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

Re: Switching BPFs

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.