K1 speaker replacement
Locked
 
|
Are these viable speaker replacements for the K1 when an internal battery
pack is used? http://www.regalusa.com/micro_speakers___receivers.html Alan KB7MBI ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.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 |
|
|
or even a KX1 spkr .... If anybody knows what Apple is using for the
iPhone spkrs... please holler. they sound pretty decent for the size. Niel [hidden email] wrote: > Are these viable speaker replacements for the K1 when an internal battery > pack is used? > > http://www.regalusa.com/micro_speakers___receivers.html > > Alan KB7MBI > > > > > ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by ARDUJENSKI
I seldom operate phone, but ARRL Sweepstakes Phone is one exception. Our
local contest club pushes all members to get on both modes of Sweepstakes for the club competition. I normally dread the approach of the phone weekend and while this year was no exception, I was curious how the K3 would perform and that provided a little incentive going into the fray. Well, I'm impressed! I can actually imagine doing another phone contest sometime. The K3 was simply wonderful compared to my prior experiences with other radios. Overall, there was significantly less operator fatigue. I never felt "beat up" by the horrendous conditions in this domestic phone contest. In recent years, I'd given up trying to find and hold a viable run frequency on 40 meters, but this time it was as easy as other bands. On receive, I used the 1.8kHz crystal filter with the same DSP bandwidth, although signals were quite intelligible down to 1.2kHz and at 1.5kHz there wasn't much degradation from 1.8kHz. As yet, the K3 filter center frequencies are not settable in the CONFIG menu, but I found that an IF SHIFT of -500Hz to work well with the 1.8kHz filter. (That's an FC of 1.10kHz.) For now, this results in a pass band icon in the display that is skewed to the left. I set up Presets I & II to be the 2.8 and 1.8kHz filters respectively and switching between them results in virtually the same desired audio, but with most of the undesired audio stripped off with the narrower filter ... just what you'd want. There is no sense of audio constriction, just absence of noise and other distractions in the pass band. Whenever I've used narrow SSB filters in the past with other radios, there was always a audio quality compromise that took my brain several hours of listening to get accustomed to. Intelligibility was severely compromised. The K3 is a whole different experience because all that happens with the narrower filter is you lose the fatigue-building sounds. Just like on the other modes, the problem in using the K3 is that you can operate so much closer to others that the stations you are working have problems unless they, too, are using the K3. I've never had so many occurrences of people asking me to move a bit further away from their transmit frequency. I predict that we will soon have a sense of signal spacing for K3s that much denser than other radios. This only works if both ends of the circuit are using K3s ... fortunate for Elecraft and hopefully motivating for other radio manufacturers. On transmit, I used a Heil headset with the HC4 element that is shaped for punch in crowded and/or weak signal conditions, rather than hi-fidelity. I set the K3 TX equalizer with the bottom three bands (50, 100 and 200) at -16dB, the 2.4kHz at +2dB and 3.2kHz at +4dB. Adding more at the high end is not generally needed with this mic element but my natural voice is weighted low in frequency so a bit more high emphasis is crisper. Compression was set to max at 30 and a lot of testing was done at other settings to determine that no ill effects were heard at the higher settings. However, signal quality was sensitive to Mic level. I found that when the Mic level was increased such that the K3's CMP meter kicked up above 10dB that clipping of voice peaks occurred. This is a bit backward from how one would normally adjust Mic and CMP, but it worked much better to ignore the ALC meter and just watch CMP when running the compressor wide open. Mic level was 15 on the 'L' range for both K3s. One anecdotal measure of improved TX audio quality was the number of repeats that I was asked for ... virtually none and those were only when a nearby strong signal was covering my own. In particular, in past Phone Sweepstakes I was asked every other QSO for a repeat on my Check (62) but this time it was no more asked for than other parts of the exchange. I was surprised at the number of unsolicited comments about "nice audio", which is a challenge to produce with high compression. VOX--another delightful story. I just never used VOX before the K3 because it was impractical, especially in a contest. The VOX and antiVOX settings were tricky to adjust and never worked well enough to allow comfortable use of it. I always felt like VOX was some kind of lab experiment that sort of worked but wasn't ready for prime time. Well, enter the K3 and all is changed. I ran with VOX the entire 24 hours and never even thought about it. The experience was totally transparent, and I mean that literally, much like the exceptional QSK on CW. I set VOX at 70, ANTIVOX at 0 and DELAY at 15. I started with DELAY at 5 as N0SS has noted and it worked fine but one critic noticed the transitions between words so I compromised at 15msec. I think it was more a "new experience" for my listener than an actual problem. Before the K3, there hasn't been a VOX (that I'm aware of) which operated so responsively. 5msec would have avoided a couple instances where the other station came back so fast that I missed part of the first letter of his call. ARRL Sweepstakes is one of the most punishing environments for a radio to tackle. In both modes, the K3 handled it with exceptional ease. It is now unthinkable to recall all the many phone Sweepstakes I've done in the past with other radios. 73, Ed - W0YK (K6YT in SS) _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Ed, I'm waiting for my K3 and I'm a phone man at present (working on my
Morse). I have a 2.8kHz and 400Hz on order. Reading your post, maybe I should consider either a 1.8 or a 2.1 kHz filter too. Given the option, which would choose? Anyone else want to chip in too please. Kind of decision I couldn't make back in May. On 19/11/07 18:50, "Ed Muns" <[hidden email]> sent: > On receive, I used the 1.8kHz crystal filter with the same DSP bandwidth, > although signals were quite intelligible down to 1.2kHz and at 1.5kHz there > wasn't much degradation from 1.8kHz. As yet, the K3 filter center -- When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. -John Muir, naturalist, explorer, and writer (1838-1914) _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Sorry, that should have been a choice between 1.5 & 1.8 ... On 19/11/07 19:19, "David Ferrington, M0XDF" <[hidden email]> sent: > Ed, I'm waiting for my K3 and I'm a phone man at present (working on my > Morse). > I have a 2.8kHz and 400Hz on order. Reading your post, maybe I should consider > either a 1.8 or a 2.1 kHz filter too. > Given the option, which would choose? > > Anyone else want to chip in too please. > > Kind of decision I couldn't make back in May. > > On 19/11/07 18:50, "Ed Muns" <[hidden email]> sent: >> On receive, I used the 1.8kHz crystal filter with the same DSP bandwidth, >> although signals were quite intelligible down to 1.2kHz and at 1.5kHz there >> wasn't much degradation from 1.8kHz. As yet, the K3 filter center -- Trust in Allah, but tie your camel. -Arabic saying _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ed Muns, W0YK
I can only second Ed's comments. I, too, am a non-phone operator
but SS did seem to be a good time to wring out the K3 on that mode. It's true, the vox/anti vox is flawless. No first syllable clipping and no annoying drop outs. The K3 audio is so clean that its a real pleasure to listen to. Ed and I are both in the same rf environment, more or less; he's on a hill and I'm in the flatlands but the K3 did a remarkable job with the very strong local signals in SCV. I had only the stock 2.7 filter but if I were ever to get serious about SSB I would go for the 1.8 filter. Doug W6JD K2 #1626, K3 #23 -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Ed Muns" <[hidden email]> > I seldom operate phone, but ARRL Sweepstakes Phone is one exception. Our > local contest club pushes all members to get on both modes of Sweepstakes > for the club competition. I normally dread the approach of the phone > weekend and while this year was no exception, I was curious how the K3 would > perform and that provided a little incentive going into the fray. > > Well, I'm impressed! I can actually imagine doing another phone contest > sometime. The K3 was simply wonderful compared to my prior experiences with > other radios. Overall, there was significantly less operator fatigue. I > never felt "beat up" by the horrendous conditions in this domestic phone > contest. In recent years, I'd given up trying to find and hold a viable run > frequency on 40 meters, but this time it was as easy as other bands. > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by M0XDF
If there were a 1.5kHz filter available, I might consider it. I'll be
talking with INRAD about it. You can see what 1.5kHz is like by moving the DSP down to 1.5kHz, or even lower. You just won't have the crystal filter to keep nearby strong signals out of the DSP. I think the 1.8kHz filter will be great for some time, until the entire world converts over to K3s with 1.8kHz filters. Then, you might need the advantage of 1.5kHz! In either case, though, the intelligible audio (the part you want to hear), is essentially identical between the 2.8 and 1.8, or even 1.5, bandwidths with the correct IF shift. I hope my post doesn't result in a disruptive run on 1.8kHz filters at Elecraft with a commensurate dearth of 2.1's in their stock (and, INRAD's)! 73, Ed - W0YK > -----Original Message----- > From: David Ferrington, M0XDF [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Monday, 19 November, 2007 11:21 > To: [hidden email]; Elecraft Reflector > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 in SS Phone > > > Sorry, that should have been a choice between 1.5 & 1.8 ... > > On 19/11/07 19:19, "David Ferrington, M0XDF" > <[hidden email]> sent: > > > Ed, I'm waiting for my K3 and I'm a phone man at present > (working on > > my Morse). > > I have a 2.8kHz and 400Hz on order. Reading your post, > maybe I should > > consider either a 1.8 or a 2.1 kHz filter too. > > Given the option, which would choose? > > > > Anyone else want to chip in too please. > > > > Kind of decision I couldn't make back in May. > > > > On 19/11/07 18:50, "Ed Muns" <[hidden email]> sent: > >> On receive, I used the 1.8kHz crystal filter with the same DSP > >> bandwidth, although signals were quite intelligible down to 1.2kHz > >> and at 1.5kHz there wasn't much degradation from 1.8kHz. > As yet, the > >> K3 filter center > > -- > Trust in Allah, but tie your camel. -Arabic saying > > > _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
Administrator
|
One of the variable-passband filters we've been considering is one for
SSB, with a range of about 1.4 to 2.2 kHz. It would have 5 poles rather than 8, but I'm sure it would work well in combination with the I.F. DSP. The MCU would automatically dial in the crystal filter bandwidth to match the DSP. This would be a slot-saver for those want multiple SSB RX bandwidths. Once the CW variable-passband filter was also ready, you might have: FL1 6.0 kHz FL2 2.7 or 2.8 kHz FL3 1.4-2.2 kHz (SSB variable passband crystal filter) FL4 0.4-0.8 kHz (CW variable passband crystal filter) FL5 200 Hz Variable filters covering a wide range will have slightly greater ripple than fixed filters when they approach either end of their range, so we'd only use them in receive mode. In the example above, FL2 would be used for SSB/CW/DATA transmit and FL1 for AM transmit. Those who wanted FM and were less concerned about the narrowest possible CW/DATA bandwidths could shift all of the filters down one slot, bumping out the 200-Hz filter. 73, Wayne N6KR On Nov 19, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Ed Muns wrote: > If there were a 1.5kHz filter available, I might consider it.... > --- 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 |
|
|
That looks like a very good plan - Wayne, you've just done yourself out of a
2.1kHz sale! I'll wait for the variables. Now should I swap my 400 for a 200? On 19/11/07 21:24, "wayne burdick" <[hidden email]> sent: > One of the variable-passband filters we've been considering is one for > SSB, with a range of about 1.4 to 2.2 kHz. It would have 5 poles rather > than 8, but I'm sure it would work well in combination with the I.F. > DSP. The MCU would automatically dial in the crystal filter bandwidth > to match the DSP. > > This would be a slot-saver for those want multiple SSB RX bandwidths. > Once the CW variable-passband filter was also ready, you might have: > > FL1 6.0 kHz > FL2 2.7 or 2.8 kHz > FL3 1.4-2.2 kHz (SSB variable passband crystal filter) > FL4 0.4-0.8 kHz (CW variable passband crystal filter) > FL5 200 Hz > > Variable filters covering a wide range will have slightly greater > ripple than fixed filters when they approach either end of their range, > so we'd only use them in receive mode. In the example above, FL2 would > be used for SSB/CW/DATA transmit and FL1 for AM transmit. Those who > wanted FM and were less concerned about the narrowest possible CW/DATA > bandwidths could shift all of the filters down one slot, bumping out > the 200-Hz filter. > > 73, > Wayne > N6KR Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. -Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642) _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
Administrator
|
Two followup comments. (1) I can't put a date or specs on the variable
filters yet. (2) Ebay is a good place for previously-owned fixed filters. :) 73, Wayne N6KR On Nov 19, 2007, at 1:42 PM, David Ferrington, M0XDF wrote: > That looks like a very good plan - Wayne, you've just done yourself > out of a > 2.1kHz sale! > I'll wait for the variables. > Now should I swap my 400 for a 200? > > On 19/11/07 21:24, "wayne burdick" <[hidden email]> sent: > >> One of the variable-passband filters we've been considering is one for >> SSB, with a range of about 1.4 to 2.2 kHz. --- 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 |
Re: K3 in SS Phone - non user observation
|
|
In reply to this post by Ed Muns, W0YK
Concerning SS Phone. The bands were extremely crowded which caused a whole lot of stress on the operators and rigs. I was multi-op at W0NO this year and we used a PROIII. I was not impressed. Well, it worked, but the fatigue I experienced after a 4 hours stint on the extremely crowded bands was about to drive me insane. I never have that with the K2 or an IC-765 which is a sweet sounding radio. The PROIII seem to have a lot of artifacts that garbled much of the audio because I think that the DSP was getting hit hard. Now, I am not a digital type of guy...but...there were times you just could not stand the "bacon frying" in the background. Since we area at the lowest point in the cycle....a lot of people were crowded into three bands (160 was active but never got there)...with a lot of power...big antennas...and a whole lot of yelling (Hi). I was wondering how the K3 did in the mess. This was a good test for the K3 I haven't ordered mine yet....I am looking forward to number 3500 or so.... For now, I will stick with the K2 and the PROII...but the penny jar is getting full. Lee - K0WA In our day and age it seems that Common Sense is in short supply. If you don't have any Common Sense - get some Common Sense and use it. If you can't find any Common Sense, ask for help from somebody who has some Common Sense. Is Common Sense divine? _______________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Re: K3 in SS Phone
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
I suspect there's going to be some very nice QRP rig designs that use
2.7kHz filters at 8.215 MHz. Speaking of filters, I find it amusing that there's a 2.1kHz filter available (I have one), but the WIDTH value jumps from 2.2 to 2.0 kHz. 73, doug From: wayne burdick <[hidden email]> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:47:42 -0800 Two followup comments. (1) I can't put a date or specs on the variable filters yet. (2) Ebay is a good place for previously-owned fixed filters. On Nov 19, 2007, at 1:42 PM, David Ferrington, M0XDF wrote: > That looks like a very good plan - Wayne, you've just done yourself > out of a > 2.1kHz sale! > I'll wait for the variables. > Now should I swap my 400 for a 200? > > On 19/11/07 21:24, "wayne burdick" <[hidden email]> sent: > >> One of the variable-passband filters we've been considering is one for >> SSB, with a range of about 1.4 to 2.2 kHz. _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
Wayne -
I am probably going to be purchasing a K3 sometime within the next few months. When I do, I am wondering about the filters. I have 2 each Yaesu FT-1000 MK 5 transceivers with all the slots full of Inrad filters. I read a message on this reflector several weeks ago that implied that the Inrad catalog numbers seem to be the same (or very similar) for both the Yaesu and Elecraft versions. So, the 64 dollar question is: will the filters I have in my mark-5 fit into the K3? Possibly with some different "header boards" to fit the K3 sockets? - Jim Wiley, KL7CC _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
Administrator
|
Hi Jim,
The K3 uses completely different (and smaller) filter carrier boards. Your MK5 filters could in theory be removed from the existing carriers and put onto ours, but I'm not sure if we can supply empty carrier boards for customer use. I'll have to run this one by Eric. Another consideration: We're holding all of our crystal filters to a high standard of dynamic range, and an older INRAD filter may not perform the same as the ones we supply. This is necessary because the K3 has higher performance than most of the rigs the filters were used in previously. 73, Wayne N6KR On Nov 19, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Jim Wiley wrote: > Wayne - > > > I am probably going to be purchasing a K3 sometime within the next few > months. When I do, I am wondering about the filters. I have 2 each > Yaesu FT-1000 MK 5 transceivers with all the slots full of Inrad > filters. I read a message on this reflector several weeks ago that > implied that the Inrad catalog numbers seem to be the same (or very > similar) for both the Yaesu and Elecraft versions. So, the 64 dollar > question is: will the filters I have in my mark-5 fit into the K3? > Possibly with some different "header boards" to fit the K3 sockets? > --- 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
> Speaking of filters, I find it amusing that there's a 2.1kHz
> filter available (I have one), but the WIDTH value jumps from > 2.2 to 2.0 kHz. It's been on the firmware issue list for some time now. Wayne is working on higher priories, and I'm glad he is! 73, Ed - W0YK _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ed Muns, W0YK
In a message dated 11/19/2007 11:20:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[hidden email] writes: Ed, I'm waiting for my K3 and I'm a phone man at present (working on my Morse). I have a 2.8kHz and 400Hz on order. Reading your post, maybe I should consider either a 1.8 or a 2.1 kHz filter too. Given the option, which would choose? Anyone else want to chip in too please. Kind of decision I couldn't make back in May. I opted for the std 2.7K to get the feel of the rig first. I found the dsp filter to be so effective that I'd be hard pressed to go to a narrower filter. But, I'm primarily a cw op with a lot of ssb time. I did find times when I was working between a couple strong stations where the 1.8k would have helped. I am presently ready to order a 250 hz for the cw ops, but again, the dsp works amazingly good at 50 hz. I haven't gotten into a deep CW brawl yet so I'm not sure how much I need the narrow roofing, but my experience in ss phone tells me I need it. I've placed high score in ss phone years ago an I have a feeling that the K3 is going to make that a reasonable expectation in the future. Good luck es CU in the test WA6VNN, Al ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.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 |
Re: K3 in SS Phone
|
|
Having tried them out in a grim environment, if I were to do it now,
I'd go for the 1.8kHz filter. The 2.1 worked well, but intelligebility (sp?) didn't suffer down to 1.8 (which I didn't believe would be the case). I'm not much of a 'phone op. 73, doug From: [hidden email] Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:41:09 EST In a message dated 11/19/2007 11:20:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [hidden email] writes: Ed, I'm waiting for my K3 and I'm a phone man at present (working on my Morse). I have a 2.8kHz and 400Hz on order. Reading your post, maybe I should consider either a 1.8 or a 2.1 kHz filter too. Given the option, which would choose? Anyone else want to chip in too please. Kind of decision I couldn't make back in May. I opted for the std 2.7K to get the feel of the rig first. I found the dsp filter to be so effective that I'd be hard pressed to go to a narrower filter. But, I'm primarily a cw op with a lot of ssb time. I did find times when I was working between a couple strong stations where the 1.8k would have helped. I am presently ready to order a 250 hz for the cw ops, but again, the dsp works amazingly good at 50 hz. I haven't gotten into a deep CW brawl yet so I'm not sure how much I need the narrow roofing, but my experience in ss phone tells me I need it. I've placed high score in ss phone years ago an I have a feeling that the K3 is going to make that a reasonable expectation in the future. Good luck es CU in the test WA6VNN, Al _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by M0XDF
Thank you all for the replies.
On 19/11/07 19:20, "David Ferrington, M0XDF" <[hidden email]> sent: > Sorry, that should have been a choice between 1.5 & 1.8 ... > On 19/11/07 19:19, "David Ferrington, M0XDF" <[hidden email]> sent: >> either a 1.8 or a 2.1 kHz filter too. >> Given the option, which would choose? -- What is the purpose of the giant sequoia tree? The purpose of the giant sequoia tree is to provide shade for the tiny titmouse. -Edward Abbey, naturalist and author (1927-1989) _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
>One of the variable-passband filters we've been considering is one >for SSB, with a range of about 1.4 to 2.2 kHz. It would have 5 poles >rather than 8, but I'm sure it would work well in combination with >the I.F. DSP. The MCU would automatically dial in the crystal filter >bandwidth to match the DSP. > >This would be a slot-saver for those want multiple SSB RX >bandwidths. Once the CW variable-passband filter was also ready, you >might have: > > FL1 6.0 kHz > FL2 2.7 or 2.8 kHz > FL3 1.4-2.2 kHz (SSB variable passband crystal filter) > FL4 0.4-0.8 kHz (CW variable passband crystal filter) > FL5 200 Hz Wayne, Can you give me a rough projected price range that these two variable roofing filters might sell for so that I can decide whether to buy fixed filters now or wait for the variables... 73, Paul _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
And a ballpark of when you think they may be available. Seems likely it
would be first half of next year, with the rest of this year being busy getting K3's out the door. - David Wilburn [hidden email] K4DGW K2 S/N 5982 On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 10:36 -0500, [hidden email] wrote: > >One of the variable-passband filters we've been considering is one > >for SSB, with a range of about 1.4 to 2.2 kHz. It would have 5 poles > >rather than 8, but I'm sure it would work well in combination with > >the I.F. DSP. The MCU would automatically dial in the crystal filter > >bandwidth to match the DSP. > > > >This would be a slot-saver for those want multiple SSB RX > >bandwidths. Once the CW variable-passband filter was also ready, you > >might have: > > > > FL1 6.0 kHz > > FL2 2.7 or 2.8 kHz > > FL3 1.4-2.2 kHz (SSB variable passband crystal filter) > > FL4 0.4-0.8 kHz (CW variable passband crystal filter) > > FL5 200 Hz > > Wayne, > > Can you give me a rough projected price range that these two variable > roofing filters might sell for so that I can decide whether to buy > fixed filters now or wait for the variables... > > 73, > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |