Elecraft › [K3]

2.7 vs 2.8

Classic

List

Threaded

28 messages Options

bobgarceau

2.7 vs 2.8

I'm getting a K3.

Is is worth taking the hit and replacing the 2.7 khz 5 pole with the 2.8 khz
8 pole?

Just to let you know, all the rest of the filters that I plan to buy will be
8 pole.

Bob, W1EQ

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

M0XDF

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

Since you seem to favour 8 pole, I'd say do it. You should be able to get a rebate on the 2.8kHz against the 2.7kHz.
Also, if you are going to get the KRX3, it's simple to align the 8 pole filters - otherwise you need to tell Elecraft what the offset of your 2.7kHz is
--
There is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience. -French proverb

On 12 Apr 2010, at 12:52, Bob Garceau wrote:

> I'm getting a K3.
>
>
>
> Is is worth taking the hit and replacing the 2.7 khz 5 pole with the 2.8 khz
> 8 pole?
>
> Just to let you know, all the rest of the filters that I plan to buy will be
> 8 pole.
>
>
>
> Bob, W1EQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Bill VanAlstyne W5WVO

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

I think David has hit upon the crux of the matter with the tag line in his
sig: "There is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience." Will you be able to
tell the difference in actual single-receiver operation between the 2.7 kHz
5-pole and the 2.8 kHz 8-pole filters? Almost certainly not. But will it
make you feel more comfortable, knowing you have the better 8-pole filter in
all slots? Undoubtedly, based on reading between your lines! Is it worth the
cost differential? For you, sure, probably.

If and when I decide to buy the KRX3, I plan on replacing the 5-pole 2.7 kHz
filter in my main K3 with the 8-pole 2.8 kHz, along with an 8-pole in the
added KRX3. In the meantime, I'm finding the 5-pole filter works very
adequately. (I already have the 8-pole 1.8 kHz filter installed for narrow
SSB work, however, which works great in crowded bands.)

Bill W5WVO

--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Ferrington, M0XDF" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:05 AM
To: "Bob Garceau" <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8

> Since you seem to favour 8 pole, I'd say do it. You should be able to get
> a rebate on the 2.8kHz against the 2.7kHz.
> Also, if you are going to get the KRX3, it's simple to align the 8 pole
> filters - otherwise you need to tell Elecraft what the offset of your
> 2.7kHz is
> --
> There is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience. -French proverb
>
> On 12 Apr 2010, at 12:52, Bob Garceau wrote:
>
>> I'm getting a K3.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is is worth taking the hit and replacing the 2.7 khz 5 pole with the 2.8
>> khz
>> 8 pole?
>>
>> Just to let you know, all the rest of the filters that I plan to buy will
>> be
>> 8 pole.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob, W1EQ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>

M0XDF

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

Yes, I'll second that, the 1.8 filter does a good job on SSB, not sure how good the DSP alone would be because I've never tried it, but starting with a 'normal' 2.8 bandwidth and gradually reducing it down until is 1.8 does help a lot. I have the second preset on the filter set up for that.
BTW, don't use width and shift to get to the 1.8, use Hi/Lo cut and bring the lo point up a bit and the hi down the most - seems easier to get a good setting that way.
73 de M0XDF, K3 #174
--
The soul is the same in all living creatures, although the body is
different. -Hippocrates, physician (460-c.377 BCE)

On 12 Apr 2010, at 13:23, Bill VanAlstyne W5WVO wrote:

> I already have the 8-pole 1.8 kHz filter installed for narrow SSB work, however, which works great in crowded bands.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

hf4me

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

In reply to this post by bobgarceau

IMHO - NO. The 2.7 or 2.8 is used as your "normal" phone filter. The
difference is the slope of the skirts being steeper on the 8 pole, BUT, when
you NEED to rid yourself of close a close in strong station, you will be far
better off to have added a 2.1 or 1.8 filter rather than trying to "get by"
with the 2.7 OR the 2.8 filters.

I see I am bucking the vote here but for nearly the same money spent on
adding my 1.8, I see FAR better performance than having used it on 2.8
"upgrade" from the 2.7.

73, de Jim KG0KP

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Garceau" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:52 AM
Subject: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8

> I'm getting a K3.
>
>
>
> Is is worth taking the hit and replacing the 2.7 khz 5 pole with the 2.8
> khz
> 8 pole?
>
> Just to let you know, all the rest of the filters that I plan to buy will
> be
> 8 pole.
>
>
>
> Bob, W1EQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Barry N1EU

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

hf4me wrote

The difference is the slope of the skirts being steeper on the 8 pole, BUT, when
you NEED to rid yourself of close a close in strong station, you will be far
better off to have added a 2.1 or 1.8 filter rather than trying to "get by"
with the 2.7 OR the 2.8 filters.

Why? If there's a single offending station, using the shift control with a 2.8Khz-8pole filter will be just as effective as with a 1.8Khz-8pole filter in minimizing the interference since the slopes are similarly steep.

73, Barry N1EU

W8JI

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

<<Why? If there's a single offending station, using the
shift control with a
2.8Khz-8pole filter will be just as effective as with a
1.8Khz-8pole filter
in minimizing the interference since the slopes are
similarly steep.>>

I'm not a big fan of excessive shifting of passbands to
clean up QRM. The problem is the change in passband would
add other problems like noise that is lower pitched or,
depending on the IF and selectivy system, even a little
opposite sideband response. A narrower filter is always the
better option performance-wise.

The only debate is in cost vs. benefit. With passband tuning
(IF shift) and narrow and wider filters, I find myself
almost always using the narrower filter. Part of the reason
is if the band is clear away from the offending station, it
is easier to get everyone to turn the VFO dial. When there
is no room to move a little, then it is very obvious there
is QRM both above and below. For me it is a no-brainer. I
always buy an assortment of filters for each mode that
includes normal and "extra narrow".

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Johnny Siu

Re： 2.7 vs 2.8

In reply to this post by M0XDF

Hi everyone,

From my past experience with K3, I felt the stock 2.7Khz filter was not bad at all. Therefore, I quite agree to that proposal of equipping an additional narrow filter instead of replacing the 2.7Khz filter with 2.8khz filter.

73

Johnny VR2XMC

----- 郵件原件 ----
寄件人﹕ "David Ferrington, M0XDF" <[hidden email]>
收件人﹕ Bill VanAlstyne W5WVO <[hidden email]>
副本(CC) [hidden email]
傳送日期﹕ 2010/4/12 (一) 8:30:11 PM
主題： Re: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8

Yes, I'll second that, the 1.8 filter does a good job on SSB, not sure how good the DSP alone would be because I've never tried it, but starting with a 'normal' 2.8 bandwidth and gradually reducing it down until is 1.8 does help a lot. I have the second preset on the filter set up for that.
BTW, don't use width and shift to get to the 1.8, use Hi/Lo cut and bring the lo point up a bit and the hi down the most - seems easier to get a good setting that way.
73 de M0XDF, K3 #174
--
The soul is the same in all living creatures, although the body is
different. -Hippocrates, physician (460-c.377 BCE)

On 12 Apr 2010, at 13:23, Bill VanAlstyne W5WVO wrote:

> I already have the 8-pole 1.8 kHz filter installed for narrow SSB work, however, which works great in crowded bands.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

In reply to this post by bobgarceau

> Is is worth taking the hit and replacing the 2.7 khz 5 pole
> with the 2.8 khz 8 pole?

Since the "saving" of the exchange is only $30, it's hardly
worth it. If you are going to purchase multiple filters,
the discount by purchasing all of them from Inrad (particularly
if you can combine your order with a friend or two) will just
about make up the difference.

Even if you were planning to use 5-pole CW filters instead of
the 8-pole filters, staying with the 2.7 KHz filters instead
of the 8-pole upgrade would pay for the CW filter.

The K3 generates its ultimate selectivity and shape factor in
the DSP. Early testing shows minimal difference in the behavior
of the 2.7 and 2.8 KHz filters in the "first 30 dB" of rejection
that is key to IMD performance.

On the other hand, an optional 2.4 KHz 8-pole filter INSTEAD
of 2.7 or 2.8 KHz would be very interesting.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bob Garceau
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 7:52 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8
>
>
> I'm getting a K3.
>
>
>
> Is is worth taking the hit and replacing the 2.7 khz 5 pole
> with the 2.8 khz 8 pole?
>
> Just to let you know, all the rest of the filters that I plan
> to buy will be 8 pole.
>
>
>
> Bob, W1EQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

lstavenhagen

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

In reply to this post by hf4me

I also vote no on the 2.8 8 pole and instead investing in a seperate narrower 8 pole. SSB is always like trying to hold a conversation in a drunken bar during Mardi Gras anyway (the main reason I've never used voice modes in my amateur career), so you need something really stiff at narrower setting if you want to block heavy QRM.

The DSP does a pretty good job but adding in the crystal filter makes it absolutely like a brick wall. I have the 5 pole 2.7 and the 8 pole 400hz. The difference between say 450hz with the DSP and 400 with the filter also engaged is pretty dramatic when the sigs are really strong. Nothing outside that filter can get through, but with just the DSP, you can start to get artifacts from sigs that are still within the 2.7khz filter passband.

I'm probably going to get the 250hz 8 pole as well for CW and PSK as a result hi hi...

my .02,
73,
LS
W5QD

M0XDF

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

I didn't say in all this not to get a narrower filter too - I think Bob said he was buying other filters too.
73 de M0XDF, K3 #174
--
Don‘t complain. Nobody will understand. Or care. And certainly don‘t try
to fix the situation yourself. It‘s dangerous. Leave it to a highly
untrained, unqualified, expendable professional.

On 12 Apr 2010, at 15:56, lstavenhagen wrote:

>
> I also vote no on the 2.8 8 pole and instead investing in a seperate narrower
> 8 pole. SSB is always like trying to hold a conversation in a drunken bar
> during Mardi Gras anyway (the main reason I've never used voice modes in my
> amateur career), so you need something really stiff at narrower setting if
> you want to block heavy QRM.
>
> The DSP does a pretty good job but adding in the crystal filter makes it
> absolutely like a brick wall. I have the 5 pole 2.7 and the 8 pole 400hz.
> The difference between say 450hz with the DSP and 400 with the filter also
> engaged is pretty dramatic when the sigs are really strong. Nothing outside
> that filter can get through, but with just the DSP, you can start to get
> artifacts from sigs that are still within the 2.7khz filter passband.
>
> I'm probably going to get the 250hz 8 pole as well for CW and PSK as a
> result hi hi...

alorona

PBT Macros

In reply to this post by W8JI

> With passband tuning
> (IF shift) and narrow and wider filters, I find myself
> almost always using the narrower filter.

I caution you against equating PBT with IF shift; I did the same thing a few weeks ago and almost got my head chopped off by the resident gurus.

By the way, here are two trivial macros that I use to simulate --now, let me get this right-- *passband tuning*:

SHIFTDN   BW0200;IS 1000; (or even narrower if you desire)

SHIFTUP   BW0190;IS 1550;

UNSHIFT   BW0240;IS 9999; (or whatever normalized passband you desire)

Though I know you're not a fan of doing this, Tom, I occasionally employ this technique to pull an exchange out when the contest QRM is at the moment coming predominantly from one side.

I can't listen to SSB in narrower than about 2.0 kHz for very long; I get listener's fatigue. I have been astounded by the folks who have 1.5 kHz filters installed for SSB. For me to understand a guy in a 1.5 kHz bandwidth he would have to slow down his speech to twenty words per minute and repeat each word five times.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Guy, K2AV

Re: PBT Macros

I use 2.7 and matching DSP setting for almost all casual use.

I don't use the narrow SSB filter (1.8) except for contests and
occasional encroachment. In that case NOT being able to remove loud
sidebands from above and below is far more fatiguing. And I find
myself jockeying shift all during the contest based on conditions.
The narrow filter also keeps up or down loud sidebands from hitting
the analog-digital converter stage in the IF, and needing to engage
the (necessarily) primitive analog hardware protection AGC.

The narrow sounds great during the contest and when the contest is
over I can't stand it. : >)

73, Guy.

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Al Lorona <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> With passband tuning
>> (IF shift) and narrow and wider filters, I find myself
>> almost always using the narrower filter.
>
> I caution you against equating PBT with IF shift; I did the same thing a few weeks ago and almost got my head chopped off by the resident gurus.
>
> By the way, here are two trivial macros that I use to simulate --now, let me get this right-- *passband tuning*:
>
> SHIFTDN   BW0200;IS 1000; (or even narrower if you desire)
>
> SHIFTUP   BW0190;IS 1550;
>
> UNSHIFT   BW0240;IS 9999; (or whatever normalized passband you desire)
>
> Though I know you're not a fan of doing this, Tom, I occasionally employ this technique to pull an exchange out when the contest QRM is at the moment coming predominantly from one side.
>
> I can't listen to SSB in narrower than about 2.0 kHz for very long; I get listener's fatigue. I have been astounded by the folks who have 1.5 kHz filters installed for SSB. For me to understand a guy in a 1.5 kHz bandwidth he would have to slow down his speech to twenty words per minute and repeat each word five times.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

AD4C2009

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

In reply to this post by lstavenhagen

The 1.8 Khz 8 poles filter is a must,and not only for dx or contesting but also for daily night work.I run every night a net on 7130 Khz and I do have a russian guy who likes to be at 2 Khz below us to work Russia every night (N8OO) and sometimes he tries to push us away from that freq and starts calling cq just 1 Khz below us,so thanks to have in my K3 a 1.8Khz and setting the DSP at 1.6 Khz and shift on 1.0, I can ignore him at all because radio becomes a real brick,the guy always come 59+30 and its amazing how well I can notch him out with this narrow filter.

AD4C

"For a refined ham it is compulsory to own a k3"

--- On Mon, 4/12/10, lstavenhagen <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: lstavenhagen <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 2:56 PM

I also vote no on the 2.8 8 pole and instead investing in a seperate narrower
8 pole. SSB is always like trying to hold a conversation in a drunken bar
during Mardi Gras anyway (the main reason I've never used voice modes in my
amateur career), so you need something really stiff at narrower setting if
you want to block heavy QRM.

The DSP does a pretty good job but adding in the crystal filter makes it
absolutely like a brick wall. I have the 5 pole 2.7 and the 8 pole 400hz.
The difference between say 450hz with the DSP and 400 with the filter also
engaged is pretty dramatic when the sigs are really strong. Nothing outside
that filter can get through, but with just the DSP, you can start to get
artifacts from sigs that are still within the 2.7khz filter passband.

I'm probably going to get the 250hz 8 pole as well for CW and PSK as a
result hi hi...

my .02,
73,
LS
W5QD
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/2-7-vs-2-8-tp4889590p4890424.html
Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

k6dgw

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

In reply to this post by M0XDF

David Ferrington, M0XDF wrote:
> I didn't say in all this not to get a narrower filter too - I think
> Bob said he was buying other filters too.

I thought I understood this filter subject but now, after the thread,
not so much.

I thought the xtal roofing filter[s] are at the 1st IF [~8 MHz], and
their purpose is to restrict the passband coming out of the 1st mixer so
that strong adjacent signals don't make it to the 2nd mixer and DSP.
Thus, it seems to me that tweaking the roofing filters will only have
noticeable effects if you are plagued with very strong neighbors close
in on your frequency ... often.

If that is your plague, then I would expect an 8-pole filter to have
steeper skirts and would be a little more effective. If that isn't your
plague, I sort of doubt you could notice any difference at all. The AGC
loops in the K3 are a little complex, but I think the roofers keep
close-in adjacent signals out of them as well.

If you have the second Rx, I think it would make sense to have the same
filters in it as in the base K3. I don't have the 2nd Rx, I have the
"stock" SSB and CW filters, and I have no problem getting within a KHz
of Jack, KF6T [1.5 KW 2.7 km away] on CW. Ditto with WX6V and K6IDX.

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2010 Cal QSO Party 2-3 Oct 2010
- www.cqp.org
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Augie "Gus" Hansen

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

In reply to this post by AD4C2009

On 4/12/2010 11:28 AM, Hector Padron wrote:
> ... I run every night a net on 7130 Khz and I do have a russian guy who likes to be at 2 Khz below us
>

Most of the SSB signals that I hear these days are in the range of 2.5
to 3 kHz wide. Using LSB as we do on 40m means a reasonable carrier
frequency for a signal at the bottom of the phone segment is about 7128
kHz.

The intelligent thing to do might be to run your net at 7131 to avoid
interference to someone operating in that bottom "slot." Or if your
intent is to prevent someone from operating below you, move the net to
7128 kHz. Nothing says you need to operate on multiples of 5.

73,
Gus Hansen
KB0YH

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Michael Germino

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Isn't one of the advantage of the 2.8 is a slightly wider transmitted signal, that may sound better for casual operating?

I noticed all of the post have been about receiving.

Mike
AD6AA

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Bill K9YEQ

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8 vs 1.8 & 2.1

In reply to this post by M0XDF

I am using a pair of 8 pole 2.8 and am very happy. There is at times tons
of qrm on 75 meters in the evening. Question: Is anyone using the 2.8 and
2.1/1.8 filters and what is the on-the-air experience?

Bill
K9YEQ

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Ferrington,
M0XDF
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 7:06 AM
To: Bob Garceau
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8

Since you seem to favour 8 pole, I'd say do it. You should be able to get a
rebate on the 2.8kHz against the 2.7kHz.
Also, if you are going to get the KRX3, it's simple to align the 8 pole
filters - otherwise you need to tell Elecraft what the offset of your 2.7kHz
is
--
There is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience. -French proverb

On 12 Apr 2010, at 12:52, Bob Garceau wrote:

> I'm getting a K3.
>
>
>
> Is is worth taking the hit and replacing the 2.7 khz 5 pole with the 2.8
khz
> 8 pole?
>
> Just to let you know, all the rest of the filters that I plan to buy will
be

> 8 pole.
>
>
>
> Bob, W1EQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Bill K9YEQ

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8 vs 1.8 & 2.1

Skip my question.... should have read the archives first. I have my
answer... 1.8 for me.

Bill
K9YEQ

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bill K9YEQ
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 2:47 PM
To: 'David Ferrington, M0XDF'; 'Bob Garceau'
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8 vs 1.8 & 2.1

I am using a pair of 8 pole 2.8 and am very happy. There is at times tons
of qrm on 75 meters in the evening. Question: Is anyone using the 2.8 and
2.1/1.8 filters and what is the on-the-air experience?

Bill
K9YEQ

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Ferrington,
M0XDF
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 7:06 AM
To: Bob Garceau
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8

Since you seem to favour 8 pole, I'd say do it. You should be able to get a
rebate on the 2.8kHz against the 2.7kHz.
Also, if you are going to get the KRX3, it's simple to align the 8 pole
filters - otherwise you need to tell Elecraft what the offset of your 2.7kHz
is
--
There is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience. -French proverb

On 12 Apr 2010, at 12:52, Bob Garceau wrote:

> I'm getting a K3.
>
>
>
> Is is worth taking the hit and replacing the 2.7 khz 5 pole with the 2.8
khz
> 8 pole?
>
> Just to let you know, all the rest of the filters that I plan to buy will
be

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Mike Reublin

Re: 2.7 vs 2.8

In reply to this post by bobgarceau

I did.

73, Mike NF4L

Bob Garceau wrote: