I have just bought a new Icom 706 mk II G. I believe the standard ssb
bandwidth filter is 2.4 khz.

Icom offers two optional ssb filters, (2.8 khz and 1.9 khz).

I'm curious what the consensus is re the advisability of changing to the 1.9
khz filter.

Or perhaps there is a artical or reference discussing the question.

Thanks,

Bob K9KKY

Visit us he www.Ocean-Pro.com
Atlantic & Pacific Weather Routing,
Offshore Sailing Instruction, Deliveries

shoot, I don't know, AM and RTTY/packet filters, perhaps? 1.9 is going
to slice the audio just enough that some folks are going to be difficult
to understand, but might have a little effect in clearing out the
crosstalk. 2.8 just the opposite.

Bob Cook wrote:

I have just bought a new Icom 706 mk II G. I believe the standard ssb
bandwidth filter is 2.4 khz.

Icom offers two optional ssb filters, (2.8 khz and 1.9 khz).

I'm curious what the consensus is re the advisability of changing to the 1.9
khz filter.

Or perhaps there is a artical or reference discussing the question.

Thanks,

Bob K9KKY

Visit us he www.Ocean-Pro.com
Atlantic & Pacific Weather Routing,
Offshore Sailing Instruction, Deliveries

-- If it's a "new economy," why do they want my obsolete old money?

shoot, I don't know, AM and RTTY/packet filters, perhaps? 1.9 is going
to slice the audio just enough that some folks are going to be difficult
to understand, but might have a little effect in clearing out the
crosstalk. 2.8 just the opposite.

Bob Cook wrote:

I have just bought a new Icom 706 mk II G. I believe the standard ssb
bandwidth filter is 2.4 khz.

Icom offers two optional ssb filters, (2.8 khz and 1.9 khz).

I'm curious what the consensus is re the advisability of changing to the 1.9
khz filter.

Or perhaps there is a artical or reference discussing the question.

Thanks,

Bob K9KKY

Visit us he www.Ocean-Pro.com
Atlantic & Pacific Weather Routing,
Offshore Sailing Instruction, Deliveries

-- If it's a "new economy," why do they want my obsolete old money?

In article ,
"Bob Cook" wrote:

I have just bought a new Icom 706 mk II G. I believe the standard ssb
bandwidth filter is 2.4 khz.

Icom offers two optional ssb filters, (2.8 khz and 1.9 khz).

I'm curious what the consensus is re the advisability of changing to the 1.9
khz filter.

Or perhaps there is a artical or reference discussing the question.

Thanks,

Bob K9KKY

Visit us he www.Ocean-Pro.com
Atlantic & Pacific Weather Routing,
Offshore Sailing Instruction, Deliveries






I have both narrow SSB filters in my 775. I don't use them much. I
think you can do quite well with the passband tuning and the SSB filters
that comes standard in the 775, but if you have some money you want to
spend then go for it.

775 is a great radio, stock.

73
Dale K9VUJ
--
e has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
Sir Winston Churchill

In article ,
"Bob Cook" wrote:

I have just bought a new Icom 706 mk II G. I believe the standard ssb
bandwidth filter is 2.4 khz.

Icom offers two optional ssb filters, (2.8 khz and 1.9 khz).

I'm curious what the consensus is re the advisability of changing to the 1.9
khz filter.

Or perhaps there is a artical or reference discussing the question.

Thanks,

Bob K9KKY

Visit us he www.Ocean-Pro.com
Atlantic & Pacific Weather Routing,
Offshore Sailing Instruction, Deliveries






I have both narrow SSB filters in my 775. I don't use them much. I
think you can do quite well with the passband tuning and the SSB filters
that comes standard in the 775, but if you have some money you want to
spend then go for it.

775 is a great radio, stock.

73
Dale K9VUJ
--
e has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
Sir Winston Churchill

In article ,
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Cook" wrote:

I have just bought a new Icom 706 mk II G. I believe the standard ssb
bandwidth filter is 2.4 khz.

Icom offers two optional ssb filters, (2.8 khz and 1.9 khz).

I'm curious what the consensus is re the advisability of changing to the 1.9
khz filter.

Or perhaps there is a artical or reference discussing the question.

Thanks,

Bob K9KKY

Visit us he www.Ocean-Pro.com
Atlantic & Pacific Weather Routing,
Offshore Sailing Instruction, Deliveries






I have both narrow SSB filters in my 775. I don't use them much. I
think you can do quite well with the passband tuning and the SSB filters
that comes standard in the 775, but if you have some money you want to
spend then go for it.

775 is a great radio, stock.

73
Dale K9VUJ

Please excuse me, I misread your post regarding your 706 not 775. Sorry.

Dale, K9VUJ
--
e has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
Sir Winston Churchill

In article ,
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Cook" wrote:

I have just bought a new Icom 706 mk II G. I believe the standard ssb
bandwidth filter is 2.4 khz.

Icom offers two optional ssb filters, (2.8 khz and 1.9 khz).

I'm curious what the consensus is re the advisability of changing to the 1.9
khz filter.

Or perhaps there is a artical or reference discussing the question.

Thanks,

Bob K9KKY

Visit us he www.Ocean-Pro.com
Atlantic & Pacific Weather Routing,
Offshore Sailing Instruction, Deliveries






I have both narrow SSB filters in my 775. I don't use them much. I
think you can do quite well with the passband tuning and the SSB filters
that comes standard in the 775, but if you have some money you want to
spend then go for it.

775 is a great radio, stock.

73
Dale K9VUJ

Please excuse me, I misread your post regarding your 706 not 775. Sorry.

Dale, K9VUJ
--
e has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
Sir Winston Churchill

"Bob Cook" wrote in message ...
I have just bought a new Icom 706 mk II G. I believe the standard ssb
bandwidth filter is 2.4 khz.

Icom offers two optional ssb filters, (2.8 khz and 1.9 khz).

I'm curious what the consensus is re the advisability of changing to the 1.9
khz filter.

Or perhaps there is a artical or reference discussing the question.

Thanks,

Bob K9KKY

Unless you are a dx'er or contester in crowded band cdx, I would stick
with the stock 2.4 filter. The main effect of changing filters is
usually in the upper end. Most all filters drop to a fairly low value
on the low end. Or as far as speach is concerned anyway. A 2.4 filter
extends to 2400 cycles with a fairly flat shaping. A 1.9 only extends
up to 1900 cycles. Naturally, the wider filter sounds better. "crisper
mainly, due to the extra high end" If all stations stayed 3 kc away
from each other, there would never be a need for a narrower filter.
But the real world can vary from the ideal. Of course, the 2.8 would
give you the best audio, but the highest chance of hearing nearby
stations, if they are within or close to the edge of your passband.
BTW, in the real world, the filters still allow higher frequencies
through, but at a reduced db level. Most 2.4 filters actually hear out
to about 2.7 kc, where you will see a real steep drop off at 2.7 to
2.8 kc. A 2.8 filter could extend your passband farther than 3 kc if
the signals are strong enough. That means even a station 3 kc away
could be heard. So unless you are an audio buff, and can ignore the
extra noise, it's not really worth getting the wider filter either. I
need a CW filter in mine, but have no need for extra SSB filters. The
stock filter is good enough for gov use. MK

"Bob Cook" wrote in message ...
I have just bought a new Icom 706 mk II G. I believe the standard ssb
bandwidth filter is 2.4 khz.

Icom offers two optional ssb filters, (2.8 khz and 1.9 khz).

I'm curious what the consensus is re the advisability of changing to the 1.9
khz filter.

Or perhaps there is a artical or reference discussing the question.

Thanks,

Bob K9KKY

Unless you are a dx'er or contester in crowded band cdx, I would stick
with the stock 2.4 filter. The main effect of changing filters is
usually in the upper end. Most all filters drop to a fairly low value
on the low end. Or as far as speach is concerned anyway. A 2.4 filter
extends to 2400 cycles with a fairly flat shaping. A 1.9 only extends
up to 1900 cycles. Naturally, the wider filter sounds better. "crisper
mainly, due to the extra high end" If all stations stayed 3 kc away
from each other, there would never be a need for a narrower filter.
But the real world can vary from the ideal. Of course, the 2.8 would
give you the best audio, but the highest chance of hearing nearby
stations, if they are within or close to the edge of your passband.
BTW, in the real world, the filters still allow higher frequencies
through, but at a reduced db level. Most 2.4 filters actually hear out
to about 2.7 kc, where you will see a real steep drop off at 2.7 to
2.8 kc. A 2.8 filter could extend your passband farther than 3 kc if
the signals are strong enough. That means even a station 3 kc away
could be heard. So unless you are an audio buff, and can ignore the
extra noise, it's not really worth getting the wider filter either. I
need a CW filter in mine, but have no need for extra SSB filters. The
stock filter is good enough for gov use. MK