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

Re: Switching BPFs

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.