I did not realize that the Inrad filters were not shielded. Thanks for the
info. Also, not being 8 pole, I also wonder why one would pay extra for one.
Gary
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:29 AM, Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If anything, I actually prefer the original Ten-Tec filters in this case
> because they were totally sealed/enclosed and thus may prefer superior
> crosstalk etc isolation to the unsealed Inrad filters. This is totally
> opposite to the case for Omni 5/6 filters where Ten-Tec made unsealed
> filters (which also tended to lose spec over the years) and the IR filters
> were sealed.
>
> Barry N1EU
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Gary J FollettDukes HiFi <
>> dukeshifi@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The only possible gain one might realize from the Inroad filter is to put
>>> it where it belongs, in the 2.4 KHz slot in place of the 4 pole factory
>>> filter as I believe the Inroad is an 8 pole filter. This would sharpen the
>>> skirts of the roofing filter, offering somewhat better selectivity while
>>> still offering reasonable SSB bandwidth.The roofing filter is not even used
>>> in transmit so that change would not affect transmitter radio one iota.
>>>
>>>
>> Negative, the Inrad filter is a 4-pole filter. Sorry, this effort is a
>> total waste of money and time.
>>
>> 73, Barry N1EU
>>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|