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

Re: [softrock40] Re: Switching BPFs

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.