Elecraft

Up-conversion.

Classic

List

Threaded

44 messages Options

123

PE1E

What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than on CW ?

I bought a K2 for SSB use ( + DSP option ).

In various reviews ( e.g. EHAM ) I noticed that K2's CW performance can't be
praised too highly, but there is a bit reserve as to the SSB performance.

In which respects - if at all - lags the SSB performance ?
And what would cause this ?

Thanks for any comment.
This is a great reflector.

Peter, PE1E.

_______________________________________________
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

Jack Smith-6

Re: Collins and Mechanical Filters (was at one time about up-conversion)

In reply to this post by k6dgw

At the risk of drifting the thread even further away from filtering, you
might find the recently declassified issue of the Cryptologic Quarterly
issue devoted to analyzing the Gulf of Tonkin incidents of 2-4 Aug 1964
of interest. It can be found at
http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/releases/relea00012.pdf and has extensive
discussion of how intercepts were used to piece together what happened.

If you go to the main Vietnam page http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/ and
follow the links (particularly the Release 1 and Release 2 message
links) you can see a lot of the declassified source documents.

Jack

Fred Jensen wrote:

> How these threads do morph! I don't know about RCA MF's, but I can
> attest to the extreme non-fragility of the Collins variety (and in
> fact "everything Collins").
>
> In the mid-60's, while in the USAF (1Lt), I commanded an airborne team
> whose missions were to put mobile, hardened TACANS on various mountain
> tops in undisclosed locations for 10-15 days. After getting down, we
> got our equipment out of the C-130 using LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute
> Extraction System). The gear was mounted on shock pallets, the A/C
> made a low pass and, with a tail-hook apparatus, snagged a shock cable
> we had erected on flimsy poles, and flew out from under the pallets.
> Snap opening cargo chutes "landed the pallets," as the system
> description quaintly said. Despite all the shock protection, "landed"
> was really stretching the term, even for the guvmint.
>
> The pallets always contained two KWM-2A's packed in aluminum
> foam-lined cases which we used to communicate with our FOHQ south of
> the 17th who coordinated the CH-3's to come pick us up when we'd run
> out of JP4 for the generators. The tubes were packed separately, but
> other than that, the 2A's were stock, ready to transmit. We did 24 of
> these missions and I lost four troops, but we lost zero out of 48
> -2A's. Collins also manufactured our A/G radios (can't remember their
> nomenclature at the moment), and we never lost one of those either.
>
> Unfortunately, our missions ended by lighting off thermite on the pile
> of equipment ... burning up 48 perfectly serviceable, beautiful
> KWM-2A's was really really hard for a ham, and I wondered if my ham
> colleagues would ever forgive me.
>
> I used an S3-line for years, and while I don't have it any more to do
> an A/B test, based on my memory (a bit leaky these days), I think the
> K2 IF filters will easily stand up to the mech filters ... and, unlike
> the MF's, I can tailor the K2 filters as I wish.
>
> I think someone suggested that the move from AM to SSB was driven by
> the superior filtering that became available at the same time (please
> forgive me if I got that wrong). Personally, I think it was VOX.
>
> Re R390A's: The Wullenweber array and station at Clark AB in the
> Philippines, operated by the ATDE ("Agency That Doesn't Exist"), used
> 390A's. I wasn't permitted to know for what.
>
> Fred K6DGW
> Auburn CA CM98lw
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Mark J. Schreiner

Re: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than on CW ?

In reply to this post by PE1E

Hi Peter,

I think the K2 works as great on SSB as well as CW. For the last two
years I've set up mine for the SSB station for Field Day with another
nearly identical K2 built by my neighbor (well, about 5 miles away) used
on CW. Of course the CW station did more QSOs than the SSB station both
years but I don't think that has anything to do with the any deficiency
of the K2 on SSB specifically, but more likely the deficiency of SSB as
an efficient mode and ability to copy a signal with lower S/N on CW than
SSB.

I haven't done any A/B testing compared to other modern HF rigs other
than my Kenwood TS940 & Yaesu FT100, however I think that the K2 is
equal if not better in most regards than both of those rigs. The only
negative comment I could possibly think of is that making dynamic
changes to the DSP filter while operating is not so easily done (well,
maybe if I used it more often so I would know how to use it better --
and quicker), so I use the 4 "stock" DSP filter settings only both
during contesting as well as casual ragchewing. I think bigger radios
with more knobs would have the capability of tweaking filter settings
easier than having to navigate through some menus to tweak the DSP
filter on the K2. I often don't tell people that I'm operating QRP and
often get great signal reports. It is lots of fun when they finally ask
what I'm using after we've had a 10 minute or longer QSO and I tell them
it is an Elecraft kit at 5W! Sometimes they quickly say 73 (maybe they
are slightly embarrassed that they are using a full KW while I was only
using QRP?), but other times the operator on the other end gets quite
interested and asks many more questions about the rig and QRP.

Oh, one other data point is that another operator used my K2 on SSB
during the midnight shift at Field Day. He hadn't ever touched one
previously (even though mine was set up the year before and he was at
the same event) but after making QSOs for a couple of hours after I gave
him a short primer on its use (before I went to operate CW during that
same midnight shift) he gladly reported that the receiver sensitivity
and filter selectivity was phenomenal. He is a "SSB only" operator and
does have a fairly new rig, however I forget which one. He also
commented that several folk mentioned that he had good audio
(unsolicited comments) as well while he was operating. He was really
surprised that while running only 5W he was able to work nearly every
station he could hear as well. I was quite happy that he was much more
positive about the QRP F.D. experience this past year than he was the
year before and I was thinking that we potentially had another "QRP
convert" but I'm sorry to say that he still operates QRO at 100W
otherwise and will likely never operate CW. Who knows what next year
will do with his QRP attitude, however!

73,

Mark, NK8Q
K2 4786

PE1E wrote:

Don Wilhelm-3

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than onCW ?

In reply to this post by PE1E

Peter,

The K2 generates a very good and clean SSB signal. One point that may be
considered 'weak' is the need to use a microphone with the higher output
levels (the Heil HC4 and HC5 elements are low output and may need a
pre-amp). The other 'weakness' of the K2 SSB is the absense of anti-vox.
IF you mainly use PTT for SSB operation (as I do) then the K2 will serve you
well on SSB, but if VOX is a major requirement, you may find some weakness
there. There is a mod out there in cyberspace which adds anti-VOX and
improves the VOX on the K2 - if you are interested look for Stewart Baker's
information.

As with CW, the K2 BFO settings for SSB FL1 will make a good or a poor
signal on the air, but that is easily rectified with a session with
Spectrogram. I am certain there are a number of K2s out there with poorly
aligned SSB FL1 filters, and that alone could generate some negative
opinions about the K2 on SSB.

73,
Don W3FPR

> -----Original Message-----
>
> I bought a K2 for SSB use ( + DSP option ).
>
> In various reviews ( e.g. EHAM ) I noticed that K2's CW
> performance can't be
> praised too highly, but there is a bit reserve as to the SSB performance.
>
> In which respects - if at all - lags the SSB performance ?
> And what would cause this ?
>
> Thanks for any comment.
>

Mike Short

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than onCW ?

In reply to this post by PE1E

Another potential consideration to the reviews is that the default setting
is 2.2Khz, which is a
Bit narrower than most SSB rigs, that are usually 2.6Khz. The K2 is first a
CW rig, then SSB. If you widen the
SSB to 2.6Khz, it would likely compare favorably with other rigs.

Mike
AI4NS

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of PE1E
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:56 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than
onCW ?

I bought a K2 for SSB use ( + DSP option ).

In various reviews ( e.g. EHAM ) I noticed that K2's CW performance can't be
praised too highly, but there is a bit reserve as to the SSB performance.

In which respects - if at all - lags the SSB performance ?
And what would cause this ?

Thanks for any comment.
This is a great reflector.

Peter, PE1E.

_______________________________________________
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

Don Wilhelm-3

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive thanonCW ?

Mike,

Slight correction.
The old SSB stock filter width was 2.2kHz, but the capacitors for the 2.4kHz
width has been shipped standard with the KSB2 for a long time now. For
those who prefer the even wider 2.6 kHz width filter, Elecraft offers a set
of capacitors to make the change.

In any case, the current 'default' SSB filter width is now 2.4 kHz.

73,
Don W3FPR

> -----Original Message-----
>
> Another potential consideration to the reviews is that the
> default setting
> is 2.2Khz, which is a
> Bit narrower than most SSB rigs, that are usually 2.6Khz. The K2
> is first a
> CW rig, then SSB. If you widen the
> SSB to 2.6Khz, it would likely compare favorably with other rigs.
>
> Mike
> AI4NS
>

N2TK

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than on CW ?

In reply to this post by PE1E

Hi Peter,
When I built my K2, #3481, I was quite happy with it on CW, except for the
QSK. On SSB I was not happy at all. There were three problems - tripping the
vox, bandwidth and compression. There are a few mods listed that helped
both. Changed a resistor so the HC5 tripped the vox fine, installed the mod
to increase the SSB bandwidth to 2.4KHZ, and installed the mod to increase
the compression. Now I am very happy with my K2 on SSB.
The mods I mentioned are listed on
http://www.qslnet.de/member/la3za/K2/mod.html
I will again be bringing my K2 to WP2Z. It is a great rig when the pileups
are hot and heavy.
73,
N2TK, Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of PE1E
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 3:56 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than on
CW ?

I bought a K2 for SSB use ( + DSP option ).

In various reviews ( e.g. EHAM ) I noticed that K2's CW performance can't be
praised too highly, but there is a bit reserve as to the SSB performance.

In which respects - if at all - lags the SSB performance ?
And what would cause this ?

Thanks for any comment.
This is a great reflector.

Peter, PE1E.

_______________________________________________
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

Ron D'Eau Claire-2

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressivethanonCW ?

In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-3

A purely subjective response after "spooking" this reflector for six years
is that there are far more CW operators active on here than SSB operators. I
think that started to change after the KPA100 appeared, but it still seems
to favor CW or SSB by a large margin.

One indicator is this; Over the years I saw a number of suggestions about
forming nets of Elecraft owners and Hams interested in Elecraft rigs on both
CW and SSB, but so far only the CW net has really taken off. I'm not even
aware of any regular gathering of Elecraft SSB operators. True, the success
of the CW ECN is largely due to the efforts of Kevin, KD5ONS who has stuck
with it as the ECN net control station, along with the help of many faithful
supporters like Tom N0SS and a gang of regular check-ins, but that's my
point. No "SSB-Kevin" has stepped forward with the same dedication as far as
I know.

With that experience tucked in my belt, it has never surprised me that there
are far more comments about the K2's superior performance on CW than SSB.

For myself, I have to admit that my K2/100 is equipped with the SSB module,
which I've used for SSB and digital modes, but my last non-CW QSO was over a
year ago now. I think it was to help another K2 owner check out his radio on
SSB <G>.

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

Stewart Baker

Re: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than on CW ?

In reply to this post by PE1E

Peter,

As you say the K2's CW performance can't be praised too highly, however in my
opinion the SSB side is unfinished business.

You might like to look at my web site for some idea of what is wrong, and how to
improve it.

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~baker/

73
Stewart G3RXQ

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:56:29 +0200, PE1E wrote:

> I bought a K2 for SSB use ( + DSP option ).
>
> In various reviews ( e.g. EHAM ) I noticed that K2's CW performance can't be
> praised too highly, but there is a bit reserve as to the SSB performance.
>
> In which respects - if at all - lags the SSB performance ?
> And what would cause this ?
>
> Thanks for any comment.
> This is a great reflector.
>
> Peter, PE1E.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Dave, G4AON

Re: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than on CW ?

In reply to this post by PE1E

Having an FT857D and TS570D, when I compare the CW performance of my K2
with them, the K2 wins every time. Due in no small part to the narrow
"roofing" filter inherent in a single conversion receiver, the good and
quiet solid state change over and the low noise receiver.

On SSB the differences are less, especially if I ignore the FT857D as
it's quite "hissy" on receive. The TS570 isn't a bad performer on SSB
and has nice sounding audio. My K2's SSB unit is an early one and has a
nominal bandwidth of 2.2 KHz. Compared to the wider bandwidth of the
Kenwood, it will sound more restricted. Add the basic K2's power
limitation of 10 Watts, which has more of an impact on SSB than CW, then
it's no surprise the K2 tends to get less of an enthusiastic review when
compared on SSB.

73 Dave, G4AON
K2 #1892
_______________________________________________
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

Steven Pituch

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than onCW ?

In reply to this post by N2TK

Hi Peter,
I am wondering if these remarks about The K2 SSB are old. The following is
how I remember the discussions on this subject and I think some of the text
is on the K2 website. I am surprised no one has said the following before.
And this is all from my memory, which is probably failing so if others can
correct me, that’s OK:

The K2 was originally a CW rig with capability for upgrade. When the SSB
module was first introduced, I did hear comments about the K2 being better
at CW than SSB. Not sure why. But I remember reading about how the K2
group was later getting feedback from some hams who were SSB connoisseurs
who criticized the shape of the original filters response. As I recall it
was OK but could be better. Then the K2 team researched this and, with the
newer sorting tolerances in cheap filter manufacturing, realized that the
SSB response could be widened and not suffer from excessive ripple. I
believe another mod was made to alter the SSB response shape at another
location in the K2, and also the overall shape of the filter's response was
considerably modified. I have seen before and after pictures of the
filter's response. The results were that the K2 SSB performance, sound
wise, is now excellent. I made these mods to my K2 #402. Again I think
most of this I read on the web and probably most of it on the Elecraft web
site. Perhaps its time for Eric or Wayne to chime in.

I know of a lady on the list that uses a K2 on SSB for nets. She is the
only woman I know that does not sound whiney on SSB. I attribute this to
the rig she is using.

In short the K2 is now simply one of the best.

Steve, W2MY

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 8/11/2006

_______________________________________________
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

Ron D'Eau Claire-2

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive thanonCW ?

Two things conspired to cause trouble with early K2 SSB. Steve touched on
one of them about variations in crystals.

The original K2 SSB filter was purposely designed to be as narrow as
possible to give the signal more "punch", especially for weak-signal/QRP
operation. The narrower the bandwidth of a signal at a given power, the
louder it sounds at the receiving end. So the SSB filter was designed to be
just a tad over 2 kHz. That's about the minimum for good "communications
quality" SSB.

As Steve, W2MY observed, the variations in crystals from the manufacture
meant there was a wide variation in SSB filter bandwidth. For example, mine
was barely 1800 Hz wide at 6 dB down! There was no way I could get
good-sounding SSB out of it.

Several years ago Elecraft changed the filter design for a wider bandwidth
*and* employed more consistent crystals in the kit so there was less
variation from rig to rig. That seemed to put an end to all issues with the
filter. When I put new crystals into the filter, I opted for the wide
bandwidth mod since my use of SSB is very casual anyway. That fixed the
audio quality problem.

As Don pointed out, it is true that the K2 requires a fairly high output
microphone. That's especially true on 10 meters where the transmitter has
the least overall gain, so low audio will show up as less-than-full output
if you're trying to run the full 10 watts PEP with a QRP K2 or 100 watts PEP
with a K2/100.

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

David Toepfer

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive thanonCW ?

Is the Kenwood MC-43S hand mic still one of the top recommendations as a hand
mic that fits these requirements?

--- Ron D'Eau Claire <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As Don pointed out, it is true that the K2 requires a fairly high output
> microphone.

_______________________________________________
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

David Toepfer

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive thanonCW ?

What would be a similarly qualified desk mic recommendation?

--- David Toepfer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Is the Kenwood MC-43S hand mic still one of the top recommendations as a hand
> mic that fits these requirements?
>
> --- Ron D'Eau Claire <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > As Don pointed out, it is true that the K2 requires a fairly high output
> > microphone.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

Karl Larsen

Re: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than on CW ?

In reply to this post by Dave, G4AON

Dave G4AON wrote:
> Having an FT857D and TS570D, when I compare the CW performance of my K2
> with them, the K2 wins every time. Due in no small part to the narrow
> "roofing" filter inherent in a single conversion receiver, the good and
> quiet solid state change over and the low noise receiver.
>
Hi Dave, if you bought the 500 Hz Collins mechanical filter for your
FT-857D, then the K2 and this radio are very close in performance on
both CW and SSB receiving. I am going with this from the ARRL
measurements done in QST and available to members. The FT-857D is a good
quiet solid state change over and a low noise receiver.
> On SSB the differences are less, especially if I ignore the FT857D as
> it's quite "hissy" on receive. The TS570 isn't a bad performer on SSB
> and has nice sounding audio.
My FT-857D is not "hissy". I'm trying to think what you might have
set wrong to cause this to occur?

73 Karl K5DI

> My K2's SSB unit is an early one and has a
> nominal bandwidth of 2.2 KHz. Compared to the wider bandwidth of the
> Kenwood, it will sound more restricted. Add the basic K2's power
> limitation of 10 Watts, which has more of an impact on SSB than CW, then
> it's no surprise the K2 tends to get less of an enthusiastic review when
> compared on SSB.
>
> 73 Dave, G4AON
> K2 #1892
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>

PE1E

Re: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressive than onCW ?

In reply to this post by David Toepfer

Thanks to the many respondents to my original question.
You helped me out considerably.

One more ( last.. that's a promise :-) question on the SSB audio issue.

Me was told that the absence of filtering between Tx mixer and Tx buffer
amp could cause annoying IM products.
( The bandpass filters in the K2 are behind the Tx buffer amp., while in at
least one of my other tranceivers in use here I see the bandpass filter
straight behind the Tx mixer without interfacing amp. ).

Could this observation contribute adversely to the SSB Tx audio quality (
in-band IM3) or do I see a ghost ?

I was told this question had ever been asked before on this list ( even to
Elecraft directly ) but without proper response.
I searched the archive but in vain.

Any comment would be appreciated highly.

Thanks again.
Peter, PE1E.

_______________________________________________
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

Ron D'Eau Claire-2

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressivethanonCW ?

In reply to this post by David Toepfer

Hi, David:

Hopefully, others who have first-hand experience with the Kenwood and other
commercial and desk mics make specific recommendations. I'm using a "home
brew" hand mic that has a radio shack electret element. I also changed the
input resistor (R14) on the KSB2 board from 1K to 5K. That works FB for me.
Thinking back about the posts on that subject over the years, it seems to me
that most who have used electret mics have reported good results.

Ron AC7AC

-----Original Message-----

What would be a similarly qualified desk mic recommendation?

--- David Toepfer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Is the Kenwood MC-43S hand mic still one of the top recommendations as
> a hand mic that fits these requirements?
>
> --- Ron D'Eau Claire <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > As Don pointed out, it is true that the K2 requires a fairly high
> > output microphone.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

wayne burdick

Re: band-passfilter location in SSB transmit chain

Administrator

In reply to this post by PE1E

PE1E wrote:

>
> I was told that the absence of filtering between Tx mixer and Tx
> buffer
> amp could cause annoying IM products.
> ( The bandpass filters in the K2 are behind the Tx buffer amp., while
> in at
> least one of my other tranceivers in use here I see the bandpass filter
> straight behind the Tx mixer without interfacing amp. ).
>
> Could this observation contribute adversely to the SSB Tx audio
> quality (
> in-band IM3) or do I see a ghost ?

Peter,

The TX buffer amp is operating class A, and any IMD it contributes will
be completely negligible compared to the IMD contributed by the
class-AB final amp. So, positioning the bandpass filters after the
buffer should have no impact on observed IMD.

If you see any more ghosts, let me know :)

73,
Wayne
N6KR

---

http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Steven Pituch

RE: What makes K2's SSB performance less impressivethanonCW ?

In reply to this post by David Toepfer

Hi David,
Yes, it is still considered a great mic for the K2. When I sold my mint
high serial number TS-850-SAT (because the K-2 filtering was so much better)
I kept the MC-43S mic for the K2.

Steve, W2MY

-----Original Message-----
From: On Behalf Of David Toepfer

Is the Kenwood MC-43S hand mic still one of the top recommendations as a
hand mic that fits these requirements?

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.10/418 - Release Date: 8/14/2006

_______________________________________________
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

Mike Short

Kenwood mic's

What is the difference between the 42s and 43s besides 1?
I have a 42S that came with my 430 that I would like to use with my K2. I
also have a Heil HM5, but it doesn't produce
Enough audio to work. I think I need a preamp...

Mike
AI4NS

_______________________________________________
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

123