB)" and did not see it under CW or any other mode.

It seems the most appropriate place to have this info (which is where I looked) is here.

Rich
(Edited)
Photo of Tim - W4TME

Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager

  • 9152 Posts
  • 3470 Reply Likes
I have forwarded this to our documentation team.  Thanks.
Photo of Jim K4JAF

Jim K4JAF

  • 340 Posts
  • 91 Reply Likes
Will this feature ever be added to SSDR?  Surely we have waited long enough.  Flex needs to concentrate more on Basic Radio functions!
Photo of Johan / SE3X

Johan / SE3X

  • 86 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Would like this feature .. add me to the list of supporters.
Photo of Joe N3HEE

Joe N3HEE

  • 85 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
I would like this feature also.  
Photo of Steven G1XOW

Steven G1XOW

  • 282 Posts
  • 119 Reply Likes

me too. One of the reasons I downgraded to 2 x Flex 3000 was to get this important feature back.
Photo of K1UO - Larry

K1UO - Larry

  • 786 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
Added a vote to this idea..  dont know how it was missed 4 years ago!
Photo of K5XH

K5XH

  • 13 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes

Add me to this list also. I miss the ability to customize filters like I once could on my F5000.

73, Mark