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

Re: [softrock40] Si570 Standalone Controller Kit

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.