2.7 vs 2.8 filter choice

[Ken Kopp-3]

Unless I've missed something along the way, it seems
like the "concern" over which filter to choose comes
down to a question of cost.

Given the cost of a K3, the price difference between
the two filters seems to be of little consequence.  Is
there a reason to prefer the 2.7 over a 2.8 -other-
than cost?  To me there wasn't.  

Yes, I realize some of us are more "thrifty" than others
and perhaps this is the issue.  If I have to ponder over
whether to pay the difference between the 2.7 and the
better 2.8 filter, then perhaps I shouldn't be buying the
radio.  The cost difference is a very small percentage
of the overall cost.

Ken Kopp - K0PP
[hidden email]
or
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Jim K4ZMV]

If one is a CW only operator, this is a non-issue.  I ordered the 1 KHz, 400
Hz, and 250 Hz 8 pole filters as I fit in the CW only category.  The 2.7 KHz
filter is the default and is fine with me.

All the Elecraft radios are marvelous CW machines.  It is a wonder to me
that most of the comments (and criticisms) seen on this reflector are about
voice and digital issues.

73, Jim, K4ZMV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kopp" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 3:01 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8 filter choice

> Unless I've missed something along the way, it seems like the "concern"
> over which filter to choose comes down to a question of cost.
>
> Given the cost of a K3, the price difference between the two filters seems
> to be of little consequence.  Is there a reason to prefer the 2.7 over a
> 2.8 -other-
> than cost?  To me there wasn't.
> Yes, I realize some of us are more "thrifty" than others
> and perhaps this is the issue.  If I have to ponder over
> whether to pay the difference between the 2.7 and the
> better 2.8 filter, then perhaps I shouldn't be buying the radio.  The cost
> difference is a very small percentage
> of the overall cost.
>
> Ken Kopp - K0PP
> [hidden email]
> or
> [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Craig Smith]

In my opinion the difficulty in making the choice is because of the pricing
structure adapted by Elecraft for this option.  If the filters were sold
"ala carte", and you needed to buy the 2.7 or 2.8 in addition to the K3 (or
sub receiver), I'm guessing that most people, including me, would elect to
pay $120 for the 2.8 rather than $100 for the 2.7.  At only a $20
differential, the better skirt performance is very reasonably priced.  But
last time I checked, there was a $70 price adder to substitute the 2.8 for
the "standard" 2.7.  That is a much bigger out-of-pocket cost for a
questionable increase in performance and has people scratching their heads
before making the decision.  I went with the 2.7, but would have gone with
the 2.8 if the cost differential was less.  

Question for Aptos: Would it be possible to make this choice easier when the
sub receiver becomes available?  I would prefer to have at least one 2.8
filter, but not at the present pricing differential.  I would prefer the
"ala carte" approach.

               73
                           ... Craig  AC0DS


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Alan Bloom]

OK I wasn't going to comment on this but I finally got sucked in.  :=)

My opinion is that the 2.7 kHz 5-pole filter is already so much better
than the 20+ kHz roofing filters in most radios that the 8-pole filter
makes very little additional improvement.  I'd rather save the $95.

AL N1AL


On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 11:15, jimbrass wrote:

> If one is a CW only operator, this is a non-issue.  I ordered the 1 KHz, 400
> Hz, and 250 Hz 8 pole filters as I fit in the CW only category.  The 2.7 KHz
> filter is the default and is fine with me.
>
> All the Elecraft radios are marvelous CW machines.  It is a wonder to me
> that most of the comments (and criticisms) seen on this reflector are about
> voice and digital issues.
>
> 73, Jim, K4ZMV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Kopp" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 3:01 PM
> Subject: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8 filter choice
>
>
> > Unless I've missed something along the way, it seems like the "concern"
> > over which filter to choose comes down to a question of cost.
> >
> > Given the cost of a K3, the price difference between the two filters seems
> > to be of little consequence.  Is there a reason to prefer the 2.7 over a
> > 2.8 -other-
> > than cost?  To me there wasn't.
> > Yes, I realize some of us are more "thrifty" than others
> > and perhaps this is the issue.  If I have to ponder over
> > whether to pay the difference between the 2.7 and the
> > better 2.8 filter, then perhaps I shouldn't be buying the radio.  The cost
> > difference is a very small percentage
> > of the overall cost.
> >
> > Ken Kopp - K0PP
> > [hidden email]
> > or
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Post to: [hidden email]
> > You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Rick Dettinger-3]

On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig D. Smith wrote:

>
> In my opinion the difficulty in making the choice is because of the  
> pricing
> structure adapted by Elecraft for this option.  If the filters were  
> sold
> "ala carte", and you needed to buy the 2.7 or 2.8 in addition to the  
> K3 (or
> sub receiver), I'm guessing that most people, including me, would  
> elect to
> pay $120 for the 2.8 rather than $100 for the 2.7.
>
>
>
> =======================

> I think that Elecraft wanted to sell a working radio for the base  
> price.  That is the way that I ordered my K3 and it has worked very  
> well.  I am a CW only operator and I would never have considered  
> ordering any rig without a 500 hz filter, in years gone by.  For my  
> use, since I am not a contest operator and run from pileups, I found  
> the 2.7 khz filter just fine with the bandwidth set at CW widths.  I  
> have since ordered the 6 khz, 1 khz and 500 hz filters, just  
> because.  Also, the general coverage filter board because I didn't  
> have a good general coverage receiver.  I have read discussions on  
> other reflectors  involving the concept that under heavy QRN  
> conditions, filters characterized as having steep skirts, with the  
> resulting sharp shoulders, cause mixing products with the desired  
> signal, and that the result is unpleasant to listen to when QRM is  
> not a problem.  For the operating I do, especially on the lower  
> frequencies, QRN is usually the problem.  I seldom have to deal with  
> QRM over S9 and have decided to go with the 5 pole filters where  
> they are available.  But I am also fine with the 8 pole, 1 khz  
> filter to experiment with.  This seems to be my go to filter on CW  
> these days but I will be comparing  both.  With a strong interfering  
> signal close by, I can use the 1 khz filter, with its steeper  
> skirts, along with shift, to eliminate the QRM.   The shift seems to  
> change the center of the passband in 50 hz steps.  I usually have to  
> fine tune with VFO A after getting close with the shift control.  
> Not a problem, as I am always working split, since  I prefer that to  
> RIT.
>
> 73
> Rick Dettinger
> K7MW

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[hf4me]

I think the reason for "including" a filter (2.7 or 2.8) is that it is
REQUIRED for transmit.  IF one was not included we would be forced to buy
one and people would be bitching about that.

I believe the better solution would be to offer a choice of the 2.7 or 2.8
and give the credit closer to the $100 they charge for the other 5 pole
filters.  i.e.. substituting the 2.8 for the 2.7 would be $25 or so, not
$95.  If the 2.7 costs them $30 and they sell it for $100, good for them.
BUT if the 2.8 costs them $25 more as reflected in their retail price of
$125 vs. $100, then allow the substitution for $25 (or even 40 or maybe 50
but NOT $95).  WHY?  It just isn't right.

IMHO,
Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Dettinger" <[hidden email]>
To: "Elecraft" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8 filter choice K3

>
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig D. Smith wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion the difficulty in making the choice is because of the
> > pricing
> > structure adapted by Elecraft for this option.  If the filters were
> > sold
> > "ala carte", and you needed to buy the 2.7 or 2.8 in addition to the
> > K3 (or
> > sub receiver), I'm guessing that most people, including me, would
> > elect to
> > pay $120 for the 2.8 rather than $100 for the 2.7.
> >
> >
> >
> > =======================
>
> > I think that Elecraft wanted to sell a working radio for the base
> > price.  That is the way that I ordered my K3 and it has worked very
> > well.  I am a CW only operator and I would never have considered
> > ordering any rig without a 500 hz filter, in years gone by.  For my
> > use, since I am not a contest operator and run from pileups, I found
> > the 2.7 khz filter just fine with the bandwidth set at CW widths.  I
> > have since ordered the 6 khz, 1 khz and 500 hz filters, just
> > because.  Also, the general coverage filter board because I didn't
> > have a good general coverage receiver.  I have read discussions on
> > other reflectors  involving the concept that under heavy QRN
> > conditions, filters characterized as having steep skirts, with the
> > resulting sharp shoulders, cause mixing products with the desired
> > signal, and that the result is unpleasant to listen to when QRM is
> > not a problem.  For the operating I do, especially on the lower
> > frequencies, QRN is usually the problem.  I seldom have to deal with
> > QRM over S9 and have decided to go with the 5 pole filters where
> > they are available.  But I am also fine with the 8 pole, 1 khz
> > filter to experiment with.  This seems to be my go to filter on CW
> > these days but I will be comparing  both.  With a strong interfering
> > signal close by, I can use the 1 khz filter, with its steeper
> > skirts, along with shift, to eliminate the QRM.   The shift seems to
> > change the center of the passband in 50 hz steps.  I usually have to
> > fine tune with VFO A after getting close with the shift control.
> > Not a problem, as I am always working split, since  I prefer that to
> > RIT.
> >
> > 73
> > Rick Dettinger
> > K7MW
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com