N9NEO wrote:



Ok on the phones. You had mentioned them in your email to me in
September. You had also sent me a diagram of an op-amp with a pair of
emitter followers that I could use to drive the filter. Like I said,
I'm probably going to design the filter to run into a hundred or so
ohms. I'll probably stick an op-amp on the output of the filter to act
as a buffer - although 2k probably wouldn't move the filter response
much. Then of course I'll have to have a baxandall /bandaxall style
tone control so the project grows some. Yes, active filters would
probably be ok and LT has some very nice filter chips that would work
too - and I haven't ruled them out.

More later.
NEO

Before trying a baxandall /bandaxall tone circuit, you owe it to
yourself to
at least bread board the circuit at
http://members.tripod.com/roymal/ReverbTone.htm.

I like baxandall for "HiFi" audio but in 40+ years of SWL I have never
needed
to boast the highs, lows and mids seperately. I played with a
professional
1/3 octave EQ unit, that had variable shelving etc last winter and
except for
the complexity it had some minor advantages. But all in all the single
Tone-Tilt
won the test. A tuneable AF notch is a nice addition.

There have been times when I found a very sharp 60Hz notch filter to
very usefull with
older tube radios with less then perfect power supply filtering. These
days I mainly
operate radi from a well regulated and very well filtered 12V. [13.67V
which is
also the proper voltage to float charge a Gell Cell/PbSO4 battery] So
60/120/180
Hz hum is seldom an internal issue.

At some point I am going to have to redesign my system to seperate the
audio from the outboard detector. When I built it I didn't plan on
adding radio
that didn't have 455KHZ as the IF. Best laid plans and all of that.

There are paradoxes or logical conflicts in my statements and the
operation
of my audio chain. I want smooth response out to say 15KHz. But I add
filtering to chop out the highs and lows. I found it better to use a
set of JBL
speakers designed for "Home Theater" 5.1 (or 7.1) side speakers that
naturally
roll off at about 6K. By 10KHz they are mute. I found this works better
then
adding a low level AF filter. The Minimus 7's almost worked with the
tweeter
switched off. Then when I get the harmonic distortion during bad fades
with ths
SADs, I kick in Dalla's ELP AF filter. When an unwanted het pops up I
use
a low level tuneable notch.

When I look at my system I sometimes want to scream. This was supposed
to
be simple! I designed and built a true hifi system that is flat, +/1
1dB from
~30Hz to above 20KHz. With the minimuis speakers and an added tweeter
and
subwoofer it is flat +/- 4 or 5dB from 60Hz to above 15KHz. [It is very
hard to come
up with accurate measurements that relfect reality in a room!] When
doing serious,
IE money making, audio work on the PC I really need the full bandwidth
with the
subwoofer. But for SWL I chop it to something like ~100Hz to maybe
7KHz.
Simply nuts. No wonder my wife insisted on her own radio.

Since my "far field"/ ISM/HiFer beacon is toast, lightning, I have to
be content with
running my test audio from a high bit rate MP3 into my system and
mixing real radio background noise and measuring the result. Since I
can't, and never could, really
duplicate any of the effedts sfading and selective fading introduced,
this isn't really
that much different then my prior test. As a general rule, it is better
to control BW
with the correct IF filter, a speaker with natural roll off or lastly
low level or high
level filters. Conversly the more filtering you add, the quicker you
get listening
fatigue. Listening to AM through a 1.8KHZ SSB fitler will tire you out
pretty fast.
More later when my brain untangles.

And this is all for fun.


Terry

wrote:
N9NEO wrote:



Ok on the phones. You had mentioned them in your email to me in
September. You had also sent me a diagram of an op-amp with a pair of
emitter followers that I could use to drive the filter. Like I said,
I'm probably going to design the filter to run into a hundred or so
ohms. I'll probably stick an op-amp on the output of the filter to act
as a buffer - although 2k probably wouldn't move the filter response
much. Then of course I'll have to have a baxandall /bandaxall style
tone control so the project grows some. Yes, active filters would
probably be ok and LT has some very nice filter chips that would work
too - and I haven't ruled them out.

More later.
NEO

Before trying a baxandall /bandaxall tone circuit, you owe it to
yourself to
at least bread board the circuit at
http://members.tripod.com/roymal/ReverbTone.htm.

I like baxandall for "HiFi" audio but in 40+ years of SWL I have never
needed
to boast the highs, lows and mids seperately. I played with a
professional
1/3 octave EQ unit, that had variable shelving etc last winter and
except for
the complexity it had some minor advantages. But all in all the single
Tone-Tilt
won the test. A tuneable AF notch is a nice addition.

There have been times when I found a very sharp 60Hz notch filter to
very usefull with
older tube radios with less then perfect power supply filtering. These
days I mainly
operate radi from a well regulated and very well filtered 12V. [13.67V
which is
also the proper voltage to float charge a Gell Cell/PbSO4 battery] So
60/120/180
Hz hum is seldom an internal issue.

At some point I am going to have to redesign my system to seperate the
audio from the outboard detector. When I built it I didn't plan on
adding radio
that didn't have 455KHZ as the IF. Best laid plans and all of that.

There are paradoxes or logical conflicts in my statements and the
operation
of my audio chain. I want smooth response out to say 15KHz. But I add
filtering to chop out the highs and lows. I found it better to use a
set of JBL
speakers designed for "Home Theater" 5.1 (or 7.1) side speakers that
naturally
roll off at about 6K. By 10KHz they are mute. I found this works better
then
adding a low level AF filter. The Minimus 7's almost worked with the
tweeter
switched off. Then when I get the harmonic distortion during bad fades
with ths
SADs, I kick in Dalla's ELP AF filter. When an unwanted het pops up I
use
a low level tuneable notch.

When I look at my system I sometimes want to scream. This was supposed
to
be simple! I designed and built a true hifi system that is flat, +/1
1dB from
~30Hz to above 20KHz. With the minimuis speakers and an added tweeter
and
subwoofer it is flat +/- 4 or 5dB from 60Hz to above 15KHz. [It is very
hard to come
up with accurate measurements that relfect reality in a room!] When
doing serious,
IE money making, audio work on the PC I really need the full bandwidth
with the
subwoofer. But for SWL I chop it to something like ~100Hz to maybe
7KHz.
Simply nuts. No wonder my wife insisted on her own radio.

Since my "far field"/ ISM/HiFer beacon is toast, lightning, I have to
be content with
running my test audio from a high bit rate MP3 into my system and
mixing real radio background noise and measuring the result. Since I
can't, and never could, really
duplicate any of the effedts sfading and selective fading introduced,
this isn't really
that much different then my prior test. As a general rule, it is better
to control BW
with the correct IF filter, a speaker with natural roll off or lastly
low level or high
level filters. Conversly the more filtering you add, the quicker you
get listening
fatigue. Listening to AM through a 1.8KHZ SSB fitler will tire you out
pretty fast.
More later when my brain untangles.

And this is all for fun.


Terry

Yes, this is all for fun.

Tone circuit link you provided should be fine. I don't intend to do
any breadboarding before I fab a pc board. I don't have the eyesight
or the steady hand that I had as a kid, but my circuit design is
ten-fold better so that I can usually do up a board that can be shipped
first go around.

I was thinking of using that Red Sun radio (RP2100 I think it's called)
for a platform cause it has IF out. Also thinking of a Rad Shack
DX-394 I think it is. Looks like I got my RA17L sold so that should
finance this project. I'm out of work and on a tight budget so I have
to sell this to pay for that.

73
NEO

There looks like a typo in schematic.

http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/alowdisdet.htm

Amplifier inputs have to be swapped at the two rectifiers.

later
NEO

There looks like a typo in schematic.

http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/alowdisdet.htm

Amplifier inputs have to be swapped at the two rectifiers.

later
NEO

N9NEO wrote:
There looks like a typo in schematic.

http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/alowdisdet.htm

Amplifier inputs have to be swapped at the two rectifiers.

later
NEO

I don't remember any errors, but it has been 8 months since I built one
of these. I will open up my outboard detector and verify the design. It
will
have to wait until Sunday night at the earliest.

Terry

wrote:
N9NEO wrote:
There looks like a typo in schematic.

http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/alowdisdet.htm

Amplifier inputs have to be swapped at the two rectifiers.

later
NEO

I don't remember any errors, but it has been 8 months since I built one
of these. I will open up my outboard detector and verify the design. It
will
have to wait until Sunday night at the earliest.

Terry

No big deal there Terry, it's really a minor issue and probably would
work no problem anyway. What I found is just that the way the detector
is shown the output will be negative. I simulated it in
SwitchercadIII. (That's my secret to designing pc boards that work
without breadboarding.) I would appreciate if you look at and comment
on a couple of things with the circuit though. I am a power supply guy
and I don't know too much about detectors.

Rob uses a RC filter on the output of this thing so that the output is
an avaraging operation rather than responding to the peak of the
waveform. It looks like the pole is set for near 5kHz so some phase
distortion is going to be introduced - probably not a big deal. Rob
goes out of his way to do a full wave rectification, but that doesn't
make much sense to me with the filter he sticks on the end.
What do you think about just doing a detector that responds to the peak
of the waveform in a half-wave type rectifier? By the time this signal
goes through a 4kHz elliptic filter there isn't going to be a microvolt
of 455kHz signal to be found. Gain the IF signal up so that any error
due to diode matching will be minimized. I have a circuit that uses 3
schottkys in Spice that should do a nice job. I can send it to you if
you run Switchercad. It's a free download.

regards,
Bob

DUH!

You have to do full-wave rectification if you are going to use a
avaraging type of filter. Think about it.
The precision half-wave circuit that responds to peak should work well
also. I'll probably stick em both on the board.

73
NEO

N9NEO wrote:
wrote:
N9NEO wrote:
There looks like a typo in schematic.

http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/alowdisdet.htm

Amplifier inputs have to be swapped at the two rectifiers.

later
NEO

I don't remember any errors, but it has been 8 months since I built one
of these. I will open up my outboard detector and verify the design. It
will
have to wait until Sunday night at the earliest.

Terry

No big deal there Terry, it's really a minor issue and probably would
work no problem anyway. What I found is just that the way the detector
is shown the output will be negative. I simulated it in
SwitchercadIII. (That's my secret to designing pc boards that work
without breadboarding.) I would appreciate if you look at and comment
on a couple of things with the circuit though. I am a power supply guy
and I don't know too much about detectors.

Rob uses a RC filter on the output of this thing so that the output is
an avaraging operation rather than responding to the peak of the
waveform. It looks like the pole is set for near 5kHz so some phase
distortion is going to be introduced - probably not a big deal. Rob
goes out of his way to do a full wave rectification, but that doesn't
make much sense to me with the filter he sticks on the end.
What do you think about just doing a detector that responds to the peak
of the waveform in a half-wave type rectifier? By the time this signal
goes through a 4kHz elliptic filter there isn't going to be a microvolt
of 455kHz signal to be found. Gain the IF signal up so that any error
due to diode matching will be minimized. I have a circuit that uses 3
schottkys in Spice that should do a nice job. I can send it to you if
you run Switchercad. It's a free download.

regards,
Bob

N9NEO wrote:
DUH!

You have to do full-wave rectification if you are going to use a
avaraging type of filter. Think about it.
The precision half-wave circuit that responds to peak should work well
also. I'll probably stick em both on the board.

73
NEO

Rob K2CU design goal limited the loading on the diodes.
D800 goes to the non inverting, very hi z, D801 goes to
the non inverting input of U6A and the gain is 1 so the
non inverted, now low Z, output goes to the inverting
input of U6A where the 18K resistor might give too much
loading. I built a simple, U6A less, version but it had
fairly high distortion. It sounded much worse then a
single diode detector.

In my wife's R2000 I went with a 0.001uF for the output filter cap.
For most SW/HF signals the tansmitted BW will be 5KHz. To
tell the truth the change from 0.0033 to 0.001 didn't make much
audiable difference. I didn't bother to make any tests.

For 455KHz IFs U6A/B will need to be changed. The LMC660 is
just not up to that higher freq. They do work fine at 50KHz.

The other improved AM detector with a single OpAmp works, but
diodes must be very closely matched. A simple DVD diode Vforward
will not suffice!

Petes AD607 synch detector has to be the simplest way to get going.
There are other approaches that might fare better. The SAD in the
R8B is much better then the AD607 or the AO7030+. Better as in
will never growl, and doesn't fo nuts with a strong adjacent signal.

The AD607 OpAmp fitler I/Q combiner page that I refferenced is well
worth the study. If done correctly, it is possible to exclude or reject
everything except for the desired signal.

The Synch detector group has some very interesting PDFs from
older approaches that go into the mind numbing math. I never got
the filter to work properly. There are no obvious typos, and the
design looks sound. When I run out of other projects I intend to
revisit this one because IF it can be made to work, the rejection
would be very useful.

My psuedo/quasi/faux "MAP"/SE-3 had several detectors. For reasons
that escape me I decided to add FM with a crystal discriminator. Works
great the 3 times I used it. Twice for 10M FM, and once for a Pirate on
6.925.
The least usefull part of my oatboard detector.

Terry