Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [softrock40] Si570 Standalone Controller Kit

Expand Messages
  • Pete Smith
    Hi Kees - have you actually implemented the BPF switching in hardware? I m having the devil s own time with a relay scheme for switching them on my 8.3+Xtall
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Kees - have you actually implemented the BPF switching in hardware? I'm
      having the devil's own time with a relay scheme for switching them on my
      8.3+Xtall - it seems to be introducing frequency-dependent phase errors to
      the point where the auto I/Q balance can't manage it.

      73, Pete N4ZR

      At 12:44 PM 7/31/2008, Kees & Sandy wrote:

      >Hi Tom,
      >
      >The design point on this one is manual (rotary encoder) control. The knob
      >has several functions as outlined in the documentation. There is no
      >computer interface required for the controller and it also allows for BPF
      >control. I'll bring it to Austin Summerfest to show you.
      >
      >73 Kees K5BCQ
      >
      >-- Tom Hoflich <km5h@...> wrote:
      >
      >Can this be controlled by Rocky or PowerSDR?
      >
      >
      >
      >73, Tom KM5H
      >
      >--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Kees & Sandy <windy10605@...> wrote:
      >From: Kees & Sandy <windy10605@...>
      >Subject: [softrock40] Si570 Standalone Controller Kit
      >To: softrock40@yahoogroups.com
      >Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 10:17 AM
      >
      >Since various versions of Si570 Controller kits are useful and in demand,
      >I have uploaded more detail (Features/Operation ) on my version developed
      >by myself and John Fisher to the "PHOTOS" section of the web site (under
      >K5BCQ). I used that section since the "FILES" section is nearly full. This
      >controller does not require the computer to load/store frequencies, it's
      >totally standalone and can be used as a VFO. The kit will be offered with
      >or without the CMOS Si570 part in case you already have one.
      >
      >Kits will be available as soon as I receive the production boards and test
      >a few (2 weeks). The prototype works great.
      >
      >73 Kees K5BCQ
      >
      >---------- Forwarded
      >
      >
    • John H. Fisher
      We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory locations 100-199, 200-299,
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
        switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory locations
        100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant digit 1-8
        = 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines to select
        a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was an add on
        Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems like a
        good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
        Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)

        There are 1000 memory locations addressed as 000 to 999. You can store
        frequencies in any location. the first 8 hold all the parameters so the
        user can set up the controller any way he/she wants to.

        memory 0 = Si570 Start Up Frequency (56320000)
        memory 1 = + or - Offset Frequency ( +10000 )
        memory 2 = Startup Memory Address ( 20 )
        memory 3 = Startup Cursor Position ( the dot = 9 )
        memory 4 = Frequency Multiplier ( 4 )
        memory 5 = Frequency Divider ( 1 )
        memory 6 = Encoder Speed ( 4 )
        memory 7 = Encoder Direction ( 0 )

        To change or enter a frequency you hold in the encoder and rotate the
        dot to your desired digit. Release the encoder and rotate the digit
        value up or down. This applies to the memory address digits, also. Kees
        has selected a beautiful non detent encoder which rolls as smooth as
        glass. It feels like you are tunning a $4000 radio :-) It doesn't matter
        how wide your sound card is because you are sliding through the display.
        I spent hours tuning my softrock with no BPF. You could tell which
        harmonic you were receiving by moving the 1KHz up and down. The Rocky
        display would jump 1KHz or 3KHz or whatever which told you which
        harmonic. It was fun tuning. I set Rocky up with 0 frequency so the
        display showed + or - 10,000 Hz. By setting the controller offset at +
        10,000 I could read out the frequency on the controller of whatever was
        sitting on +10000 on Rocky. Simple pleasures for an old man :-)

        Regards,
        John

        Pete Smith wrote:
        >
        > Hi Kees - have you actually implemented the BPF switching in hardware?
        > I'm
        > having the devil's own time with a relay scheme for switching them on my
        > 8.3+Xtall - it seems to be introducing frequency-dependent phase
        > errors to
        > the point where the auto I/Q balance can't manage it.
        >
        > 73, Pete N4ZR
        >
        > At 12:44 PM 7/31/2008, Kees & Sandy wrote:
        >
        > >Hi Tom,
        > >
        > >The design point on this one is manual (rotary encoder) control. The
        > knob
        > >has several functions as outlined in the documentation. There is no
        > >computer interface required for the controller and it also allows for
        > BPF
        > >control. I'll bring it to Austin Summerfest to show you.
        > >
        > >73 Kees K5BCQ
        > >
        > >-- Tom Hoflich <km5h@... <mailto:km5h%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
        > >
        > >Can this be controlled by Rocky or PowerSDR?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >73, Tom KM5H
        > >
        > >--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Kees & Sandy <windy10605@...
        > <mailto:windy10605%40juno.com>> wrote:
        > >From: Kees & Sandy <windy10605@... <mailto:windy10605%40juno.com>>
        > >Subject: [softrock40] Si570 Standalone Controller Kit
        > >To: softrock40@yahoogroups.com <mailto:softrock40%40yahoogroups.com>
        > >Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 10:17 AM
        > >
        > >Since various versions of Si570 Controller kits are useful and in
        > demand,
        > >I have uploaded more detail (Features/Operation ) on my version
        > developed
        > >by myself and John Fisher to the "PHOTOS" section of the web site (under
        > >K5BCQ). I used that section since the "FILES" section is nearly full.
        > This
        > >controller does not require the computer to load/store frequencies, it's
        > >totally standalone and can be used as a VFO. The kit will be offered
        > with
        > >or without the CMOS Si570 part in case you already have one.
        > >
        > >Kits will be available as soon as I receive the production boards and
        > test
        > >a few (2 weeks). The prototype works great.
        > >
        > >73 Kees K5BCQ
        > >
        > >---------- Forwarded
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
      • Pete Smith
        ... What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone has a hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with the Lite 8.3, or
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
          >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
          >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory locations
          >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant digit 1-8
          >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines to select
          >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was an add on
          >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems like a
          >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
          >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)


          What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone has a
          hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with the Lite
          8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to interface
          to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
          secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in my Lite
          8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M I'm no longer
          able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it works and
          sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run. Here
          are some examples:

          All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the signal
          levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection tests were run
          with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local oscillator
          frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are high/low
          extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth


          Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg) Gain ratio
          (one channel as % of other)

          160 orig. >60 -.93 to -.33 .62-.64
          remote >60 1.4 to 4.1 .61-.65

          80 orig. >60 6.2 to 7.1 .59-.61
          remote >60 4.1 to 7.2 .69-.70

          40 orig. >60 7.3 to 8.1 .70-.71
          remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q balance
          would not work

          20 orig. >70 5.8 to 6.44 .66-.78

          15 orig. >60 3.9 to 5.2 .74-.76

          10 orig. >60 8.7 to 9.2 .77=.78

          73, Pete N4ZR

          ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can get his
          scope working.
        • Christos Nikolaou
          Hi Pete, Regarding versatility of BPF switching and enablement configuration did you checked this? - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/message/23712 73
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Pete,

            Regarding versatility of BPF switching and enablement configuration
            did you checked this?

            -> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/message/23712

            73
            Christos SV1EIA


            --- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
            >
            > At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
            > >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
            > >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory locations
            > >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant
            digit 1-8
            > >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines to select
            > >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was an add on
            > >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems like a
            > >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
            > >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)
            >
            >
            > What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone
            has a
            > hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with the
            Lite
            > 8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to
            interface
            > to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
            > secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in my Lite
            > 8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M I'm no
            longer
            > able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it works and
            > sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run.
            Here
            > are some examples:
            >
            > All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the
            signal
            > levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection tests were
            run
            > with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local
            oscillator
            > frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are high/low
            > extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
            >
            >
            > Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg) Gain
            ratio
            > (one channel as % of other)
            >
            > 160 orig. >60 -.93 to -.33 .62-.64
            > remote >60 1.4 to 4.1 .61-.65
            >
            > 80 orig. >60 6.2 to 7.1 .59-.61
            > remote >60 4.1 to 7.2 .69-.70
            >
            > 40 orig. >60 7.3 to 8.1 .70-.71
            > remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q balance
            > would not work
            >
            > 20 orig. >70 5.8 to 6.44 .66-.78
            >
            > 15 orig. >60 3.9 to 5.2 .74-.76
            >
            > 10 orig. >60 8.7 to 9.2 .77=.78
            >
            > 73, Pete N4ZR
            >
            > ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can get his
            > scope working.
            >
          • Kees & Sandy
            Pete, I have not implemented it but it has nothing to do with the frequency. It s driven by the memory (hundreds) bit selection. It s just a digital output.
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment

              Pete,

              I have not implemented it but it has nothing to do with the frequency. It's driven by the memory (hundreds) bit selection. It's just a digital output. Maybe I need to understand the problem better. You would use this to control the relays or FET switches on the BPFs.

              73 Kees K5BCQ 

              -- Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:

              Hi Kees - have you actually implemented the BPF switching in hardware? I'm
              having the devil's own time with a relay scheme for switching them on my
              8.3+Xtall - it seems to be introducing frequency-dependent phase errors to
              the point where the auto I/Q balance can't manage it.

              73, Pete N4ZR

              At 12:44 PM 7/31/2008, Kees & Sandy wrote:

              >Hi Tom,
              >
              >The design point on this one is manual (rotary encoder) control. The knob
              >has several functions as outlined in the documentation. There is no
              >computer interface required for the controller and it also allows for BPF
              >control. I'll bring it to Austin Summerfest to show you.
              >
              >73 Kees K5BCQ
              >
              >-- Tom Hoflich <km5h@...> wrote:
              >
              >Can this be controlled by Rocky or PowerSDR?
              >
              >
              >
              >73, Tom KM5H
              >
              >--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Kees & Sandy <windy10605@juno. com> wrote:
              >From: Kees & Sandy <windy10605@juno. com>
              >Subject: [softrock40] Si570 Standalone Controller Kit
              >To: softrock40@yahoogro ups.com
              >Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 10:17 AM
              >
              >Since various versions of Si570 Controller kits are useful and in demand,
              >I have uploaded more detail (Features/Operation ) on my version developed
              >by myself and John Fisher to the "PHOTOS" section of the web site (under
              >K5BCQ). I used that section since the "FILES" section is nearly full. This
              >controller does not require the computer to load/store frequencies, it's
              >totally standalone and can be used as a VFO. The kit will be offered with
              >or without the CMOS Si570 part in case you already have one.
              >
              >Kits will be available as soon as I receive the production boards and test
              >a few (2 weeks). The prototype works great.
              >
              >73 Kees K5BCQ
              >
              >---------- Forwarded
              >
              >

            • Jose Bonanca
              By the way,. Why is so much difficult to join google.?? I see it must be approved by you but can´t see the reason why. All we see when we try to join is lots
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                By the way,. Why is so much difficult to join google.??
                I see it  must be approved by you but can´t see the reason why.
                All we see when we try to join is lots of garbage...


                 
                On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Christos Nikolaou <sv1eia@...> wrote:

                Hi Pete,

                Regarding versatility of BPF switching and enablement configuration
                did you checked this?

                -> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/message/23712

                73
                Christos SV1EIA

                --- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                >
                > At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
                > >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
                > >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory locations
                > >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant
                digit 1-8
                > >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines to select
                > >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was an add on
                > >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems like a
                > >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
                > >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)
                >
                >
                > What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone
                has a
                > hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with the
                Lite
                > 8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to
                interface
                > to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
                > secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in my Lite
                > 8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M I'm no
                longer
                > able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it works and
                > sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run.
                Here
                > are some examples:
                >
                > All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the
                signal
                > levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection tests were
                run
                > with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local
                oscillator
                > frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are high/low
                > extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
                >
                >
                > Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg) Gain
                ratio
                > (one channel as % of other)
                >
                > 160 orig. >60 -.93 to -.33 .62-.64
                > remote >60 1.4 to 4.1 .61-.65
                >
                > 80 orig. >60 6.2 to 7.1 .59-.61
                > remote >60 4.1 to 7.2 .69-.70
                >
                > 40 orig. >60 7.3 to 8.1 .70-.71
                > remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q balance
                > would not work
                >
                > 20 orig. >70 5.8 to 6.44 .66-.78
                >
                > 15 orig. >60 3.9 to 5.2 .74-.76
                >
                > 10 orig. >60 8.7 to 9.2 .77=.78
                >
                > 73, Pete N4ZR
                >
                > ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can get his
                > scope working.
                >




                --
                Jose Bonanca (CT1aos)
              • Pete Smith
                Hi Christos - I don t appear to have a problem with controlling the switching, but the hardware switching seemingly introduces phase errors that exceed the
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Christos - I don't appear to have a problem with controlling the
                  switching, but the hardware switching seemingly introduces phase errors
                  that exceed the ability of the Auto I/Q balance to compensate. On the
                  higher bands there is insufficient level difference between the "real" and
                  "image" signals, indicating to me that the phase is way off 90 degrees.

                  73, Pete N4ZR

                  At 09:44 AM 8/1/2008, Christos Nikolaou wrote:
                  >Hi Pete,
                  >
                  >Regarding versatility of BPF switching and enablement configuration
                  >did you checked this?
                  >
                  >-> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/message/23712
                  >
                  >73
                  >Christos SV1EIA
                  >
                  >
                  >--- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
                  > > >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
                  > > >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory locations
                  > > >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant
                  >digit 1-8
                  > > >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines to select
                  > > >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was an add on
                  > > >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems like a
                  > > >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
                  > > >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone
                  >has a
                  > > hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with the
                  >Lite
                  > > 8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to
                  >interface
                  > > to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
                  > > secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in my Lite
                  > > 8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M I'm no
                  >longer
                  > > able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it works and
                  > > sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run.
                  >Here
                  > > are some examples:
                  > >
                  > > All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the
                  >signal
                  > > levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection tests were
                  >run
                  > > with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local
                  >oscillator
                  > > frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are high/low
                  > > extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg) Gain
                  >ratio
                  > > (one channel as % of other)
                  > >
                  > > 160 orig. >60 -.93 to -.33 .62-.64
                  > > remote >60 1.4 to 4.1 .61-.65
                  > >
                  > > 80 orig. >60 6.2 to 7.1 .59-.61
                  > > remote >60 4.1 to 7.2 .69-.70
                  > >
                  > > 40 orig. >60 7.3 to 8.1 .70-.71
                  > > remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q balance
                  > > would not work
                  > >
                  > > 20 orig. >70 5.8 to 6.44 .66-.78
                  > >
                  > > 15 orig. >60 3.9 to 5.2 .74-.76
                  > >
                  > > 10 orig. >60 8.7 to 9.2 .77=.78
                  > >
                  > > 73, Pete N4ZR
                  > >
                  > > ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can get his
                  > > scope working.
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >------------------------------------
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Christos Nikolaou
                  Jose, You do not need to join, you only want to download mate! 73 ... locations ... to select ... an add on ... like a ... my Lite ... works and ... get his
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jose,

                    You do not need to join, you only want to download mate!

                    73

                    --- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Bonanca" <jbct1aos@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > By the way,. Why is so much difficult to join google.??
                    > I see it must be approved by you but can´t see the reason why.
                    > All we see when we try to join is lots of garbage...
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Christos Nikolaou <sv1eia@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Hi Pete,
                    > >
                    > > Regarding versatility of BPF switching and enablement configuration
                    > > did you checked this?
                    > >
                    > > -> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/message/23712
                    > >
                    > > 73
                    > > Christos SV1EIA
                    > >
                    > > --- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com <softrock40%40yahoogroups.com>, Pete
                    > > Smith <n4zr@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
                    > > > >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
                    > > > >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory
                    locations
                    > > > >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant
                    > > digit 1-8
                    > > > >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines
                    to select
                    > > > >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was
                    an add on
                    > > > >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems
                    like a
                    > > > >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
                    > > > >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone
                    > > has a
                    > > > hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with the
                    > > Lite
                    > > > 8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to
                    > > interface
                    > > > to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
                    > > > secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in
                    my Lite
                    > > > 8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M I'm no
                    > > longer
                    > > > able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it
                    works and
                    > > > sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run.
                    > > Here
                    > > > are some examples:
                    > > >
                    > > > All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the
                    > > signal
                    > > > levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection tests were
                    > > run
                    > > > with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local
                    > > oscillator
                    > > > frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are high/low
                    > > > extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg) Gain
                    > > ratio
                    > > > (one channel as % of other)
                    > > >
                    > > > 160 orig. >60 -.93 to -.33 .62-.64
                    > > > remote >60 1.4 to 4.1 .61-.65
                    > > >
                    > > > 80 orig. >60 6.2 to 7.1 .59-.61
                    > > > remote >60 4.1 to 7.2 .69-.70
                    > > >
                    > > > 40 orig. >60 7.3 to 8.1 .70-.71
                    > > > remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q balance
                    > > > would not work
                    > > >
                    > > > 20 orig. >70 5.8 to 6.44 .66-.78
                    > > >
                    > > > 15 orig. >60 3.9 to 5.2 .74-.76
                    > > >
                    > > > 10 orig. >60 8.7 to 9.2 .77=.78
                    > > >
                    > > > 73, Pete N4ZR
                    > > >
                    > > > ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can
                    get his
                    > > > scope working.
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --
                    > Jose Bonanca (CT1aos)
                    >
                  • Christos Nikolaou
                    Pete, Even better! This version has separate image calibration per each band. So when you calibrate lets say for 40m and then go to 10m the settings are
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Pete,

                      Even better!
                      This version has separate image calibration per each band.
                      So when you calibrate lets say for 40m and then go to 10m the settings
                      are remembered and when you come back to 40m the specific settings
                      take on! you can even see that the phase/gain dials are change when
                      changing bands.

                      73
                      christos SV1EIA


                      --- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Christos - I don't appear to have a problem with controlling the
                      > switching, but the hardware switching seemingly introduces phase errors
                      > that exceed the ability of the Auto I/Q balance to compensate. On the
                      > higher bands there is insufficient level difference between the
                      "real" and
                      > "image" signals, indicating to me that the phase is way off 90 degrees.
                      >
                      > 73, Pete N4ZR
                      >
                      > At 09:44 AM 8/1/2008, Christos Nikolaou wrote:
                      > >Hi Pete,
                      > >
                      > >Regarding versatility of BPF switching and enablement configuration
                      > >did you checked this?
                      > >
                      > >-> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/message/23712
                      > >
                      > >73
                      > >Christos SV1EIA
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >--- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
                      > > > >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
                      > > > >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory
                      locations
                      > > > >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant
                      > >digit 1-8
                      > > > >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines
                      to select
                      > > > >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was
                      an add on
                      > > > >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems
                      like a
                      > > > >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
                      > > > >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone
                      > >has a
                      > > > hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with the
                      > >Lite
                      > > > 8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to
                      > >interface
                      > > > to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
                      > > > secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in
                      my Lite
                      > > > 8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M I'm no
                      > >longer
                      > > > able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it
                      works and
                      > > > sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run.
                      > >Here
                      > > > are some examples:
                      > > >
                      > > > All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the
                      > >signal
                      > > > levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection tests were
                      > >run
                      > > > with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local
                      > >oscillator
                      > > > frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are high/low
                      > > > extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg) Gain
                      > >ratio
                      > > > (one channel as % of other)
                      > > >
                      > > > 160 orig. >60 -.93 to -.33
                      .62-.64
                      > > > remote >60 1.4 to 4.1
                      .61-.65
                      > > >
                      > > > 80 orig. >60 6.2 to 7.1
                      .59-.61
                      > > > remote >60 4.1 to 7.2
                      .69-.70
                      > > >
                      > > > 40 orig. >60 7.3 to 8.1
                      .70-.71
                      > > > remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q
                      balance
                      > > > would not work
                      > > >
                      > > > 20 orig. >70 5.8 to 6.44
                      .66-.78
                      > > >
                      > > > 15 orig. >60 3.9 to 5.2
                      .74-.76
                      > > >
                      > > > 10 orig. >60 8.7 to 9.2
                      .77=.78
                      > > >
                      > > > 73, Pete N4ZR
                      > > >
                      > > > ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can
                      get his
                      > > > scope working.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >------------------------------------
                      > >
                      > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • Pete Smith
                      Rocky also has band-specific I/Q balance compensation - the problem seems to be that the auto-compensation routines can t determine which is the fundamental
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Rocky also has band-specific I/Q balance compensation - the problem seems
                        to be that the auto-compensation routines can't determine which is the
                        fundamental and which is the image, or else can't generate large-enough
                        corrections to handle what the hardware is presenting.

                        73, Pete

                        At 09:56 AM 8/1/2008, Christos Nikolaou wrote:
                        >Pete,
                        >
                        >Even better!
                        >This version has separate image calibration per each band.
                        >So when you calibrate lets say for 40m and then go to 10m the settings
                        >are remembered and when you come back to 40m the specific settings
                        >take on! you can even see that the phase/gain dials are change when
                        >changing bands.
                        >
                        >73
                        >christos SV1EIA
                        >
                        >
                        >--- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Hi Christos - I don't appear to have a problem with controlling the
                        > > switching, but the hardware switching seemingly introduces phase errors
                        > > that exceed the ability of the Auto I/Q balance to compensate. On the
                        > > higher bands there is insufficient level difference between the
                        >"real" and
                        > > "image" signals, indicating to me that the phase is way off 90 degrees.
                        > >
                        > > 73, Pete N4ZR
                        > >
                        > > At 09:44 AM 8/1/2008, Christos Nikolaou wrote:
                        > > >Hi Pete,
                        > > >
                        > > >Regarding versatility of BPF switching and enablement configuration
                        > > >did you checked this?
                        > > >
                        > > >-> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/message/23712
                        > > >
                        > > >73
                        > > >Christos SV1EIA
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >--- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
                        > > > > >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
                        > > > > >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory
                        >locations
                        > > > > >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant
                        > > >digit 1-8
                        > > > > >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines
                        >to select
                        > > > > >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was
                        >an add on
                        > > > > >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems
                        >like a
                        > > > > >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
                        > > > > >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone
                        > > >has a
                        > > > > hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with the
                        > > >Lite
                        > > > > 8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to
                        > > >interface
                        > > > > to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
                        > > > > secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in
                        >my Lite
                        > > > > 8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M I'm no
                        > > >longer
                        > > > > able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it
                        >works and
                        > > > > sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run.
                        > > >Here
                        > > > > are some examples:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the
                        > > >signal
                        > > > > levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection tests were
                        > > >run
                        > > > > with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local
                        > > >oscillator
                        > > > > frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are high/low
                        > > > > extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg) Gain
                        > > >ratio
                        > > > > (one channel as % of other)
                        > > > >
                        > > > > 160 orig. >60 -.93 to -.33
                        > .62-.64
                        > > > > remote >60 1.4 to 4.1
                        > .61-.65
                        > > > >
                        > > > > 80 orig. >60 6.2 to 7.1
                        > .59-.61
                        > > > > remote >60 4.1 to 7.2
                        > .69-.70
                        > > > >
                        > > > > 40 orig. >60 7.3 to 8.1
                        > .70-.71
                        > > > > remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q
                        >balance
                        > > > > would not work
                        > > > >
                        > > > > 20 orig. >70 5.8 to 6.44
                        > .66-.78
                        > > > >
                        > > > > 15 orig. >60 3.9 to 5.2
                        > .74-.76
                        > > > >
                        > > > > 10 orig. >60 8.7 to 9.2
                        > .77=.78
                        > > > >
                        > > > > 73, Pete N4ZR
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can
                        >get his
                        > > > > scope working.
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >------------------------------------
                        > > >
                        > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >------------------------------------
                        >
                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Christos Nikolaou
                        Yes Pete, In PowerSDR is manual per each band so no such error can happen. I m aware of Rocky s I/Q errors. Anyway both programs are there available to the
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes Pete,

                          In PowerSDR is manual per each band so no such error can happen.
                          I'm aware of Rocky's I/Q errors.
                          Anyway both programs are there available to the community.

                          Enjoy!

                          73
                          Christos SV1EIA


                          --- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Rocky also has band-specific I/Q balance compensation - the problem
                          seems
                          > to be that the auto-compensation routines can't determine which is the
                          > fundamental and which is the image, or else can't generate large-enough
                          > corrections to handle what the hardware is presenting.
                          >
                          > 73, Pete
                          >
                          > At 09:56 AM 8/1/2008, Christos Nikolaou wrote:
                          > >Pete,
                          > >
                          > >Even better!
                          > >This version has separate image calibration per each band.
                          > >So when you calibrate lets say for 40m and then go to 10m the settings
                          > >are remembered and when you come back to 40m the specific settings
                          > >take on! you can even see that the phase/gain dials are change when
                          > >changing bands.
                          > >
                          > >73
                          > >christos SV1EIA
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >--- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Hi Christos - I don't appear to have a problem with controlling the
                          > > > switching, but the hardware switching seemingly introduces phase
                          errors
                          > > > that exceed the ability of the Auto I/Q balance to compensate.
                          On the
                          > > > higher bands there is insufficient level difference between the
                          > >"real" and
                          > > > "image" signals, indicating to me that the phase is way off 90
                          degrees.
                          > > >
                          > > > 73, Pete N4ZR
                          > > >
                          > > > At 09:44 AM 8/1/2008, Christos Nikolaou wrote:
                          > > > >Hi Pete,
                          > > > >
                          > > > >Regarding versatility of BPF switching and enablement configuration
                          > > > >did you checked this?
                          > > > >
                          > > > >-> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/message/23712
                          > > > >
                          > > > >73
                          > > > >Christos SV1EIA
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >--- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@> wrote:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
                          > > > > > >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
                          > > > > > >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory
                          > >locations
                          > > > > > >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant
                          > > > >digit 1-8
                          > > > > > >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines
                          > >to select
                          > > > > > >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was
                          > >an add on
                          > > > > > >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems
                          > >like a
                          > > > > > >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm
                          sorry the
                          > > > > > >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular
                          problem:-)
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if
                          anyone
                          > > > >has a
                          > > > > > hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work
                          with the
                          > > > >Lite
                          > > > > > 8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to
                          > > > >interface
                          > > > > > to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
                          > > > > > secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in
                          > >my Lite
                          > > > > > 8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M
                          I'm no
                          > > > >longer
                          > > > > > able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it
                          > >works and
                          > > > > > sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't
                          even run.
                          > > > >Here
                          > > > > > are some examples:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5,
                          eyeballing the
                          > > > >signal
                          > > > > > levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection
                          tests were
                          > > > >run
                          > > > > > with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local
                          > > > >oscillator
                          > > > > > frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are
                          high/low
                          > > > > > extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg)
                          Gain
                          > > > >ratio
                          > > > > > (one channel as % of other)
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > 160 orig. >60 -.93 to -.33
                          > > .62-.64
                          > > > > > remote >60 1.4 to 4.1
                          > > .61-.65
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > 80 orig. >60 6.2 to 7.1
                          > > .59-.61
                          > > > > > remote >60 4.1 to 7.2
                          > > .69-.70
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > 40 orig. >60 7.3 to 8.1
                          > > .70-.71
                          > > > > > remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q
                          > >balance
                          > > > > > would not work
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > 20 orig. >70 5.8 to 6.44
                          > > .66-.78
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > 15 orig. >60 3.9 to 5.2
                          > > .74-.76
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > 10 orig. >60 8.7 to 9.2
                          > > .77=.78
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > 73, Pete N4ZR
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can
                          > >get his
                          > > > > > scope working.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >------------------------------------
                          > > > >
                          > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >------------------------------------
                          > >
                          > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • philiplock
                          ... Hi Pete. I also tried to switch the BPFs with a 3 pole 4 way switch and had the same problem as you had. I had a look at the outputs of the filter with a
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                            Hi Pete.

                            I also tried to switch the BPFs with a 3 pole 4 way switch
                            and had the same problem as you had.
                            I had a look at the outputs of the filter with a scope and found that
                            the level of one output get lower as I went up in frequncy.
                            if I swapped the outputs of the switch the inbalace stayed the same.
                            I give up in the end I just could not workout what was happening.

                            Philip g7jur



                            >
                            > At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
                            > >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
                            > >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory
                            locations
                            > >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant
                            digit 1-8
                            > >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines to
                            select
                            > >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was an
                            add on
                            > >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems like
                            a
                            > >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
                            > >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)
                            >
                            >
                            > What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone
                            has a
                            > hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with
                            the Lite
                            > 8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to
                            interface
                            > to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
                            > secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in my
                            Lite
                            > 8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M I'm no
                            longer
                            > able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it works
                            and
                            > sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run.
                            Here
                            > are some examples:
                            >
                            > All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the
                            signal
                            > levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection tests
                            were run
                            > with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local
                            oscillator
                            > frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are high/low
                            > extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
                            >
                            >
                            > Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg)
                            Gain ratio
                            > (one channel as % of other)
                            >
                            > 160 orig. >60 -.93 to -
                            .33 .62-.64
                            > remote >60 1.4 to
                            4.1 .61-.65
                            >
                            > 80 orig. >60 6.2 to
                            7.1 .59-.61
                            > remote >60 4.1 to
                            7.2 .69-.70
                            >
                            > 40 orig. >60 7.3 to
                            8.1 .70-.71
                            > remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q
                            balance
                            > would not work
                            >
                            > 20 orig. >70 5.8 to
                            6.44 .66-.78
                            >
                            > 15 orig. >60 3.9 to
                            5.2 .74-.76
                            >
                            > 10 orig. >60 8.7 to
                            9.2 .77=.78
                            >
                            > 73, Pete N4ZR
                            >
                            > ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can get
                            his
                            > scope working.
                            >
                          • Michael Barak
                            What kind of switch and cables did you use? Use a ceramic switch and appropriate short coax connecting cable.
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              What kind of switch and cables did you use?
                              Use a ceramic switch and appropriate short coax connecting cable.


                              philiplock wrote:
                              --- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                              Hi Pete.
                              
                              I also tried to switch the BPFs with a 3 pole 4 way switch
                              and had the same problem as you had.
                              I had a look at the outputs of the filter with a scope and found that 
                              the level of one output get lower as I went up in frequncy.
                              if I swapped the outputs of the switch the inbalace stayed the same.
                              I give up in the end I just could not workout what was happening.
                              
                              Philip g7jur 
                              
                              
                              
                                
                              At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
                                  
                              We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
                              switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory 
                                    
                              locations
                                
                              100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant 
                                    
                              digit 1-8
                                
                              = 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines to 
                                    
                              select
                                
                              a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was an 
                                    
                              add on
                                
                              Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems like 
                                    
                              a
                                
                              good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
                              Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)
                                    
                              What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone 
                                  
                              has a 
                                
                              hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with 
                                  
                              the Lite 
                                
                              8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to 
                                  
                              interface 
                                
                              to.  My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and 
                              secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in my 
                                  
                              Lite 
                                
                              8.3.  I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80.  By 40M I'm no 
                                  
                              longer 
                                
                              able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it works 
                                  
                              and 
                                
                              sometimes not.  Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run.  
                                  
                              Here 
                                
                              are some examples:
                              
                              All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the 
                                  
                              signal 
                                
                              levels off the spectrum display.  All the image rejection tests 
                                  
                              were run 
                                
                              with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local 
                                  
                              oscillator 
                                
                              frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc.  Levels expressed are high/low 
                              extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
                              
                              
                              Band    BPF location    Image Rej (dB)  Phase error (deg)       
                                  
                              Gain ratio 
                                
                              (one channel as % of other)
                              
                                160    orig.           >60             -.93 to -
                                  
                              .33            .62-.64
                                
                                       remote          >60             1.4 to 
                                  
                              4.1              .61-.65
                                
                                 80    orig.           >60             6.2 to 
                                  
                              7.1              .59-.61
                                
                                       remote          >60             4.1 to 
                                  
                              7.2              .69-.70
                                
                                 40    orig.           >60             7.3 to 
                                  
                              8.1              .70-.71
                                
                                       remote          no data at this and higher - auto I/Q 
                                  
                              balance 
                                
                              would not work
                              
                                 20    orig.           >70             5.8 to 
                                  
                              6.44             .66-.78
                                
                                 15    orig.           >60             3.9 to 
                                  
                              5.2              .74-.76
                                
                                 10    orig.           >60             8.7 to 
                                  
                              9.2              .77=.78
                                
                              73, Pete N4ZR
                              
                              ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can get 
                                  
                              his 
                                
                              scope working.
                              
                                  
                              
                              
                              ------------------------------------
                              
                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                              
                              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/
                              
                              <*> Your email settings:
                                  Individual Email | Traditional
                              
                              <*> To change settings online go to:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/join
                                  (Yahoo! ID required)
                              
                              <*> To change settings via email:
                                  mailto:softrock40-digest@yahoogroups.com 
                                  mailto:softrock40-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                              
                              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  softrock40-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              
                              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              
                              
                                
                            • Pete Smith
                              Interesting, Philip - I am switching 4 lines of the 5 - only the center taps of the transformers are in parallel. As you can see my level disparities really
                              Message 14 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Interesting, Philip - I am switching 4 lines of the 5 - only the center
                                taps of the transformers are in parallel. As you can see my level
                                disparities really don't get that much worse, nor do the phase errors
                                follow a frequency-dependent pattern that I can see. But it sure ain't
                                working.

                                73, Pete

                                At 11:31 AM 8/1/2008, philiplock wrote:
                                >--- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                                >Hi Pete.
                                >
                                >I also tried to switch the BPFs with a 3 pole 4 way switch
                                >and had the same problem as you had.
                                >I had a look at the outputs of the filter with a scope and found that
                                >the level of one output get lower as I went up in frequncy.
                                >if I swapped the outputs of the switch the inbalace stayed the same.
                                >I give up in the end I just could not workout what was happening.
                                >
                                >Philip g7jur
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > >
                                > > At 09:01 AM 8/1/2008, John H. Fisher wrote:
                                > > >We are providing three binary bits to be used by a hardware BPF
                                > > >switching board. The three hardware outputs represent memory
                                >locations
                                > > >100-199, 200-299, 300-399... depending on the most significant
                                >digit 1-8
                                > > >= 000-111. The actual BPF hardware will use those three lines to
                                >select
                                > > >a one of eight filters based on the memory location. This was an
                                >add on
                                > > >Kees thought of to use the last three pins on the chip. Seems like
                                >a
                                > > >good idea :-) Best of luck with your relay BPF board. I'm sorry the
                                > > >Si570 controller can't help you out with that particular problem:-)
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > What you have there is really neat, John - I am wondering if anyone
                                >has a
                                > > hardware implementation of the BPF switching that will work with
                                >the Lite
                                > > 8.3, or if the 5-lead BPFs it uses are unique and difficult to
                                >interface
                                > > to. My problem seems to be related to lead lengths (maybe), and
                                > > secondarily to an apparent imbalance in both phase and gain in my
                                >Lite
                                > > 8.3. I can remotely locate the BPF on 160 and 80. By 40M I'm no
                                >longer
                                > > able to get the I/Q balance corrected reliably - sometimes it works
                                >and
                                > > sometimes not. Above 40, the auto balance routine won't even run.
                                >Here
                                > > are some examples:
                                > >
                                > > All of the following tests were run using Rocky 3.5, eyeballing the
                                >signal
                                > > levels off the spectrum display. All the image rejection tests
                                >were run
                                > > with the fundamental at x025 KHz - 1825, 3525, etc. and a local
                                >oscillator
                                > > frequency of x046 - 1846, 3546, etc. Levels expressed are high/low
                                > > extremes across 96 KHz audio bandwidth
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Band BPF location Image Rej (dB) Phase error (deg)
                                >Gain ratio
                                > > (one channel as % of other)
                                > >
                                > > 160 orig. >60 -.93 to -
                                >.33 .62-.64
                                > > remote >60 1.4 to
                                >4.1 .61-.65
                                > >
                                > > 80 orig. >60 6.2 to
                                >7.1 .59-.61
                                > > remote >60 4.1 to
                                >7.2 .69-.70
                                > >
                                > > 40 orig. >60 7.3 to
                                >8.1 .70-.71
                                > > remote no data at this and higher - auto I/Q
                                >balance
                                > > would not work
                                > >
                                > > 20 orig. >70 5.8 to
                                >6.44 .66-.78
                                > >
                                > > 15 orig. >60 3.9 to
                                >5.2 .74-.76
                                > >
                                > > 10 orig. >60 8.7 to
                                >9.2 .77=.78
                                > >
                                > > 73, Pete N4ZR
                                > >
                                > > ...who is going to put this aside for a while and see if he can get
                                >his
                                > > scope working.
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >------------------------------------
                                >
                                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.