WRTC 2014 - Congratulations, Elecraft!

[Ed Muns]

There were 1-2 Yaesu radios that did not have the after-market key click mod
and were causing tremendous unnecessary QRM to other WRTC stations.  Those
radios were detected in the Friday setup period and swapped out to eliminate
the QRM.

The 65 WRTC sites (only 59 actually used) were spread out over a distance of
80 miles, from the southern NH border to the entrance to Cape Cod in
southern MA.  There were some clusters of sites where 15 or so WRTC stations
were located just a couple thousand yards from each other.  The 100 watt
power limit helped a bit, too.

Ed W0YK

--------------------------------------------------------

Fred K6DGW wrote:

The one factor that using different radios does not control for is
spurious emissions such as key clicks and phase noise.  There *is* a
wide difference in those between the radios.  Don't know if that would
turn out to be an issue in the WRTC environment, although I sure know it
was when my "neighbor" Jack, KF6T, was running a Yaesu rig with serious
phase noise problems.  Of course, if clicks and phase noise was an issue
at WRTC, it would impact everyone else negatively.

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Igor Sokolov-2]

Jim,
Thank you. Very persuading comparison.
Could you possibly add some modern SDR based rigs to the comparison?

73, Igor UA9CDC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brown" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] WRTC 2014 - Congratulations, Elecraft!...(and
firmware update)

> On 7/27/2014 3:19 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
>> I think that most are looking for something the K3 WRTC numbers are
>> not telling. I rather doubt that people went out and bought them for
>> the WRTC.  With those kinds of numbers, the market had already made
>> its decision a long time ago.
>
> Well, a certain portion of the market certainly has -- those need a high
> performance rig for use under demanding conditions, including those of a
> contest multi-op.
>
> Egged on by a discussion on another email relector, I replotted ARRL test
> data for key clicks and TX phase noise. I'm not going to stop there, but
> the results so far tell a large part of the story.
>
> k9yc.com/TXNoise.pdf
>
> Consider it a work in progress. ARRL publishes its data in the form of
> graphs pretty small, and in some cases with too-wide ranging scales, so it
> takes a lot of practice to get data within +/- 1.5 dB.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Ed Muns]

I'm partial to the comments below.  While I prefer Win-Test for CW (and SSB)
contesting, I strongly prefer WriteLog for RTTY contesting.  N1MM Logger is
a close second for RTTY.  At the same time, I have to acknowledge that the
current SO HP World Record holder in the CQ WW RTTY Contest used Win-Test.
;>)

I believe that the best logger for you is the logger that works best for
you, not the logger that works best for someone else, or is the most popular
logger among contesters.

Ed W0YK

------------------------------------------------

Joe W4TV wrote:

On 2014-07-24 12:56 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
> And also note that WinTest was number one logging software.

Only due to two accidents - the large number of European teams and that
WRTC does not include any RTTY component.  When one looks at teams from
the Americas, N1MM Logger was the more popular logger.  When one looks
at the top performers in digital mode contests the results show a much
higher percentage of N1MM logger and WriteLog users.

Win-Test has its pace if one is stuck on a user interface from the last
century and is only concerned for CW (not that either is necessarily
bad).

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On 7/27/2014 9:23 PM, Ed Muns wrote:
> I believe that the best logger for you is the logger that works best for
> you, not the logger that works best for someone else, or is the most popular
> logger among contesters.

I agree completely. And the logger that is best for you is usually the
one that you know so intimately that everything is completely
instinctive. That takes lots of operating time!

Because I'm happy with N1MM, and because it doesn't do CQP, I haven't
bothered to study WinTest. I'd be interested to hear from WinTest users
what they view as its advantages. The only things I've heard so far is
that networking is quite solid and that the UI is very much like one of
the popular DOS programs.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On 7/27/2014 9:23 PM, Igor Sokolov wrote:
> Jim,
> Thank you. Very persuading comparison.
> Could you possibly add some modern SDR based rigs to the comparison?

Hello Igor,

So far, I've not bothered to look at the older ones, having read this
work, and ARRL has not reviewed anything since the Flex 3000 in 2009.  
For that one, keying looks like the middle of "middle of the pack" rigs,
phase noise is about -120 dBC all the way out to 1 MHz.

http://sm5bsz.com/dynrange/dubus313.pdf

I've seen predictions that the newer rigs will be better.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[JHRichards]

Hi Jim - will you be adding the spectral display graphs of "transmitter
composite noise testing"  which appear in the various product reviews to
your summary?

If so, I will help mine the graphs from the reviews, if that will ease
some of the work load.   I know that takes serious time.

------------------ K8JHR ------------------------





On 7/27/2014 8:25 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

   I replotted ARRL test data for key clicks and TX phase noise.

I'm not going to stop there,


__________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On 7/27/2014 10:53 PM, K8JHR wrote:
> Hi Jim - will you be adding the spectral display graphs of
> "transmitter composite noise testing"  which appear in the various
> product reviews to your summary?
>
> If so, I will help mine the graphs from the reviews, if that will ease
> some of the work load.   I know that takes serious time.

So far I don't plan to -- they don't add much to the analysis. I showed
the keying spectra simply because many were so radially different, and
that it might give thoughtful designers clues as to the reason. Perhaps
IMD with the click modulation?

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[N4OI - Ken]

Perhaps this is discussed somewhere in the thread, but I am surprised by the lack of Flex SDRs in the mix.  I would have thought at least a few would be there for PR, if no other reason.

73

[Bill Frantz]

The West Valley Amateur Radio Association operating as K6EI and
W6ZZZ (GotA) had a similar experience. We operated 6AB-QRP with
CW, SSB and digital HF stations. We used K3s and KX3s
exclusively. Our antennas were arranged in a line to minimize
interference. We would often have CW, digital, and SSB on the
same band. In operating the digital station, I never noticed the
CW people. The only way I noticed the SSB people was by
overhearing their sound waves from the tent next door. :-)

73 Bill AE6JV

On 7/27/14 at 7:40 PM, [hidden email] (Guy Olinger K2AV) wrote:

>This is something the North Carolina PVRC group that did field day
>together north of Raleigh already knew about K3's vs. the world from a
>pile of experiences.  We had five or six K3's available to us, and we
>went purely with the K3's on HF in the 3A class.  We had a little
>horizontal physical spread to help out, but we often had both CW and
>SSB on the same band at the same time due to the conditions, and one
>could not hear the co-band K3.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | When it comes to the world     | Periwinkle
[phone]      | around us, is there any choice | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | but to explore? - Lisa Randall | Los Gatos,
CA 95032

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[JHRichards]

On 7/28/2014 8:45 AM, N4OI - Ken wrote:
> Perhaps this is discussed somewhere in the thread, but I am surprised by the
> lack of Flex SDRs in the mix.  I would have thought at least a few would be
> there for PR, if no other reason.

______________________________________________________


There is an article that addresses the earlier Flex products, which
shows the Flex 1500 and Flex 3000 to be... well... kinda punk in the
noise department.


http://sm5bsz.com/dynrange/dubus313.pdf


No doubt it would be swell if all radios could be included, but I
believe this is a HUGE time consuming job mining data by sifting through
all those old reviews and selecting the correct data, and then even more
time to plot them in a consistent manner.

I am not sure there is data on all rigs of interest, and the newest Flex
radios revealed at Dayton have yet to be reviewed, heck it takes 8 to 9
months for a new rig to get reviewed in QST magazine.  It takes time to
test, and issue content is lined up months in advance.  I had a piece
published in the Nov 2013 QST magazine, but it has been submitted 11
months earlier.

-------------------- K8JHR --------------------------
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On 7/28/2014 5:45 AM, N4OI - Ken wrote:
> Perhaps this is discussed somewhere in the thread, but I am surprised by the
> lack of Flex SDRs in the mix.  I would have thought at least a few would be
> there for PR, if no other reason.

PR?  What's that?

The K3 and KX3 are both SDRs with knobs. I'm guessing that you mean SDRs
without knobs.

My interest is primarily contesting, the subject was radios for
contesting, and rigs like the Flex products have made little headway in
the contesting community.  I know of only two guys contesting with Flex
radios . One is K6TU, and the other is K6XN, who bought K6TU's older SDR
that is new model replaced. No, I don't remember which models were
involved.

However, several guys asked, so I've added all three SDRs that ARRL has
tested to the plots.  I've also corrected a labeling error on one of the
plots, added a plot of phase noise for a 500 Hz bandwidth, and added
some text.  It's all still at k9yc.com/TXNoise.pdf  I suspect that these
plots will make it clear why contesters aren't thrilled with these radios.

By all means, before you consider one of the Flex radios, be sure to
study this work by Leif Asbrink, SM5BSZ.

http://sm5bsz.com/dynrange/dubus313.pdf

73, Jim K9YC


______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[w1gd]

I was a WRTC 2014 volunteer responsible for overseeing 4 different stations.  Of the 8 radios at these stations, 6 were K3s.  Before the contest started, we did have a significant issue with phase noise interference from one of the K3s on 15M when that station was beaming toward the adjacent station (also receiving on a K3).  The interference made 15M unusable at the adjacent station.  When we tested with the non-K3 from the same location with the same beam heading, the phase noise was not a significant problem. If we reduced the K3 output to 30 watts, there was no problem. Fortunately, we were able to change out the original K3 with another K3 and that significantly reduced the problem.

I have used my K3 at a 160M multi-op station and recognzie how important it is to properly set up the AGC parameters to allow two radios to be on the same band.  Since we were able to resolve the problem to the competitors satisfaction, I didn't probe any further into the setting of the K3s.

Gerry, W1GD

[Jim Brown-10]

On 7/29/2014 5:15 AM, w1gd via Elecraft wrote:
> When we tested with the non-K3 from the same location
> with the same beam heading, the phase noise was not a significant problem.
> If we reduced the K3 output to 30 watts, there was no problem. Fortunately,
> we were able to change out the original K3 with another K3 and that
> significantly reduced the problem.

Hi Gerry,

Thanks for the info. As the ARRL data shows, phase noise performance of
the K3 that's working right is quite a bit better than any other modern
rigs out to 1 MHz, but that's as far as ARRL's published data goes. If
it was my K3, it would have gone back to Elecraft as soon as I could get
it there after the contest, even handing to them in their booth. :)

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]