CW Filter Shape Factors

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Answered
Has anyone with a signal generator measured the CW filter shape factors by measuring the -6/-60 dB points. It may be a little tough to do with the 10 hz frequency step and the S-meter not being calibrated in decibel level, but has anyone attempted this. I'm only asking because, after years and years of using 1.4:1 shape factor crystal filters, I'm not hearing what I expect to hear from "brick wall" digital filters. By using the term "brick wall" filters, I am assuming that this definition implies a much better approximation to the 1:1 shape factor of a "perfect" filter than is possible with analog filters. This is why I would like to know if anyone has measured this using the 6500 narrow CW filters.
Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
  • unsure but hopeful.

Posted 6 years ago

  • 2
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
Charles,
FYI, if you use DDUtil and a FlexControl knob to control the slice frequency you can set the frequency step down to 1HZ. See attached snapshot.

By the way, the filters work better than any I've used so I'll be interested to see what you find out.

Regards, Al / NN4ZZ

Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Thanks for the tip about DDUtil Al. My interest, however, is not so much in the -6 dB filters width being created by SSDR or by DDUtil, but in the -60 dB filter width. Shape factor is the ratio of these two widths for any particular filter. A very good crystal filter would be one with a 1.4 to 1 ratio. For example, a 500 hz analog filter with a 1.4 to 1 shape factor would be 500 hz wide at the -6 dB points and 700 hz wide at the -60 dB points. So a 500 hz filter with a 3:1 shape factor would be a very poor filter for serious CW work.

So why am I interested in this? Well, "brick wall filters" imply a filter shape factor of 1:1. I'm just not sure that the 6500 CW filters are ,at their current state, close to that very high standard. Tuning around CW signals with the 50 hz and 100 filters has given me reason to question the shape factors of these digital filters. That's why I would like someone with a signal generator to determine the actual shape factors of the 6500's CW filters. I'm not saying that they are not good or better than the competition, I just would like to know what the shape factors actually are since I am not hearing a "brick wall" response as I tune across a CW signal. I am not trying to be overly critical, I just would like to know what kind of filter performance we have in our arsenal.
Photo of George Molnar, KF2T

George Molnar, KF2T, Elmer

  • 1668 Posts
  • 613 Reply Likes
Hi Charles,
I agree with your assessment. I think they lost a little on the filters in this beta. They did seem sharper in the original release version, although I have not done any precision measuring. 1.1 should hit in the next couple of weeks; it will be interesting to see how it works out.
Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
I'll always been critical of analog filter shape factors after spending lots of money on poor shape factor filters over the years. Not that these filters in the 6000 series are poor, I don't have a way of accurately measuring them. I know the PSDR filter shape factors were highly dependent upon the sample rate and pan-adapter width selected, and there were plots given in the documentation to help us decide on the trade-offs to get decent shape factors without undue latency.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not hearing "brick wall" performance of the CW filters, especially at the 50 and 100 hz widths. A crowded CW band in a contest can have signals often less than 50 hz separation, so filter shape factors of 1.05 to 1, or 1.1 to 1, would be close enough to "brick wall" to make a tremendous difference in competitive CW work. If there is a penalty to making really good shape factors at these narrow bandwidths, and trade-offs are necessary,just let us know so we can accept the best compromise and we can move on. I've seen great posts by Steve that are concise about engineering decisions that had to made in such areas, so maybe he can nail this down for us.
Photo of Ned K1NJ

Ned K1NJ

  • 316 Posts
  • 82 Reply Likes
Charles,
               Did you reach any conclusions about the shape factors?  Did I miss
some info from Flex?  The vs. 1.1 filters seem fine, but are there some numbers
we can quote on the air?

Ned,   K1NJ
Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Ned, look at Steve response to KA4B's post about Filter Quality vs Panadapter Bandwidth. Steve has a way of explaining why certain things are the way they are. As you noted, the 1.1 filters are improved over the 1.024, and I hope they continue to refine them with each new version. There is a time delay through a digital filter, the better the folter, the more the delay. Since I do not use QSK, delay is not that big a factor for me since the station listening to me can't reply until I finish anyway. Doubling the delay through the filter would not really affect CW ops like me who are non-qsk. However, they need to keep a balance for both qsk and non-qsk ops.
Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 323 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
As a quick test, I used the Flex's S-meter and an HP signal generator. CW mode, 20m, 250 Hz default BW. No AGC, but it does not matter in this architecture when observing SSDR. Here are my -6dB/-60dB numbers:

f1 = 14,175.340 (-60 dB)

f2 = 14,175.370 (- 6 dB)

f3 = 14,175.630 (-6 dB)

f4 = 14,175.660 (-60 dB)

For the shape factor, use the formula [f4 - f1] / [f3 - f2]

[14,175.660 - 14,175.340] / [14,175.630 - 14,175.370]

The resulting shape factor is about 1.2 for the 250 Hz filter. A few important points that affect computed shape factor accuracy: First, I am unsure of Flex's S-meter accuracy over a 60 dB level span; and secondly, small changes of a few Hz make a huge difference with digital filters. Better accuracy will be observed when moving in 1 Hz increments, rather than 10 Hz (e.g., using DDUtil).

Paul, W9AC

(Edited)
Photo of Steve - N5AC

Steve - N5AC, VP Engineering / CTO

  • 1057 Posts
  • 1097 Reply Likes
In v1.1, the relative accuracy of the S-Meter should be better than 1/2dB.  The absolute accuracy in v1.1 is +/-3dB.  This should return to something like +/-1-2dB in a later release.

Also for CW the filter shape factor changes at 400, 1000 and 1500Hz to lower latency with a wider filter.
Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Thanks Paul,

1.2 to 1 is excellent, considerably better than the best of the amateur crystal filters (1.4 to 1) that I have used in the past. Just for grins, would it be possible for you to run the test on the 100 hz filter?

Steve commented above that the shape factor changes at 400 again to lower latency, although I must admit that I'm not sure if he is impling that the shape factor for the 400 and wider filters will have wider skirts to achieve less latency. Steve, if you see this post, could you amplify your comment about the wider filters? Are you saying that the 400 and wider filters will have shape factors higher (filter skirts are less steep) than the 250 filter tested by Paul?
Photo of Steve - N5AC

Steve - N5AC, VP Engineering / CTO

  • 1057 Posts
  • 1097 Reply Likes
Official Response
Off the top of my head I can't tell you if the shape factor is governed strictly by the number of taps in an FIR filter or if the chosen bandwidth plus the number of taps will set this.  What I can tell you is that the number of taps in the filter goes down by a factor of two at each of these crossings at the present time and I know that will affect the shape factor.  So there are two possibilities:

1) shape factor is independent of filter bandwidth chosen (I know how this sounds, but I believe it is a possibility since all that we are analyzing is one side of a skirt) in which case you will also see a 1.2 for the 100Hz filter.  If this is the case than all filters in each range will have the same shape factor (0-400, 401-1000, 1001-1500, etc).

2) The other possibility is that the shape factor is bandwidth dependent in which case there will be a progression from 0-400 and then a jump to 401, a progression from 401-1000 and a jump at 1000, etc.

Let me know which it is because I'm curious too!
Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 323 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
Same test conditions, but using the 100 Hz filter in CW mode and DDUtil V.3.0.5.00 for 1 Hz frequency steps.

f1 = 14,163.715 (-60 dB)

f2 = 14,163.748 (- 6 dB)

f3 = 14,163.848 (-6 dB)

f4 = 14,163.880 (-60 dB)

For the shape factor, use the formula [f4 - f1] / [f3 - f2]

[14,163.880 - 14,163.715] / [14,163.848 - 14,163.748] = 1.6

The resulting shape factor is about 1.6 for the 100 Hz filter.  Note the exact 100 Hz BW between the f2 and f3 - 6dB points. 

I went back and re-confirmed the 250 Hz CW filter setting, this time using DDUtil in 1 Hz steps.  Same S.F. result of 1.2.

Paul, W9AC




Photo of Steve - N5AC

Steve - N5AC, VP Engineering / CTO

  • 1057 Posts
  • 1097 Reply Likes
OK makes sense ... I suspect if you do this at 399Hz it will be a shape factor of 1.1 and when you go to 401 it will drop down again.
Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 323 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
It was bound to be asked: "What's the shape factor of the Flex 6K's typical SSB filter."  Here it is:  same test conditions but in SSB mode, 2.7K filter and using DDUtil in 1 Hz steps:

f1 = 14,159.616 (-60 dB)

f2 = 14,163.649 (- 6 dB)

f3 = 14,162.348 (-6 dB)

f4 = 14,162.381 (-60 dB)

For the shape factor, use the formula [f4 - f1] / [f3 - f2]

[14,162.381 - 14,159.616] / [14,163.348 - 14,163.649] = 1.02. 

Again, note the exact bandwidth of 2.7kHz between the f2 and f3 - 6dB points.  That 1.02 shape factor is not a misprint  :-)

Paul, W9AC 

 


Photo of Steve - N5AC

Steve - N5AC, VP Engineering / CTO

  • 1057 Posts
  • 1097 Reply Likes
Yes, we made the decision that a latency of 85ms doesn't bother a SSB operator and so we went for best filter for SSB all the time.  So the shape factor gradually increases the wider you make the filter.   It will have the same shape factor as the corresponding CW filter when your frequency is 0-400Hz, but it just gets better the wider you go unlike the CW filter.  Same goes for AM.  Only CW and DIGx are graduated.
Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 323 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
Steve,

Maybe way down the roadmap, two DSP filter types could be selected for narrow positions, say...400 Hz and under. Icom does something similar in their '7700 and '7800 series. They use "hard" and "soft" terms to describe a choice of sharp v. wider shape factors. I no longer recall the S.F. differences.

Wider S.F could be used for fast QSK, while a narrower factor could be used in instaces as George described where it's more important to dig out a signal from adjacent QRM.

Paul, W9AC
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
Paul,
Good idea......we frequently slow down a bit for the weak ones anyway.   Either an option as you suggested or just automatically sharpen up when the speed is below a certain value (e.g. 25 WPM?)

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


Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
Paul,
I just realized why the automatic option won't always work.   The speed is only known when using the internal keyer.  So your idea of the "sharp" option is better but I guess it also has a risk  (increased latency) if engaged when QSK at high speeds.   

Does that make sense?  

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

Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 323 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
Operationally, I think it makes sense to make it a manual change.  But for Flex's software engineers, the coding may not be trivial! 
Photo of Stan - VA7NF

Stan - VA7NF

  • 459 Posts
  • 110 Reply Likes

Don't get hung up on the ratios.  Both 100 and 250 wide have about 30hz from -6 to -60 on each side, only the initial width changes.  The math makes the ratio worse.

Do this on a 10hz bandwidth and the ratio would look horrible.

Besides, without a slight slope I couldn't demodulate a 2M FM signal on an AM filter slope.

Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Thanks again Steve for pulling back the curtain a little so we know how it all fits together.  

If I can summarize, from 50 hz to 399 hz the filter shape factor gets better and better as it approaches 1.1 to 1 at the 400 hz boundry, then goes back to something like 1.6 to 1 at 401 hz and gets better and better until it approaches the next boundry at 1000 where it will be around 1.1 to 1 again.

The 1.6 to 1 shape factor at 100 hz is pretty impressive. And what can I say about 1.02 to 1 for SSB filters.  That is truly "brick wall". 

As Al and Paul said above, a non-QSK operator would not mind a little more latency through a 50 or 100 hz filter, if doing so could produce a 1.1 shape factor.  As you have probably witnessed on the recent DXpeditions, QRMers often get very close to the DX station's frequency.  It may be possible to attenuate the QRMers enough to copy the DX station with a 50 or 75 hz filter that has a 1.1 to 1 shape factor.  As for latency......"Latency is in the eyes of the beholder."

Good job with the Ver 1.1 filters Steve. 
Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
The comment by Stan,VA7NF, about the way shape factor is determined has stuck in my head ever since I read it. After a few calculations with the measured values by Paul on the 100, 250, and 2700 filters, it appears that Stan has a valid point. On Paul's three measurements, the distance between the -6 and -60 db points on all filers was about 33 hz. This is a slope of about 1.6 db per hz for all three filters. When applied to a 2700 hz filter, the shape factor comes out to be 1.02. Wow! Brick wall, right? Why can't we create a 100 hz filter with skirts like that?

Well, they did! Paul's measurements show the same 33 hz distance between the -6 and -60 db points on the 100 hz filter. Only this time, the formula for shape factor gives a value of 1.6. So we hang our heads in sorrow that the 100 hz filter does not have as steep a skirt as the 2700 hz filter. BUT IT DOES!!! If you were a downhill skier looking over the edge of a 100 hz filter or a 2700 hz filter, you would see the same "steepness" of the slope...... a fall of 54 db in 33 hz, or 1.6 db per hz. When the edge of that 100 hz filter is applied against an unwanted signal, it is going to attenuate that unwanted signal just as effectively as that 2700 hz filter. From these three measurements by Paul, I am inclined to believe that all these digital filters are going to have the same slope factor of 1.6 db per hz. When drawn out to scale, it makes a 2700 hz filter appear to have virtually vertical sides. When drawn to scale, it makes a 50 hz filter look fair, and a 25 hz filter downright pathetic. But we must remember, it is the wall of the filter that is applied to the undesired signal, and a 54 db attenuation over a span of 33 hz is remarkable. For me, Stan's post is an epiphany because I finally understand that shape factor is a mathematical enigma. As filter width decreases, shape factor gets worse even though the slope of the skirts remain constant. The following list of filter width versus shape factor assumes a constant filter slope of 1.6 db per hz.

25 hz filter ----- 3.64 shape factor
50 hz filter ----- 2.30 shape factor
100 hz filter ----- 1.66 shape factor
250 hz filter ----- 1.26 shape factor
400 hz filter ----- 1.16 shape factor
600 hz filter ----- 1.11 shape factor
800 hz filter ----- 1.08 shape factor
1600 hz filter ----- 1.04 shape factor
3200 hz filter ----- 1.02 shape factor

Take comfort in the fact that all these filters have the same "brick wall" slope of 54db per 33 hz (1.6 db per hz).

Thanks Stan, you nailed it.
Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 323 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes

Good analysis, Charles.  What you've shown also applies to crystal filters, but unlike the mathematical perfection attained in DSP, as the crystal filter's bandwidth decreases, even slight slope imperfections have an impact on shape factor and symmetry from center. 

Putting this into perspective, look at the shape factor of the best INRAD crystal filters.  Due to manufacturing cost and inability to attain repeatable tolerance, I don't believe they offer one under 250 Hz. Their typical 250 Hz filter (at 8 MHz) has a shape factor of 2.2. 

https://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=203&cat=90&page=1

In addition to nearly perfect control of the slope, the DSP filters are providing much better ultimate filtering well beyond the -60dB point where crystal filters are subject to degradation due to I/O isolation and other blow-by effects that limit ultimate filtering performance.  Thru-loss also escalates as a crystal filter becomes narrow.  Look at the schemes developed by competing manufacturers to compensate for that loss.

It would be interesting to plot an overlay of the Flex's filters on top of a comparable INRAD crystal filter. 



 



(Edited)
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P

  • 4239 Posts
  • 1351 Reply Likes
NN4ZZ will probably have that graphic by tomorrow!  He is really good at that stuff. [gauntlet dropped....grin]
(Edited)
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
Ken,
Here you go!   Below is a graphic for the inrad 250 HZ filter in BLACK and the FLEX 250 Hz filter overlaid on it in RED using Paul's data.

6 Db = 260 HZ
60 Db = 320 Hz

The 1.2 shape looks very good to me!

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



Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 323 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes

Nice work, Al.  Probably the top portion on the Flex plot is flatter than shown.  It would just require me to capture more data points on Hz-by-Hz basis between filter center and the -6 dB points. 

Paul, W9AC

(Edited)
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
Paul,
This is probably more like it then....also moved the 60DB points slightly.  

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


Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P

  • 4239 Posts
  • 1351 Reply Likes
Thanks, Al.
I figured you would do it even without my challenge... ha.
Impressive performance.....
Now, can you superimpose a 50 or 24 Hz filter on top of the INRAD so we can REALLY brag?
Photo of Barry N1EU

Barry N1EU

  • 495 Posts
  • 123 Reply Likes
I know this is a dumb question, but doesn't the shallow (wide) effective "shape factor" of a cw transmit signal mean that the steepness of the rx cw filtering isn't that critical as long as it's "reasonable"?  In other words, even if you have a 1:1 rx filter, isn't the adjacent cw signal within 100-200hz that you want to reject still going to bleed into your passband because all cw tx signals are a bit wide?

(Edited)
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
Barry,
If there is a close by interfering signal, then the brick wall filter will be better.  Assume the BLUE signal is the offending one in the snapshot below.   The Yellow is the the overlap for the Inrad filter.  Much less for the Flex filter.   It probably makes a lot more difference when the signal you want to hear is a weak DX signal.  

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







Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P

  • 4239 Posts
  • 1351 Reply Likes
Of course, no filter can remove junk from a crappy, phase noise ridden signal, CW, SSB or other, that is splattering the bands.  The best we can do is make sure that our OWN receive chain - oscillators, filters, mixers, etc - do not add to the problem. 

I demonstrated my 6500 to the local ham club last night.  I had it connected to my 20 Meter Hustler mobile antenna with a long jumper fed through a window into the meeting room. 

I started with the big pileup on 20 CW from one of the big DXpeditions.
I used the 3K wide filter and it was mayhem!  and said "This is what most of our rigs would hear without a good CW filter.
Then I switched in the 250 Hz filter and said "This is what it sounds like with a good CW filter."  There were still 3 or 4 signals in the passband, but several people said "Wow, pretty nice."

Then I said, "You haven't seen anything, yet." 
 I set the 50 Hz filter and the Audio Peak Filter and there was only ONE signal, weak, right beside a very strong signal.  And it stood out from a practically noiseless background.

That turned some heads!  And then I went A/B between the 3 Khz wide and 50 Hz filter several times.  Going split with the 50 Hz filter on one frequency and a 400 Hz on another freq about 20 Khz away with one in the left ear and the other in the right polished off that part of the demo.  "And that is how I worked the big DXpedition barefoot with a dipole!  I can't wait for my T-11 up 55 ft.!)
I had to brag a little bit.....  But as they say in Texas..."It ain't braggin' if ya can do it!"
And this FLEX can do it!

Ken - NM9P
Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 323 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes

Al,

Here's what I have between the filter center and the -6dB points of the 250 Hz filter.  I only plotted the upper frequencies from center.  The lower frequencies will be a mirror image with DSP.  I couldn't say that if this was a crystal filter.

14,175.000 = 0 dB

14,175.110 = -1 dB

14,175.116 = -2 dB

14,175.118 = - 3dB

14,175.120 = - 4dB

14,175.123 = -5dB

14, 175.125 = -6 dB

How does that look?  The measurement is super touchy.  As expected, just a few Hz means a couple dB change when we get close to the knee of curve.

Paul, W9AC







.

(Edited)
Photo of Barry N1EU

Barry N1EU

  • 495 Posts
  • 123 Reply Likes
Yes Al, I believe you're correct and the steep filter is inherently superior.  However in your diagram, would it more accurately reflect real world cw signals if that blue signal had much more gradual/shallow slopes?  If so, those gradual slopes would translate into a smaller difference in performance between the rx filters.
(Edited)
Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Barry has an interesting point about the bandwidth of a CW signal signal.  I don't know if there is a universally accepted number since I have read various opinions ranging from 100 hz to 500 hz.  I think using a screen capture of the panadapter zoomed in on a steady CW signal would give us an accurate picture of what the width and slope of a typical CW carrier would look like.  Then we could apply our filter curves superimposed on the CW curve to see the difference between effect the best crystal filters and our DSP filters would have on that CW signal.  I would imagine you could cozy up to an offending CW signal much closer with a 50 hz DSP filter with a 2.3 to 1 shape factor than you could with a 250 hz crystal filter with approximately the same shape factor. But as you mentioned Barry, it difference would depend upon the slope of the CW carrier.

So, could someone out there get a screen capture of a panadapter zoomed in on a CW carrier to determine its width and slope so it can be reproduced on a graph for evaluating how DSP filters and crystal filters differ?  With this last bit of information, we will be very close to really understanding and documenting the value of steep filter slopes for congested CW operation.  Once this is graphed out, I think it will vindicate the programming effort and the processor clock cycles dedicated to achieving these steep filter slopes.  Thanks to all who participated in this discussion.
Photo of Barry N1EU

Barry N1EU

  • 495 Posts
  • 123 Reply Likes
My previous reply seems to have disappeared.  Using the last example spectral diagram that Al posted,  I would suggest the signal in blue would have much shallower slopes.  With the steep blue slopes shown, there is a 35-40dB improvement in rejection afforded by the steeply sloped rx filter.  But if the true real world tx slope was much shallower, that improvement might only be 5dB for example.
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
Barry,
I think your previous comment is still there.....when there are a lot of comments, the community software collapses them.  You have to click on the "view more comments."  It's easy to miss.  




I agree that representing real world conditions are much more complex.  (wide CW, multiple signals close by, clicks, hash, etc).   The blue one I added was just to show how the narrower filter could help compared to the inrad.   Real world could be a lot different. 

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


Photo of Steve - N5AC

Steve - N5AC, VP Engineering / CTO

  • 1057 Posts
  • 1097 Reply Likes
The bandwidth of the CW keying signal is a function of the keying envelope of the signal.  Before the keying of the CW signal, there is no signal and after the keying (while the dot or dash are a continuous amplitude sine wave), the bandwidth is infinitely small (or really the width of the phase noise, which is very small).  So it is mostly about the duration of the rise in amplitude and the shape of that rise.  We looked at several keying waveforms for the FLEX-6000.  Each waveform distributes the energy of the rising amplitude in different ways -- some waveforms spread the energy across a very broad area, but at a very low level.  Some waveforms place most of the energy in sidebands of the signal itself making the signal look wider.  If you wanted to know, Matlab would give you very good details on the bandwidth of a keying waveform provided you know the keying function.

In the FLEX-6000, we use a single keying waveform function and we have only two rise-times that we adjust between (as of v1.1).  These two things set the bandwidth of the CW signal.  If you want to look at this with a spectrum analyzer, you have to be very aware of the window filter used in the analyzer because it will color the results -- what you see is NOT what you get.  Your brain does its own FFT on the CW signal in order for you to copy it.  If I was going to do the analysis with a spectrum analyzer, I would capture a CW signal, isolate the keying or unkeying waveform and do an FFT on it with very narrow bins (1Hz or less).  This will give you a less colored view of the actual spectrum occupancy of the signal.  Then your accuracy would be to 5Hz or so after bin leakage.  If you are using 5Hz bins, your accuracy is going to be in the 10-15Hz range which is probably more than you want for this kind of analysis.  
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
 Ken - NM9P, Elmer

Thanks, Al.
I figured you would do it even without my challenge... ha.
Impressive performance.....
Now, can you superimpose a 50 or 24 Hz filter on top of the INRAD so we can REALLY brag?

Ken,
Paul provided data for the 100 HZ Flex filter so I superimposed it on the INRAD 250 HZ filter.  It should be a fair approximation and even at the 1.6 shape it looks brick wall in comparison.  At this scale the FLEX 50 HZ filter would look similar just half as wide.  It's easy to see why using a good 50 or 100 HZ filter (that doesn't ring) makes such a difference compared to the 250 HZ crystal filters.   

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




Photo of Paul Christensen, W9AC

Paul Christensen, W9AC, Elmer

  • 323 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
Al,

Not sure if you missed it but I provided the detail of the 250 Hz filter in 1.0 dB steps between the center frequency and the -6 dB point. This will give you better detail of for the top graphical passband response. The message may be collapsed in between others.

Paul
Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
Paul,
Yes overlooked it, but got it now.  I'll redo the 250 HZ plot...
Regards, Al / NN4ZZ  
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com

Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes
Paul,
Here is the updated 250 HZ filter with your additional close in data points.   At the scale used for the Inrad filter graphic, it is hard to plot that level of detail very accurately.  But as you suspected the top is much flatter than my first picture. .

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






Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
Here's a cheap and dirty research project protocol to determine the relative effectiveness of a 250 hz DSP filter with a 1.2 shape factor and an INRAD 250 hz filter wth a 2.2 shape factor:

1. Use a signal generator to insert a continuous carrier and use the 6500's 250 hz filter to determine the carrier's maximim S-meter reading. Then tune either above or below the carrier frequency until the 6500's S-meter is down 60 db. Write down that frequency.

2. Use a receiver with a good INRAD 250 hz filter, use the same signal generator set to the same frequency and signal level as above, and determine the maximum signal strength of the carrier on the S-meter. Now tune to the same frequency that the 6500 showed the carrier to be 60 db down from its maximum. Write down this S-meter reading and determine the difference in db from its maximum.

3. The difference between the INRAD filter differential S-meter reading, and the 6500's 60 db differential S-meter reading will illustrate how much more attenuation the DSP filter will provide in a real-world environment.

Yes, the S-meter in the INRAD receiver will not be as linear as the one in the 6500, yes it will be harder to read, yes the steady state carrier is not as real-world as a keyed CW signal.........but this protocol eill give a fair assessment of how these two filter types will perform in a real RX environment. We'll need Rob Sherwood to do the definitive tests, but this will give us a good idea of what to expect.

Thanks again to all that have made this such an interesting discussion.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.