Narrow & Wide............
 

Any radio really I'm talking about, but this is to help me with the 398 when I
get it back.

I ususally use the narrow filter, like, almost all the time. When would one
listen to it on 'wide'? For a Big station or for music?

Tell me how you all use between your *narrow or wide*.......I am interested.
:-)
How would it play on the BCB dxing?

Thanks

~^Monitoring The Spectrum^~
Hammarlund HQ129X /Heathkit Q Multiplier
Hammarlund HQ140X
Multiple GE P-780's(GREAT BCB Radios)
RCA Victor *Strato- World*
RCA Victor RJC77W-K(Walnut Grain)
1942 Zenith Wave Magnet 6G 601M
Cathedral/ Ross#2311/Rhapsody-MultiBand
DX100/394/*SUPER*398/399/402
OMGS Transistor Eight/Realistic 12-1451
Henry Kloss Model One/Bell+Howell
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Alpha Delta DX Sloper 57ft.
600ft. 12AWG. (non-terminated)
120ft. 12 AWG Sloper
2 Radio Shack Loop Antennas
Radio Shack Amplified Antenna
30X30 DiamondLoop(six section 830pf Cap)
* Diamond Loop mounted to Lazy Susan TurnTable*
*21/2X2ft.FiveSpoked~Penta-Loop~PancakeLoop*

"GO BEARCATS" wrote:
Any radio really I'm talking about, but this is to help me with the 398
when I
get it back.

I ususally use the narrow filter, like, almost all the time. When would
one
listen to it on 'wide'? For a Big station or for music?

Tell me how you all use between your *narrow or wide*.......I am
interested.
:-)
How would it play on the BCB dxing?

The wider the filter, the better the high frequency audio response will be.
If the signal is strong and there is no adjacent channel interference, I
always use the wide filter for AM reception.

Depending what the actual "width" of the filter is, the narrow filter can
make the audio sound muffled.

You'd use the narrow filter for ssb, and for weak AM signals surrounded by
intereference.

Art N2AH

Wide for listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Narrow for DXing.

jw
K9RZZ

J999w wrote:

Wide for listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Narrow for DXing.

Who would have thought! The narrower the world view, the wider the
filter? You'd think it should be the the other way around!




mike

"m II" wrote in message
news:58umc.4911$uN4.733@clgrps12...
J999w wrote:

Wide for listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Narrow for DXing.

Who would have thought! The narrower the world view, the wider the
filter? You'd think it should be the the other way around!


Nah, it seems to work that way--some kind of irony. Michael Moore's
myopic movies are produced for the wide screen despite the narrowness
of their perspective.

FWIW, I also only use the narrow filter on the 398 when there's
adjacent interference and default to the wide.

T. Early wrote:

FWIW, I also only use the narrow filter on the 398 when there's
adjacent interference and default to the wide.

Being lazy I got a 398 for narrow filter settings and a 909 right next
to it for wide. It saves wear on the sliding switches. I also became
ambidextrous, so I can now tune BOTH sets in unison. Hope I never get a
stroke...



mike

Being lazy I got a 398 for narrow filter settings and a 909 right next
to it for wide. It saves wear on the sliding switches. I also became
ambidextrous, so I can now tune BOTH sets in unison. Hope I never get a
stroke...

Hheheh... actually that sounds like you have the makings of a neat diversity
reception system. Combine the audio outputs of each radio (a headphone mixer,
etc.), each with a different external antenna (seperated from each other by as
much distance as you can muster), and then tune the same frequency. You should
notice different fading patterns on each antenna/radio, and combining these can
often lead to a lot less fading apparent to your ears.
Linus

GrtPmpkin32 wrote:

Hheheh... actually that sounds like you have the makings of a neat diversity
reception system. Combine the audio outputs of each radio (a headphone mixer,
etc.), each with a different external antenna (seperated from each other by as
much distance as you can muster), and then tune the same frequency. You should
notice different fading patterns on each antenna/radio, and combining these can
often lead to a lot less fading apparent to your ears.
Linus

That's a neat idea. It makes me wish I had an acreage instead of a thin
city lot. Once I get the garage done at the back of the lot I'll be able
to string out roughly 120 ft of longwire. There will be a chunk of rigid
pipe going up on the rear of the garage and on the side of the house.
It'll be about 17 feet off the ground at the garage and 14 feet at the
house.

I need to find information on hidden antennas. I'd like to put a few
hundred feet of #12 inside the garage ceiling before drywalling. It's a
peaked ceiling, resembling an A frame. I just don't know how effective
this would be. Picture the wire as being in a rectangular pyramid shape,
with last leg going down the length of the peak. I was thinking of
spacing the wire roughly 8 to 12 inches apart, winding evenly around the
inside. I'll terminate one end near a bench inside a small electrical
box, with a screw terminal in the cover.

I've got to find out the efficiency of this set up. It may be that the
wire going south will be defeated by the wire going north...and the same
for east and west. If that IS the case, I'd get an antenna that is the
electrical equivalent length to only the RISE above ground. It'd be a
shame to use hundreds of feet of wire to get ten feet of work out it.

There must be formulas somewhere.



mike

That's a neat idea. It makes me wish I had an acreage instead of a thin
city lot.

It doesn't take much wire, just enough to get a difference in reception angles
(sorry to those who know better, if I'm goofing up terms here!) and enough so
that each radio has slightly different reception. Then when you mix the
outputs, you may see less fading. I've never attempted a diversity set-up, so
I'm no expert, but it seems fun.

I'd like to put a few
hundred feet of #12 inside the garage ceiling before drywalling. It's a
peaked ceiling, resembling an A frame. I just don't know how effective
this would be.

So long as it's not going to pick a lot of man-made noise from your house
(appliances, dimmers, etc.), then at the very least it's a cheap and very
hidden antenna, and can hardly be a risk to try!

If that IS the case, I'd get an antenna that is the
electrical equivalent length to only the RISE above ground. It'd be a
shame to use hundreds of feet of wire to get ten feet of work out

Somehow I don't think that would be the problem. It sounds like more of a
pyramid-shaped depth wound loop antenna, just on a larger scale. At the very
least, you've got way more capture area than if you just used a ten foot long
vertical piece of wire, so it won't be a bust in that sense.
Try this site, if you haven't been there already, for hidden antenna ideas,
some antenna formulae, etc. :

http://www.hard-core-dx.com/nordicdx/antenna/index.html

There's a LOT of good info to pore over on the ol' HCDX site.
Best of luck (and if and when you get that pyramid antenna going, PLEASE let us
all know how it comes along!)-
Linus

GrtPmpkin32 wrote:

Somehow I don't think that would be the problem. It sounds like more of a
pyramid-shaped depth wound loop antenna, just on a larger scale. At the very
least, you've got way more capture area than if you just used a ten foot long
vertical piece of wire, so it won't be a bust in that sense.
Try this site, if you haven't been there already, for hidden antenna ideas,
some antenna formulae, etc. :

http://www.hard-core-dx.com/nordicdx/antenna/index.html


Thank you, Sir.




mike