Elecraft

Anyone compare K2 RX with a classic rig?

Classic

List

Threaded

11 messages Options

Darwin, Keith

Anyone compare K2 RX with a classic rig?

Rick Dettinger-2

Re: Anyone compare K2 RX with a classic rig?

Hi folks,

Lately, I've been on the hunt for a 2nd receiver just for fun. I'm
looking for Drake R-4B. During this time, I've been wondering if I'll
want to put a full B-Line on the air or will just have an R-4B as a
backup RX. The answer to that depends largely on how the R-4B (or A if
that's what I end up with) sounds & performs compared to the K2.

I continue to be impressed with the K2 receiver. I'm wondering how it
compares to the R-4* receivers or any other non-DSP boat anchor classic
receiver from years gone by. I've already compared it to an Omni V and
IC-735 and the K2 was better than either. We won't even talk about how
much better the K2's RX is than the Century 21 or Century 22 :-) I had
a very mint TS-830s but not at the same time as the K2 so I didn't get a
chance to compare them.

K2 vs. Drake R-4B; there are several things we know going in. K2 uses
xtal filtering in the IF. R-4(A,B) use LC. K2 is single conversion,
R-4* is triple. This suggests to me that the K2 will have better
rejection of off freq signals and a better S/N ratio. Actual results
are TBD.

I'm sure at least one of you has a classic Drake or Collins rig that
you've had a chance to compare to the K2. What say ye?

- Keith KD1E -
- K2 5411 -
=========================================================
Keith - I had an R4C and liked it alot. However, it can't compare with
the K2 for receiver dynamics. Unless it has the Sherwood Engr. front end
mods. More important to me is the QSK with the K2. The R4C used vox for
keying. In my opinion, the greatest advantage to modern rigs is the QSK
keying. Its like turning the lights on in a dark room. And as far as
dynamic range goes, not only does the K2 have all the boat anchors beat, but
I think the K1 does also. Recently, QST reviewed an old Collins and found
an IMD dynamic range in the low 70's. The K1 is about 20 db better.
However, you will enjoy using the Drake. Besides an ergo layout and real
knobs, it has proper passband tuning (at the expense of several stages of
conversion) and an analog S meter. I may be thinking of of a K3 here.
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

Alexandra Carter

KX1 vs. FT-817

In reply to this post by Darwin, Keith

With all this talk of nearly-deaf KX1's I'm beginning to wonder.....

Which has a better reciever, the KX1 or the Yaesu FT-817? Because in
my experience, the FT-817 is Much better. Could I have built my KX1
with the deafness problem and not known it?

73 de Alex NS6Y

_______________________________________________
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 Younce

Re: KX1 vs. FT-817

I can't speak for other KX1's but I just finished building SN: 1542 and
checked the sensitivity of it with my Cushman CE-6A Service Monitor and I
was able to hear the signal generator set to 0.1 microvolts on all four
bands (80-40-30 & 20).

73
Jim Younce K4ZM

_______________________________________________
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

wayne burdick

Re: KX1 vs. FT-817

Administrator

In reply to this post by Alexandra Carter

Alex, a "deaf" KX1 would be one that has an assembly error somewhere.
The KX1 has excellent sensitivity and plenty of audio output. We
recommend earbuds or other sensitive headphones, but it can also be
used with a small speaker as long as you use a stereo plug.

The FT817 certainly has more audio output, which is appropriate since
it's often used in mobile installations. But in terms of MDS, the KX1
should be as good or better. The KX1 also comes with a narrow crystal
filter -- optional on the FT-817.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

---

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

Alexandra Carter

Re: KX1 vs. FT-817

In reply to this post by Alexandra Carter

I am very happy to announce that I am apparently all wet!

From the sound of it, the KX1 I built a couple of years ago had some
undocumented "features" built in like perhaps the partial deafness
problem. Some serious testing on my part would have sniffed this out
and caused me to hunt down and solve the problem.

I am working on a K1 now, and when it's done I'll make sure it's
recieving the way it ought to.

73 de Alex NS6Y

On Jul 10, 2006, at 1:56 PM, ron wrote:
>
> I always thought them KX1's were far superior to them 817's!
_______________________________________________
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

Karl Larsen

Re: KX1 vs. FT-817

When you try to compare two radios you get into a can of worms. I
own an FT-817 of about 5 years ago and it's a fine radio. It covers 6
meters and the two VHF-UHF bands that are not on a KX1.

But the KX1 uses less input power on receive and thus will last a
lot longer on the internal battery pack.

But the KX1 has no SSB and the FT-817 does.

You go around like this and miss the real good points of both radios
:-)

The KX1 is made to be carried in a pack to hard to walk to places. It
has a built in paddle and it works fine. I have taken my FT-817 on
similar trips and it does well too, but it needs more battery.

So both radios do the same thing but the FT-817 does a few more tricks.

73 Karl K5DI

Alexandra Carter wrote:

> I am very happy to announce that I am apparently all wet!
>
> From the sound of it, the KX1 I built a couple of years ago had some
> undocumented "features" built in like perhaps the partial deafness
> problem. Some serious testing on my part would have sniffed this out
> and caused me to hunt down and solve the problem.
>
> I am working on a K1 now, and when it's done I'll make sure it's
> recieving the way it ought to.
>
> 73 de Alex NS6Y
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2006, at 1:56 PM, ron wrote:
>>
>> I always thought them KX1's were far superior to them 817's!
> _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
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

Alexandra Carter

Re: KX1 vs. FT-817

Yes, two completely different animals.

I recently bought an Icom IC-7000, my friend Dale got one and if it's
good enough for him it's darned good. My impressions so far are,
Darned Good! But, which would I rather have out on the park here on
our Thursday lunchtime get-togethers? Probably the K1 I'm building.
Which is easiest to pull out of a backpack, throw a wire up into a
tree, and work some CW from the bluffs overlooking Maverick's? Sure I
can take the 7000 places but it needs many lbs of batts.

The original point was, Why was I able to hear so much more on my 817
than on my KX1? And I think the conclusion was that I'd not built my
KX1 right somehow, and some testing with a decent sig-gen and seeing
if it would meet factory specs would have shown me that. 73 de Alex
NS6Y.

On Jul 11, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Karl Larsen wrote:

> When you try to compare two radios you get into a can of worms.
> I own an FT-817 of about 5 years ago and it's a fine radio. It
> covers 6 meters and the two VHF-UHF bands that are not on a KX1.
>
> But the KX1 uses less input power on receive and thus will last
> a lot longer on the internal battery pack.
>
> But the KX1 has no SSB and the FT-817 does.
>
> You go around like this and miss the real good points of both
> radios :-)
>
> The KX1 is made to be carried in a pack to hard to walk to places.
> It has a built in paddle and it works fine. I have taken my FT-817
> on similar trips and it does well too, but it needs more battery.
>
> So both radios do the same thing but the FT-817 does a few more
> tricks.
>
> 73 Karl K5DI
>
>
>
>
> Alexandra Carter wrote:
>> I am very happy to announce that I am apparently all wet!
>>
>> From the sound of it, the KX1 I built a couple of years ago had
>> some undocumented "features" built in like perhaps the partial
>> deafness problem. Some serious testing on my part would have
>> sniffed this out and caused me to hunt down and solve the problem.
>>
>> I am working on a K1 now, and when it's done I'll make sure it's
>> recieving the way it ought to.
>>
>> 73 de Alex NS6Y
>>
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2006, at 1:56 PM, ron wrote:
>>>
>>> I always thought them KX1's were far superior to them 817's!
>> _______________________________________________
>

Karl Larsen

Re: KX1 vs. FT-817

Alexandra Carter wrote:
> Yes, two completely different animals.
>
> I recently bought an Icom IC-7000, my friend Dale got one and if it's
> good enough for him it's darned good.
I keep a schedule with WF5A Karl Hess, and he has to have the latest
in radio and he also bought a Icom 7000 and he sounds real good. We both
have the FT-857D and the FT-817 and know that we cut our teeth on the
817 with menue's and then got more menu's and then finally on the 7000
even more menu's :-)
> My impressions so far are, Darned Good! But, which would I rather have
> out on the park here on our Thursday lunchtime get-togethers? Probably
> the K1 I'm building. Which is easiest to pull out of a backpack, throw
> a wire up into a tree, and work some CW from the bluffs overlooking
> Maverick's? Sure I can take the 7000 places but it needs many lbs of
> batts. The K1 was designed to take to the field with a modest battery.

>
> The original point was, Why was I able to hear so much more on my 817
> than on my KX1? And I think the conclusion was that I'd not built my
> KX1 right somehow, and some testing with a decent sig-gen and seeing
> if it would meet factory specs would have shown me that. 73 de Alex NS6Y.
>
Hi Alex, I have wanted a KX1 for years. Often you have been looking
at that radio for a long time, you can't see the tree for the forest. If
you want I will be glad to look at your KX1 and find the receiver
problem. I need the radio and the manual if you would like to try this.
I have put together a AT Sprint 3 which is 99% SM devices. I have a BIG
magnifying light on an arm and all the tools you can need.

73 Karl

> On Jul 11, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Karl Larsen wrote:
>
>> When you try to compare two radios you get into a can of worms. I
>> own an FT-817 of about 5 years ago and it's a fine radio. It covers 6
>> meters and the two VHF-UHF bands that are not on a KX1.
>>
>> But the KX1 uses less input power on receive and thus will last a
>> lot longer on the internal battery pack.
>>
>> But the KX1 has no SSB and the FT-817 does.
>>
>> You go around like this and miss the real good points of both
>> radios :-)
>>
>> The KX1 is made to be carried in a pack to hard to walk to places. It
>> has a built in paddle and it works fine. I have taken my FT-817 on
>> similar trips and it does well too, but it needs more battery.
>>
>> So both radios do the same thing but the FT-817 does a few more
>> tricks.
>>
>> 73 Karl K5DI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Alexandra Carter wrote:
>>> I am very happy to announce that I am apparently all wet!
>>>
>>> From the sound of it, the KX1 I built a couple of years ago had some
>>> undocumented "features" built in like perhaps the partial deafness
>>> problem. Some serious testing on my part would have sniffed this out
>>> and caused me to hunt down and solve the problem.
>>>
>>> I am working on a K1 now, and when it's done I'll make sure it's
>>> recieving the way it ought to.
>>>
>>> 73 de Alex NS6Y
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2006, at 1:56 PM, ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I always thought them KX1's were far superior to them 817's!
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
>
>

Don Wilhelm-3

RE: KX1 vs. FT-817

In reply to this post by Alexandra Carter

> -----Original Message-----
>
> Yes, two completely different animals.
>
> I recently bought an Icom IC-7000, my friend Dale got one and if it's
> good enough for him it's darned good. My impressions so far are,
> Darned Good! But, which would I rather have out on the park here on
> our Thursday lunchtime get-togethers? Probably the K1 I'm building.
> Which is easiest to pull out of a backpack, throw a wire up into a
> tree, and work some CW from the bluffs overlooking Maverick's? Sure I
> can take the 7000 places but it needs many lbs of batts.
>
> The original point was, Why was I able to hear so much more on my 817
> than on my KX1? And I think the conclusion was that I'd not built my
> KX1 right somehow, and some testing with a decent sig-gen and seeing
> if it would meet factory specs would have shown me that. 73 de Alex
> NS6Y.
>
>

Ron D'Eau Claire-2

Comparative Performance (WAS: KX1 vs. FT-817)

When I compare 2 radios without using proper test equipment, for one thing I
consider is the radio's ability to hear the weakest of signals. I use the
same antenna and tune one radio for a weak signal and then switch the
antenna to the other radio and see how well it receives that same signal. I
continue that for some time searching for the weaker signals.

Loudness by itself is not a proper criteria, and often can be misleading -
it has too many dependencies, like how much raw audio power is available?
how is the AGC activation making a difference? how much noise is present in
the receiver? etc.

MDS measurements as described in the XG1 manual can be meaningful and do not
take a lot of equipment. If the DMM is not capable of displaying a low
audio output level, a 'scope can be used in place of the DMM to measure the
AF voltage and give meaningful results.

73,
Don W3FPR

--------------------

That's a game I like to play with my homebrew receivers too. As a
tinkerer/builder, one reason I like to have a 'state-of-the-art' rig on hand
is to use it for making comparisons in actual on-air use to various homebrew
projects.

I have a regenerative receiver using only two tubes and a handful of parts
that is just as sensitive as my K2, within the range of my ability to hear.
That is, if I find a signal that's a whisper on the noise in the K2, it's
there with the regen too!

Does that mean the regen is as good as the K2? Far from it! Just let the
band get a bit crowded and the regen collapses. Regenerative detectors are
amazingly sensitive, but have a very limited dynamic range and, at best,
fair selectivity.

When I used to service radio consoles on large ships, it was common for the
backup receiver for 'Sparks' to be a regenerative receiver. The main
receiver was a modern superhet, but the backup kept in case the main
receiver failed in the middle of an emergency was whatever the receiver the
new main had replaced.

One time I returned a regenerative receiver I had taken to the shop to fix
and, after installing it in the CW console while Sparks looked on, I turned
it on. The speaker erupted with a cacophony of overload QRM from all the
high-power broadcast stations surrounding us on the San Francisco Bay. I
commented to Sparks that the receiver was working properly but they aren't
any good in that sort of large-signal environment.

I think Sparks was as old as the receiver. He cast one baleful eye on my and
said, "Sonny, if this tub's a-sinkin' out there and some guy is so strong
he's block'n my regen, he's the first one I WANT to talk to!"

'nuf said! What constitutes the best performance depends upon where and how
it's used.

Ron AC7AC

_______________________________________________
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