KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
Locked
KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
 
|
Hi! I have the question. How much better working KDSP2? It has very expensive price. Are the KDSP2 really so good working that I have to pay "half K2 price"? TNX for any answer! -- 72 & 73! de UR5LAM Alexander Ponomarenko RU-QRP-CLUB #103 mailto: [hidden email] www.qrp.ru _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
It depends on how you operate Alexander. My experience with the Ten-Tec
Orion's DSP as well as external audio DSP's on the K2 convinced me not to buy the KDSP2 option for the K2. I mainly operate CW. I tune around at 800Hz bandwidth but typically operate at 150-200Hz. At such narrow bandwidths turning the DSP on and off has very little effect. On SSB and wider CW bandwidths the DSP sounds impressive. The KAF2 gives me the best bang for the buck. I forget the exact settings but I think it's around 1.4Khz for filter 1 and 200Hz for filter 2. The KDSP2 does have an operating convenience that lets it remember settings and "track" the IF bandwidth. The KAF2 defaults to "off" on power up of the K2. Tom K2TA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Ponomarenko" <[hidden email]> To: "Elecraft Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:38 AM Subject: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 > > Hi! > > I have the question. How much better working KDSP2? > It has very expensive price. Are the KDSP2 really so good > working that I have to pay "half K2 price"? > > TNX for any answer! > > -- > 72 & 73! de UR5LAM > Alexander Ponomarenko > RU-QRP-CLUB #103 > mailto: [hidden email] > www.qrp.ru > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
|
|
To me that's like saying "The MFJ antenna analyzer has given me nothing
but trouble therefore I won't buy ANY antenna analyzer". I won't go into what company I think is gradually buying Ten-Tec as their founders die off...... Alex. On Apr 6, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Tom Althoff wrote: > It depends on how you operate Alexander. My experience with the > Ten-Tec Orion's DSP as well as external audio DSP's on the K2 > convinced me not to buy the KDSP2 option for the K2.Tom K2TA _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Actually it might be more like saying "The MFJ antenna analyzer cannot be
used in strong RF fields and other analyzers that I have used cannot be used in strong RF fields so I wouldn't recommend buying an antenna analyzer to check a Field Day dipole attached to the tower of a 50KW broadcast station." I'm saying that ANY DSP radio Ten-Tec, Yaesu or Elecraft with RF or AF processing requires bandwidth to process the signal and throw away the noise. Once you get a bandwidth under 200Hz the DSP code has little to work with to improve copy and can actually degrade the signal by adding artifacts. Compare the KDSP2 to the KAF2 at 200Hz in a thunderstorm and then tell me which you prefer. Since you did not say what mode you intend to operate nor what bandwith you prefer I could only state my experience from my operating conditions. If you operated narrow bandwidth (under 200Hz) CW I suspect you would not feel the KDSP2 was worth the added expense. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandra Carter" <[hidden email]> To: "Tom Althoff" <[hidden email]> Cc: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:21 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 > To me that's like saying "The MFJ antenna analyzer has given me nothing > but trouble therefore I won't buy ANY antenna analyzer". > > I won't go into what company I think is gradually buying Ten-Tec as their > founders die off...... Alex. > > On Apr 6, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Tom Althoff wrote: > >> It depends on how you operate Alexander. My experience with the >> Ten-Tec Orion's DSP as well as external audio DSP's on the K2 convinced >> me not to buy the KDSP2 option for the K2.Tom K2TA > _______________________________________________ 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 Alexander Ponomarenko-3
Alexander Ponomarenko wrote:
> > I have the question. How much better working KDSP2? > It has very expensive price. Are the KDSP2 really so good > working that I have to pay "half K2 price"? I have both of them. Keep in mind that I am only a CW operator, so you will have to get the opinion of an SSB guy if you want to know about that! The KAF2 does nothing for SSB, while the DSP provides filtering and hetrodyne removal. The DSP has the advantage of including a noise-reduction function. It does not make it possible to copy a station that you can't copy without it, but it does make it more comfortable to copy a station that is close to the noise level. The DSP has more flexibility in selecting bandwidths and better shape characteristics than the KAF2. In practical terms, though, I don't think this translates into the ability to work stations that you could not work with the KAF2. One DSP problem is that the noise reduction, if you use it, distorts the leading edge of a weak signal which degrades copy. You need to back off the aggressiveness of the function to avoid this, which makes it less effective. A negative factor, at least in my case, is that the QSK is not as clean with the DSP installed. I've spent some time trying to clean up clicks (only in the receiver, not transmitted) that are related to the delay introduced by the DSP. I haven't succeeded. Recently, I took out the DSP and put back the KAF2. After getting used to missing the noise reduction, I found that I prefer the KAF2. -- 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco _______________________________________________ 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 Alexander Ponomarenko-3
Great reply Vic,
Let's widen the question to make it KAF2 or KDSP2 or NOTHING? Does the basic K2's crystal filtering work well enough that you (any of you) would be happy with no AF filtering or does the AF/DSP filtering add enough that you wouldn't want to be without it? - Keith KD1E - -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vic K2VCO Recently, I took out the DSP and put back the KAF2. After getting used to missing the noise reduction, I found that I prefer the KAF2. _______________________________________________ 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: KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
|
|
I find the crystal filter more than adequate for my type of CW operation and
have felt no need to add any audio filtering. 73, Dave N7AF ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darwin, Keith" <[hidden email]> To: "Elecraft Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:14 AM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 Great reply Vic, Let's widen the question to make it KAF2 or KDSP2 or NOTHING? Does the basic K2's crystal filtering work well enough that you (any of you) would be happy with no AF filtering or does the AF/DSP filtering add enough that you wouldn't want to be without it? - Keith KD1E - _______________________________________________ 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 Darwin, Keith
Darwin, Keith wrote:
> Let's widen the question to make it KAF2 or KDSP2 or NOTHING? Does the > basic K2's crystal filtering work well enough that you (any of you) > would be happy with no AF filtering or does the AF/DSP filtering add > enough that you wouldn't want to be without it? Selectivity has two functions: to reject QRM and to increase the signal/noise ratio by narrowing the bandwidth. The crystal filter in the K2 is usually sufficient for QRM reduction, with the help of the "built-in wetware filter" in the human brain. However, it *is* advantageous to have the narrowest practical bandwidth when receiving a weak CW signal; the signal's energy is concentrated in a very narrow range of frequencies -- maybe 50 Hz is required for usual CW speeds -- while the noise is evenly distributed over the bandpass of the receiver. I find it useful to have a narrow audio filter available for this reason. -- 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco _______________________________________________ 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 Alexander Ponomarenko-3
When I had narrow filtering in my Omni V I found that S/N did not
increase as bandwidth decreased. Instead, the noise began to sound like signal since both were at the same frequency. Add some filter ringing to the mix and sometimes the narrowest settings made copy worse. As always, I reserve the right to change my mind as I get more operating time with various rigs :-) - Keith KD1E - -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vic K2VCO Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:54 PM To: Elecraft Group Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 Selectivity has two functions: to reject QRM and to increase the signal/noise ratio by narrowing the bandwidth. The crystal filter in the K2 is usually sufficient for QRM reduction, with the help of the "built-in wetware filter" in the human brain. However, it *is* advantageous to have the narrowest practical bandwidth when receiving a weak CW signal; the signal's energy is concentrated in a very narrow range of frequencies -- maybe 50 Hz is required for usual CW speeds -- while the noise is evenly distributed over the bandpass of the receiver. I find it useful to have a narrow audio filter available for this reason. _______________________________________________ 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 Dave Lowenstein
Same here, Dave. I operate for fun. When signals are so bad I have to crank
in $300 filters, it's time to find someone stronger or QRT. I can't imagine a QSO so important that I have to strain to hear it. I had a KAF2 and had a chance to sell it to save for a KDSP2. I found I could still do what I do with the built-in crystal filters. Others have other requirements, of course. Eric KE6US -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dave Lowenstein Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:49 AM To: Elecraft Group Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 I find the crystal filter more than adequate for my type of CW operation and have felt no need to add any audio filtering. 73, Dave N7AF ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darwin, Keith" <[hidden email]> To: "Elecraft Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:14 AM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 Great reply Vic, Let's widen the question to make it KAF2 or KDSP2 or NOTHING? Does the basic K2's crystal filtering work well enough that you (any of you) would be happy with no AF filtering or does the AF/DSP filtering add enough that you wouldn't want to be without it? - Keith KD1E - _______________________________________________ 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 Darwin, Keith
Darwin, Keith wrote:
> When I had narrow filtering in my Omni V I found that S/N did not > increase as bandwidth decreased. Instead, the noise began to sound like > signal since both were at the same frequency. Add some filter ringing > to the mix and sometimes the narrowest settings made copy worse. It depends on the type of noise. Impulse noise, the kind that noise blankers work best with, has its duration lengthened by a sharp filter, which makes it worse. Atmospheric noise, like that caused by thunderstorms is particularly bad because it contains sharp rise-time pulses but they are distributed in such a way that noise blankers generally don't work on it. But many types of noise are reduced (relative to the signal) by narrowing the bandwidth. The narrow filter is just another tool in the toolbox that sometimes is useful. Actually, I have the KAF2, an OHR SCAF, and a Timewave DSP 59+ all hooked up, and under noisy conditions it's interesting to see the effects of each of them. -- 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco _______________________________________________ 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: KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
|
|
In reply to this post by Darwin, Keith
Keith, KD1E wrote:
When I had narrow filtering in my Omni V I found that S/N did not increase as bandwidth decreased. Instead, the noise began to sound like signal since both were at the same frequency. Add some filter ringing to the mix and sometimes the narrowest settings made copy worse. As always, I reserve the right to change my mind as I get more operating time with various rigs :-) ------------------------------- I, too, have had Keith's experience. Over the years I use narrow filters ONLY when absolutely needed to remove extremely loud QRM. Most often I listen to CW using my >2 kHz OPT1 filter. Perhaps it's a result of having learned to listen to CW as an SWL and Novice many years ago using regenerative receivers and simple superhets for which 6 to 8 kHz bandwidths were typical. And the CW bands were a lot more crowded then, typically, than today. That doesn't mean that I didn't have exotic filters. The most exotic filter yet developed is the one between our ears. It has to be trained, however. For speech, we do that instinctively from childhood by listening. Who hasn't picked out a single voice across the room at a crowded party and heard every word in spite of a dozen or more other voices also carrying on at the same time. It only gets really hard when some character starts shouting in our ear so we can't hear the other voice through the hubbub. We can learn to do the same with CW. Of course, the first step is to avoid having the signal we want to hear made quieter, which is why I avoid AGC for most listening. It responds to the aggregate of signals in the bandpass. I want it to leave my volume where I set it. With most receivers I like having a hard limiter that doesn't let any signal exceed a certain threshold regardless without affecting the other signals. I've never fashioned one for my K2 because I haven't found that the K2 seems to need it. Very, very rarely do I find the copy better at narrower bandwidths for just the reason Keith observes: the narrower bandwidths tend to concentrate all the energy in the bandpass of the filter. It's like trying to listen to someone in a crowded room when a whole group of people are talking at about the same volume, with the same basic pitch to their voices, with similar inflections and pace to their speech (the bane of the keyer!!). Another advantage of using wide bandwidths is being aware of what's going on around the frequency too. Unless the other station is really whizzing along requiring my full attention to avoid missing words, I can keep track of several QSO's around the frequency, again just like being a party. One doesn't have to catch every word to have a good sense of what's being said here and there while still paying quite close attention to the person I'm talking with. It's something that almost anyone can learn with practice. And you already own the filter! 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alexander Ponomarenko-3
Keith,
It depends on whether you want to get rid of those nasty carriers or bust them. Some people use these radios on SSB. 73, Kurt _______________________________________________ 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 EricJ-2
One nice feature of the DSP for CW operation is the ability to open up
the filters for bands that seem to be dead or have little activity. You set the crystal filter to its widest bandwidth and put the DSP in LP (its widest setting). Activate the denoiser. The band is quiet, background noise heavily suppressed. If a signal pops up anywhere in the passband -- even a weak one -- the DSP nearly instantly builds a narrow filter around it. Somewhat like squelch on an FM radio, you hear the signal when it is there, and it is really quiet when no signals are present. It really helps reduce listening fatigue for monitoring. Now, with the current sunspot situation, I am sure this never happens, but if it did... :-) 73, Lyle KK7P _______________________________________________ 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: KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
|
|
In reply to this post by Darwin, Keith
Keith KD1E wrote on Thursday, April 06, 2006 5:14 PM
Great reply Vic, Let's widen the question to make it KAF2 or KDSP2 or NOTHING? Does the basic K2's crystal filtering work well enough that you (any of you) would be happy with no AF filtering or does the AF/DSP filtering add enough that you wouldn't want to be without it? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Very very seldom use the KAF2, and don't have a KDSP2. 73, Geoff GM4ESD _______________________________________________ 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: KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
|
|
In reply to this post by Darwin, Keith
Keith - I do CW only and use the KAF2 and think that it is an improvement.
But not to decrease bandwith, the IF filters handle that chore very well. A bandpass or lowpass AF filter cleans up internal noise that I find tiring. Another solution maybe headphones that cut off high frequencies. I currently use Sony headphones that have good high audio frequency response so the audio filter is very helpfull. I like the comfort of the Sonys but would like CW phones that cut off frequencies above 600 hz. or so. I also have a passive outboard bandpass filter constructed from 88mh inductors. The signal is very clean but the response is actually too sharp for most use. I would rather it were designed as a low pass filter. This would clean up all electronic noise. 73 - Rick - K7MW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darwin, Keith" <[hidden email]> To: "Elecraft Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:14 AM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 Great reply Vic, Let's widen the question to make it KAF2 or KDSP2 or NOTHING? Does the basic K2's crystal filtering work well enough that you (any of you) would be happy with no AF filtering or does the AF/DSP filtering add enough that you wouldn't want to be without it? - Keith KD1E - -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vic K2VCO Recently, I took out the DSP and put back the KAF2. After getting used to missing the noise reduction, I found that I prefer the KAF2. _______________________________________________ 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 |
Re: KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
|
|
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 I spent a few years with just the stock K2 when it came to audio filtering. Thought it was great just like it was. Last year I put the DSP filter in. Now I am sold on it. I love the noise removal function on the thing. I find that if the noise blanker can't get rid of it, then the DSP usually can. Yes, it sometimes messes with your mind as the audio can sound like it is underwater, but it does not do that too often. I have found that if it sounds like that then I have something set up wrong - the filter is too narrow or something like that. A few seconds of button pressing usually solves that pretty quick. If I had it to do again, I would still go the DSP route over the base K2. On Apr 6, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy wrote: > Keith KD1E wrote on Thursday, April 06, 2006 5:14 PM > > Great reply Vic, > > Let's widen the question to make it KAF2 or KDSP2 or NOTHING? Does > the > basic K2's crystal filtering work well enough that you (any of you) > would be happy with no AF filtering or does the AF/DSP filtering add > enough that you wouldn't want to be without it? Randy Rathbun NV0U [hidden email] K2 #1981 KX1#1318 QRPARCI #10776, ARS #895, FPQRP #1292, KCQRP #1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFENWGE6zTmfegBFIERAkS2AJ9/vBfK/nBman6eEbWdB+eJOVkH5QCdG3jt jypHZRB582GqJnUh/wpObVk= =A/oT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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: KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
|
|
In reply to this post by EricJ-2
I would strain to hear a P5!
Roland n5vwn ----- Original Message ----- From: "EricJ" <[hidden email]> To: "'Dave Lowenstein'" <[hidden email]>; "'Elecraft Group'" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 > Same here, Dave. I operate for fun. When signals are so bad I have to > crank > in $300 filters, it's time to find someone stronger or QRT. I can't > imagine > a QSO so important that I have to strain to hear it. I had a KAF2 and had > a > chance to sell it to save for a KDSP2. I found I could still do what I do > with the built-in crystal filters. > > Others have other requirements, of course. > > Eric > KE6US > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dave Lowenstein > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:49 AM > To: Elecraft Group > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 > > I find the crystal filter more than adequate for my type of CW operation > and > have felt no need to add any audio filtering. > > 73, > Dave > N7AF > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Darwin, Keith" <[hidden email]> > To: "Elecraft Group" <[hidden email]> > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:14 AM > Subject: RE: [Elecraft] KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287 > > > Great reply Vic, > > Let's widen the question to make it KAF2 or KDSP2 or NOTHING? Does the > basic K2's crystal filtering work well enough that you (any of you) > would be happy with no AF filtering or does the AF/DSP filtering add > enough that you wouldn't want to be without it? > > - Keith KD1E - > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Darwin, Keith
G'day folks,
<snipo> Let's widen the question to make it KAF2 or KDSP2 or NOTHING? Does the basic K2's crystal filtering work well enough that you (any of you) would be happy with no AF filtering or does the AF/DSP filtering add enough that you wouldn't want to be without it? <snipo> Unless there has been a circuit change in the stock K2 AF chain, the KAF2 has the advantage of introducing a fixed low-pass filter which really cleans up the hf hiss in the audio. It made listening to SSB a much nicer experience. Given the choice of just a KAF2 or nothing I would take the KAF2 every time if only for this. I believe someone mentioned that the KDSP2 tracks the crystal filter, it doesn't, and it always defaults to the first (af) filter settings on power up. I could live without the KDSP2 but in its absence not the KAF2 for reasons mentioned above, I have both. On another subject, what has happened to the Logger32 site, the domain has been out of action for weeks. Regards, Mike VP8NO _______________________________________________ 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: KAF2 or KDSP2 for K2 #5287
|
|
In reply to this post by Rick Dettinger-2
Idiom Press make a SCAF-based audio filter called the SCAF-1. It's a
low-pass filter with a variable upper cutoff frequency. It also operates in real-time with no ringing. Recordings of the SCAF-1 in action are available on the web site: http://www.idiompress.com/scaf-1.html The standard disclaimer does NOT apply... 73, - Rob K2 #5004 On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:24:55 -0700, Rick Dettinger <[hidden email]> wrote: > Keith - I do CW only and use the KAF2 and think that it is an > improvement. > But not to decrease bandwith, the IF filters handle that chore very > well. A > bandpass or lowpass AF filter cleans up internal noise that I find > tiring. > Another solution maybe headphones that cut off high frequencies. I > currently use Sony headphones that have good high audio frequency > response > so the audio filter is very helpfull. I like the comfort of the Sonys > but > would like CW phones that cut off frequencies above 600 hz. or so. I > also > have a passive outboard bandpass filter constructed from 88mh inductors. > The signal is very clean but the response is actually too sharp for most > use. I would rather it were designed as a low pass filter. This would > clean up all electronic noise. 73 - Rick - 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 |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |