OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

[wayne burdick]

Of course we didn't invent it. But we appear to have helped  
resuscitated it :)  It was the only choice, as far as we were  
concerned, to achieve our performance goals.

Wayne
N6KR


______________________________________________________________
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

[Don Wilhelm-4]

  Actually, the 9 MHz IF got started and gained momentum from the first
SSB phasing generators.  Some of the first SSB transmitters were phasing
types with the 9 MHz IF - using a 5.0 to 5.5 MHz VFO, one could cover
3.5 to 4.0 MHz and also 14.0 to 14.5 MHz with the same 9 MHz generator.  
Transceivers were only a dream at that time.  Receivers did not normally
use a phasing approach.

Then McCoy came out with a reasonably priced 9 MHz crystal filter that
made filter SSB transmitters possible with the same 9 MHz IF.  
Transceivers were now possible with that filter, and there were several
homebrew designs as well as some commercial implementations of
transmitters and receivers and transceivers using a 9 MHz IF.

Another observation - sideband suppression and top-notch performance
were difficult using analog phasing methods (although Rick Campbell KK7B
does have some very good analog designs), the DSP algorithms are a
perfection of the phasing method of SSB generation and reception, so we
have come "full circle" with the advent of DSP implementations.

As far as the advantages of "down conversion" - that was very
successfully implemented in the K2, although there were other homebrew
implementations.  The single conversion down-conversion receiver in the
K2 proved its worthiness to many operators while the rest of the world
was using up-conversion to obtain full 0.1 to 30 kHz continuous coverage
and few 'birdies'.  Birdies are inevitable with a down-conversion
scheme, and the challenge is to keep them out of the ham bands.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 11/16/2010 6:11 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Sometime in the 1960's or early 70's one company started offering a 9 MHz
> filter at a decent price that was widely used by homebrewers back then and
> the subject of many QST and ARRL handbook designs as well as a number of
> "commercial" rigs.
>
> Obviously, those rigs up-converted the lower MF frequency bands and
> down-converted the higher MF frequency bands.
>
> Early M.F./H.F. superhetrodyne receivers all "down converted" to an I.F. in
> the low MF range (usually 455 kHz) but designing input filters for the M.F.
> range that would adequately reject the image response at 2X the I.F. became
> very difficult. Filter technology limited the selectivity available at
> higher frequencies, forcing designers to use a low frequency I.F., but the
> press was on from the beginning for better I.F. filters at higher
> frequencies.
>
> Like all designs, it's always a compromise. The best designers are those who
> make the best compromises using the components available at an acceptable
> price.
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft
> "invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9
> MHz range.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know that the folks at
> Elecraft would never claim as much.  I had a Henry Radio Tempo-1 (Yaesu
> FT-200) back when radios warmed up the shack.  It was a 9 MHz i-f
> transceiver.
>
> Wes Stewart,  N7WS
>
> --- On Tue, 11/16/10, Benny Aumala<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> When K3 came I told this RX architecture will soon be a
>> standard
>> (as Rob Sherwood told long time ago).
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

[ab2tc]

Hi,

I'd love to but where do I find the article? I don't think my local library has many back issues of QST.

AB2TC - Knut

PS. I wish I had brought my first ARRL Handbook (1967) with me when I moved from Norway in 1981, but I obviously didn't. I have so vivid memories of reading that handbook from cover to cover when I was in my teens. In those days the handbook had ads from Collins and the other great American companies. I am pretty sure that handbook is where I have the slogan "Clean, strong signal from Collins" memory from.

Kok Chen wrote

On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Kok Chen wrote:

> Check out "Solid-state Receiver Design with the MOS Transistor" in April and May 1967 issues of QST (WB6AIG is now K6GT).  

Whoops, George beat me to it :-).

73
Chen, W7AY

<snip>

[Johnny Siu]

Hello Don,

Very true indeed.  Downward conversion is a good cost Vs performance solution
for radio targeting at ham band.

Elecraft's selection of downward conversation is clever because both K2 and K3
are targeting ham operators.
 cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC



----- 郵件原件 ----
寄件人﹕ Don Wilhelm <[hidden email]>
收件人﹕ [hidden email]
傳送日期﹕ 2010/11/17 (三) 7:47:07 AM
主題： Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

  Actually, the 9 MHz IF got started and gained momentum from the first
SSB phasing generators.  Some of the first SSB transmitters were phasing
types with the 9 MHz IF - using a 5.0 to 5.5 MHz VFO, one could cover
3.5 to 4.0 MHz and also 14.0 to 14.5 MHz with the same 9 MHz generator. 
Transceivers were only a dream at that time.  Receivers did not normally
use a phasing approach.

Then McCoy came out with a reasonably priced 9 MHz crystal filter that
made filter SSB transmitters possible with the same 9 MHz IF. 
Transceivers were now possible with that filter, and there were several
homebrew designs as well as some commercial implementations of
transmitters and receivers and transceivers using a 9 MHz IF.

Another observation - sideband suppression and top-notch performance
were difficult using analog phasing methods (although Rick Campbell KK7B
does have some very good analog designs), the DSP algorithms are a
perfection of the phasing method of SSB generation and reception, so we
have come "full circle" with the advent of DSP implementations.

As far as the advantages of "down conversion" - that was very
successfully implemented in the K2, although there were other homebrew
implementations.  The single conversion down-conversion receiver in the
K2 proved its worthiness to many operators while the rest of the world
was using up-conversion to obtain full 0.1 to 30 kHz continuous coverage
and few 'birdies'.  Birdies are inevitable with a down-conversion
scheme, and the challenge is to keep them out of the ham bands.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 11/16/2010 6:11 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Sometime in the 1960's or early 70's one company started offering a 9 MHz
> filter at a decent price that was widely used by homebrewers back then and
> the subject of many QST and ARRL handbook designs as well as a number of
> "commercial" rigs.
>
> Obviously, those rigs up-converted the lower MF frequency bands and
> down-converted the higher MF frequency bands.
>
> Early M.F./H.F. superhetrodyne receivers all "down converted" to an I.F. in
> the low MF range (usually 455 kHz) but designing input filters for the M.F.
> range that would adequately reject the image response at 2X the I.F. became
> very difficult. Filter technology limited the selectivity available at
> higher frequencies, forcing designers to use a low frequency I.F., but the
> press was on from the beginning for better I.F. filters at higher
> frequencies.
>
> Like all designs, it's always a compromise. The best designers are those who
> make the best compromises using the components available at an acceptable
> price.
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft
> "invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9
> MHz range.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know that the folks at
> Elecraft would never claim as much.  I had a Henry Radio Tempo-1 (Yaesu
> FT-200) back when radios warmed up the shack.  It was a 9 MHz i-f
> transceiver.
>
> Wes Stewart,  N7WS
>
> --- On Tue, 11/16/10, Benny Aumala<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> When K3 came I told this RX architecture will soon be a
>> standard
>> (as Rob Sherwood told long time ago).
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Kok Chen]

On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:51 PM, ab2tc wrote:

> I'd love to but where do I find the article? I don't think my local library has many back issues of QST.

You should be able to read (some of) them at the ARRL web site if you are an ARRL member.

If not, you can try the QST View CD-ROMs.  

ARRL no longer sells the CD-ROMs but you might be able to get them from the people who created QST View CDs for ARRL-- they were still selling them when I snooped around on the web a year or two ago.  I have a link to the vendor's URL on my "QST Browser" web page:

http://homepage.mac.com/chen/w7ay/QST%20Browser/index.html

A funny anecdote is that the 1950-1959 QST View was the first set to disappear as ARRL was selling remaining stock.  I had people who stumbled on "QST Browser" but could not find the 1950-1959 set to buy, so they wrote me to see if I knew of secret stashes :-).  I suspect that it could be due to the ham "baby boom."  Everyone wants the QST from when they first became hams, when they'd drooled over the ads of things like the S-Line which they could not afford as teenagers :-).  ARRL sold out of them first, then vendors like Texas Towers and Universal Radio sold out of them.  Until finally, only Radio Era had them.  Today? estate sales, perhaps, if Radio Era does not keep stamping them out :-).

73
Chen, W7AY


______________________________________________________________
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

[k.igor]

I don't recall, does the IC7600 has independent second receiver? Perhaps you can ADD second receiver to it? Can you ADD 500 Hz or 250 Hz roofing filter to it? No? Too bad, I will pass. Still not enough bang for the buck.

73, Igor, N1YX

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Johnny Siu
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:59 AM
To: Nate Bargmann; [hidden email]
Subject: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

Hello Nate,

In relation to your comments about IC7600, I would add the following:

1.  There is 'manual notch within AGC loop' in IC7600.  This function is very
useful when I use it to notch out a strong offending carrier right adjoining to
my wanted desired weak signal.  Since the notch is within AGC loop, the wanted
weak DX signal will pop out right from the noise ground after the
carrier is notched.  The desense of AGC by the strong carrier disappears at the
same time.

I did an A/B comparison of the above during the recent CQ WW SSB contest.

2. When we calculate the cost for comparison, we have to add P3 to K3 to bring
it in line.  Bearing in mind, IC7600 only costs US$3,250 in Hong Kong

I am still running my K3 but just plainly spell out the fact as above.
 cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC
www.qrz.com/callsign/vr2xmc



----- 郵件原件 ----
寄件人﹕ Nate Bargmann <[hidden email]>
收件人﹕ [hidden email]
傳送日期﹕ 2010/11/16 (二) 8:14:42 PM
主題： Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

* On 2010 15 Nov 21:49 -0600, Luis V. Romero wrote:
> Good Marketing will take care of the rest!  "We build Legends" is
> "performance by association" from the era when there were resources for
> product line development and R&D.  There's still a lot of Goodwill from the
> TS950/TS850 days! Even from TS520 days!

Bingo!  I've long thought that Kenwood had rested on its laurels from
the TS-520/TS-820/TS-830 era.  That's not say that some of their later
products weren't good, just that they had lost their edge, especially to
Yaesu in the early '90s.

> And Larry, you're right, from a technical perspective, the 590 receiver
> schema is really Goofy!

It strikes me as rather odd as well.  I suppose that the Kenwood
engineers and management have their reasons, but wow!  When I read
preliminary information on it, I came to the conclusion that it was more
complicated than it needed to be.

> Elecraft's well targeted market niche is being attacked from above by the
> FTdx5k and from below by the 590 and to a lesser extent, the Eagle.  Most of
> the erosion will be in the lower side of the equation.  Main K3 competitor
> is really the IC7600, and technically it leaves a lot to be desired and is
> not as customizable, but undercuts K3 in price and it has the Icom "mystique
> by association".  Icom has done a masterful job at brand identity.  

And here I thought ICOM stood for "I Can Only Monitor"!  ;-)  To be
fair, I've only owned two Icom transceivers over the years, an IC-290A
2m all mode that was the first commercial rig I bought in 1985 and later
a 4AT HT.  Both served their purposes well.  Early on I would fall into
the Kenwood camp for HF gear and later Yaesu for all my gear.  In fact,
I was all Yaesu until I received the K3 last month.  I liked the idea of
performance that rivaled the big boxes in a size near that of my
FT-890AT.  Watching this list and seeing Elecraft's interaction with its
customers won me over.

> So the K3 niche is still rather exclusive, but eroding a little bit.

I'll agree the K3 is niche, but I'm not sure it's saleas are eroding.
Of course I don't have sales figures, but it would appear that at least
100 more have sold since I got mine on the air about a month ago which
seems healthy for a niche product that is positioned toward the high end
of a niche hobby.  Considering as well that the overall economy is not
doing as well as when the K3 was introduced, I'd say it's doing quite
well.

I'd also submit that as mentioned earlier in this thread that there are
those who would not be comfortable buying a K3 for their main
transceiver as they feel more comfortable going with a product from one
of the brand names.  I can understand that as it took me a while to
accept the idea as I spent several months evaluating Elecraft as a
company before I took the plunge.  The established players are known
quantities while Elecraft is still building its reputation in the larger
amateur radio community.  I'm a bit of a risk taker on things like this
so I suspect I'll receive some questions about the K3 at tonight's club
meeting.

> Elecraft is a lot like Honda in the mid 70's.  Pick the niche, build a solid
> product and back it with uncompromising service, winning one customer at a
> time.    

I take for granted you're referring to Honda cars.  In motorcycles, they
were a juggernaut at the time.  Which allowed them to bring products
like the CBX to market.  By 1980 they had forced Kawasaki into catch-up
mode where Kawi had been regarded as the performance king just a few
years earlier.  Then Suzuki came along with its GSX-R line...

73, de Nate N0NB >>

--


     
______________________________________________________________
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

[K2QI]

Regarding the IC-7700, which is a lot more expensive than the 7600, here's
what an Icom fan had to say about the missing 2nd receiver. Pay close
attention to the first bullet point.


Single HF receiver <http://www.ab4oj.com/icom/ic7700/rx.html> with I/Q
second mixer, offering +40dBm 3rd-order intercept point*.

   - *The single receiver should be seen not as a disadvantage, but as a
   plus.* The single receiver allows no-compromise RX performance at a
   reasonable price; BNC sockets on the rear panel, and CI-V, allow easy
   connection and synchronization of a second Icom transceiver such as the
   756Pro3 as a secondary receiver. Many prospective IC-7700 buyers already own
   an IC-756Pro3. Add <http://www.ab4oj.com/icom/ic7700/2rx.html> the
   IC-7700 to your existing Pro3 for the perfect contest station; use the
   IC-7700 as your main transceiver, and the IC-756Pro3 as a spotting receiver.

   - Upgrade from your IC-765 or IC-775DSP, and get the benefits of a
   spectrum scope.

I love this guy's logic. :)

73,
James K2QI

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Igor Kosvin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't recall, does the IC7600 has independent second receiver? Perhaps
> you can ADD second receiver to it? Can you ADD 500 Hz or 250 Hz roofing
> filter to it? No? Too bad, I will pass. Still not enough bang for the buck.
>
> 73, Igor, N1YX
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________
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

[Bob Nielsen-2]

On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:

>  Actually, the 9 MHz IF got started and gained momentum from the first
> SSB phasing generators.  Some of the first SSB transmitters were phasing
> types with the 9 MHz IF - using a 5.0 to 5.5 MHz VFO, one could cover
> 3.5 to 4.0 MHz and also 14.0 to 14.5 MHz with the same 9 MHz generator.  
> Transceivers were only a dream at that time.  Receivers did not normally
> use a phasing approach.

Ah, the Central Electronics 10-A (from 1952, the year I was first licensed), often used with an ARC-5 as a VFO.  I remember really wanting one, but it's probably best that I never fulfilled that wish.

Bob, N7XY

______________________________________________________________
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

[Bruce McLaughlin-2]

I suspect it is going to become the standard for many if not most of the new
radios.  As soon as it became apparent that effective roofing filters can
really improve the close in IMD performance, it seems as if a low first IF
frequency has become almost mandatory.  I note that the Orion and the new
Yaesu FT 5000 both use down conversion for the first IF and, therefore, have
effective narrow roofing filters.  I wonder when, or if, ICOM and the others
will follow suit.

By the way, thank you so much for the new APF feature.  I think that was
something which was missing from the K-3 up until now.  I have always found
that filter to be helpful in trying to hear very weak CW signals, especially
if the band is noisy.  I have had good luck with it on my FT 1000D and I
missed it on my K-3s.  Fortunately it is no longer missing and already I
found it to be very helpful.  I guess I was lucky in that I really noticed
no problems with version 2.17 but I'm glad to see the update to that which I
have installed on one of my K-3s and it seems to be working very well.

Bruce-W8FU

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Wayne Burdick
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:32 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Down-conversion


______________________________________________________________
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

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy]

Bruce,

I believe that your suspicion is correct. The sticking point in the design
of a high performance up-conversion receiver at this time is the first LO,
whose phase noise must be suitably "low" and whose cost is acceptable. There
can be problems with VHF "Roofing" filters, but there are ways to overcome
these.

Regarding the use of very narrow roofing filters (crystal) in a
down-conversion receiver, there is an underlying filter generated IMD
problem which might or might not affect the IMD performance of the overall
receiver - depending upon the "IMD performance" of those parts of the
receiver ahead of and behind the filter. The problem is that for any given
quality of quartz used in the crystals, the IMD performance of a crystal
filter can be shown to worsen as the filter's bandwidth narrows. I suspect
that the 6 kHz roofing filter used in Kenwood's TS-590S ahead of the IF
crystal filters is there to give some protection to the narrower IF filters.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD


Bruce McLaughlin wrote on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 11:02 PM:

>I suspect it is going to become the standard for many if not most of the
>new
> radios.  As soon as it became apparent that effective roofing filters can
> really improve the close in IMD performance, it seems as if a low first IF
> frequency has become almost mandatory.  I note that the Orion and the new
> Yaesu FT 5000 both use down conversion for the first IF and, therefore,
> have
> effective narrow roofing filters.  I wonder when, or if, ICOM and the
> others
> will follow suit.

<snip>


______________________________________________________________
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

[Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ]

That is why we built special test fixtures for us and INRAD to test
strong signal IMD handling on all of our K3 filters.

73, Eric


On 11/18/2010 4:49 AM, Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> I believe that your suspicion is correct. The sticking point in the design
> of a high performance up-conversion receiver at this time is the first LO,
> whose phase noise must be suitably "low" and whose cost is acceptable. There
> can be problems with VHF "Roofing" filters, but there are ways to overcome
> these.
>
> Regarding the use of very narrow roofing filters (crystal) in a
> down-conversion receiver, there is an underlying filter generated IMD
> problem which might or might not affect the IMD performance of the overall
> receiver - depending upon the "IMD performance" of those parts of the
> receiver ahead of and behind the filter. The problem is that for any given
> quality of quartz used in the crystals, the IMD performance of a crystal
> filter can be shown to worsen as the filter's bandwidth narrows. I suspect
> that the 6 kHz roofing filter used in Kenwood's TS-590S ahead of the IF
> crystal filters is there to give some protection to the narrower IF filters.
>
> 73,
> Geoff
> GM4ESD
>
>
> Bruce McLaughlin wrote on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 11:02 PM:
>
>
>> I suspect it is going to become the standard for many if not most of the
>> new
>> radios.  As soon as it became apparent that effective roofing filters can
>> really improve the close in IMD performance, it seems as if a low first IF
>> frequency has become almost mandatory.  I note that the Orion and the new
>> Yaesu FT 5000 both use down conversion for the first IF and, therefore,
>> have
>> effective narrow roofing filters.  I wonder when, or if, ICOM and the
>> others
>> will follow suit.
> <snip>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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