Re: K2 (ssb)
Locked
 
|
I have had opposite experience. I use mine (Serial 8XX) on both ssb and cw. I have had excellent audio reports and busted lots of pileups with 5-10 watts ssb due to excellent audio quality. I do have a small preamp on the back of the mic connector and I use all Heil mics.
I believe a K2 properly set up has no compromises on SSB. Tim O'Rourke W4YN Message: 33 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 21:31:27 -0700 From: "DW Holtman" <[hidden email]> Subject: [Elecraft] K2 To: <[hidden email]> Message-ID: <006401c86a0b$788b03a0$a7f5a143@yourb27fb1c401> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hello, I have a K1, which I like. I was thinking about getting a K2 while waiting for my K3 (ordered 27 Dec). I went to the E-ham web page and read some of the reviews. There are a lot of people who really do not think too much of the K2. One or two might be some crack pot, but there are a whole bunch of not happy users. All of the magazine reviews seem to love it. Comments on why the ratings have so many unhappy K2 users? The worst are the users using the K2/100 and most complaints seem to be it's ability on SSB. I guess it was originally designed for a CW rig, so don't expect good performance on SSB?. The reports on the K1 and K3 are glowing. Tim O'Rourke [hidden email] Low Power Amateur Radio Rocks Member of Flying Pigs,ARCI,GQRP,RSGB,ARRL Life Member NHRA Life Member _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
If I wanted to be controversial (what, me?) I'd say that the K2 SSB audio is better than the K3's. The K3 sounds cleaner perhaps, but the K2 is definitely punchier, which matters when you're running QRP. The K2 does take a bit of setting up to get it sounding right, though. The folks who are complaining may have been those who didn't do it properly.
Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com * KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html * KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html |
|
|
My K3 has yet to arrive, but, wouldn't this "punch" come from the voice
equaliser? ie setting the voice band to suit your own voice to peak in the right place. David G3UNA > > If I wanted to be controversial (what, me?) I'd say that the K2 SSB audio > is > better than the K3's. The K3 sounds cleaner perhaps, but the K2 is > definitely punchier, which matters when you're running QRP. > > The K2 does take a bit of setting up to get it sounding right, though. The > folks who are complaining may have been those who didn't do it properly. > > ----- > Julian, G4ILO K3 s/n: 222 K2 s/n: 392 > G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com > Zerobeat Ham Forums: www.zerobeat.net/smf _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Hello,
First let me state, I was not trying to run down the K2. Just curious about the reviews. I own a K1 and I'm on the waiting list for a K3. I would not sit around and wait months for something if I did not think it is the best available. Thank to most that responded both on and off list. The general feeling is if someone is not happy with the SSB on the K2, it is most likely adjustment, not the rig. Great answers, I learned a lot about the K2. Best, DW Holtman WB7SSN _______________________________________________ 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 David Cutter
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
|
Listening to one's own speech via another receiver, to optimise one's own
transmit settings still gives a subjective result, *on average*, no better than another radio listener. Inevitably, it will be a question of personal taste, unless you have special training. It is true that radio amateurs are self trained to pick out particular words and phrases in contest or noisey conditions, but, is there no better way to make adjustments independent of taste and personal judgement? eg speaking standard words to record speech spectrograms. Can these be used to determine clarity? David G3UNA _______________________________________________ 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 DW Holtman
On my site I have some mods which I think improve the K2 transmit
audio. http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~baker/ 73 Stewart G3RXQ On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:34:54 -0700, DW Holtman wrote: > Hello, > > First let me state, I was not trying to run down the K2. Just curious about > the reviews. I own a K1 and I'm on the waiting list for a K3. I would not > sit around and wait months for something if I did not think it is the best > available. > > Thank to most that responded both on and off list. The general feeling is if > someone is not happy with the SSB on the K2, it is most likely adjustment, > not the rig. > > Great answers, I learned a lot about the K2. > > Best, > DW Holtman > WB7SSN > > _______________________________________________ > 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 David Cutter
David,
You bring up a good point - how we actually sound to others is not necessarily how we perceive ourselves. Here is the alternative that I use: I have a good fidelity stereo system in the hamshack, and also have a recording of a male speaking voice (from a book on 'tape'). I play the recording on the stereo and hold the microphone close in front of the speaker while listening to the K2 on a separate receiver. A talk radio program can also provide a source speaking voice. The major drawback for this method is that just any sort of speaker will not do the job - if the speaker is not of above average quality, it will color its output and the microphone will receive a distorted sound. I have also used this same method to evaluate various microphones for communications clarity. 73, Don W3FPR David Cutter wrote: > Listening to one's own speech via another receiver, to optimise one's > own transmit settings still gives a subjective result, *on average*, > no better than another radio listener. Inevitably, it will be a > question of personal taste, unless you have special training. It is > true that radio amateurs are self trained to pick out particular words > and phrases in contest or noisey conditions, but, is there no better > way to make adjustments independent of taste and personal judgement? > eg speaking standard words to record speech spectrograms. Can these > be used to determine clarity? > > David > G3UNA > 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 |
|
|
Don
I'm really trying to get away from any listening done by ourselves and substitute an instrument = spectrogram. I just imagine that there is somewhere a reference that will help identify those bits of the display which contribute most to clarity and make it easy and more effective to adjust our filters accordingly. We would speak a set number of words for comparison and adjust for best fit. Fidelity is not an issue. In machine speech, this would be easy to optimise, but if we use voice keyers, those stock phrases could be perfectly adjusted for maximum "punch." David G3UNA > David, > > You bring up a good point - how we actually sound to others is not > necessarily how we perceive ourselves. > Here is the alternative that I use: > I have a good fidelity stereo system in the hamshack, and also have a > recording of a male speaking voice (from a book on 'tape'). I play the > recording on the stereo and hold the microphone close in front of the > speaker while listening to the K2 on a separate receiver. A talk radio > program can also provide a source speaking voice. > > The major drawback for this method is that just any sort of speaker will > not do the job - if the speaker is not of above average quality, it will > color its output and the microphone will receive a distorted sound. > > I have also used this same method to evaluate various microphones for > communications clarity. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > 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 Don Wilhelm-4
The technique I used to set the SSB settings on my K2 was like this.
1. Transmit into a dummy load. 2. Receive on a known good receiver (Drake 2B in my case). 3. Record the receiver output in a high fidelity recorder (Cakewalk). 4. Listen to the recording on studio headphones. This allowed me to hear how my voice & my mic sound through my rig. I was able to vary the TX level in the recording to simulate S-9+ signals or S-5 signals so I could see how things shifted as the signal went down. It's important to record yourself since you can't hear your own voice well at all if you're talking at the same time. - Keith N1AS - - SKCC 344c - -----Original Message----- David, You bring up a good point - how we actually sound to others is not necessarily how we perceive ourselves. Here is the alternative that I use: _______________________________________________ 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 David Cutter
David said:
>I just imagine that there is >somewhere a reference that will help identify those bits of the display >which contribute most to clarity and make it easy and more Is this of any use as an analytical tool http://www.dxatlas.com/VShaper/ Trevor G0KTN _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Hi Trevor, thanks for that.
This is an interesting programme, particularly for those without on-board processing, but I was hoping there was a way of evaluating a processed speech pattern without having to listen to it, ie completely objectively. Let's say I have a defect in my hearing (who doesn't have something lacking at "our" age?) how do I know that I have optimised my own transmitter for my own voice? Listening to my own voice is fraught with variabilities, I might just have a head cold that day or wax in my ears and apply too much boost to the hf end, for instance. The Vshaper is good for showing the spectrum, but speech intelligibility is not discernable from that spectrum. If you have the ARRL Handbook for 1988, the first page of Chapter 7 gives clues but not enough to go on for me. 73 David G3UNA > David said: > >>I just imagine that there is >>somewhere a reference that will help identify those bits of the display >>which contribute most to clarity and make it easy and more > > Is this of any use as an analytical tool > > http://www.dxatlas.com/VShaper/ > > Trevor G0KTN _______________________________________________ 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 |