that Drake or Collins "sound"

[DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL]

WØYK sed:

[snip]
The K3 simply "sounds better" on all modes, including RTTY.  The band noise
is less severe to listen to, and the difference is striking just having the
ProIII in one ear and the K3 in the other with no signals in the passbands.
Yet, the K3 dynamic range accepts a much larger range of signal levels and
the K3 pre-amp can be left on even on the low bands where the attenuator
does NOT need to be turned on except in severe situations.  I ran with the
pre-amp on, maximum sensitivity, and the attenuator off on all bands 10-80
for the entire NAQP.  The K3 was less fatiguing to listen to for long
periods of time with the audio sounding very natural, whereas the ProIII
does sound digitized or artificial.  (Maybe if you're not old enough to have
spent many hours in front of a Drake or Collins receiver, you can't
appreciate this point!)
[end snip]

This is GREAT news for me!  While I don't "do" RTTY, I sure "do" CW.
Over the years, I have listened multiple times on the 756 Pro series,
and I must say that to my admittedly "sensitive" ear, I just can't
stand that "digital" sound (very "flutey," if there is such a word).
>From home, I can even hear it on the xmited signal.  I can pick out an
Icom radio a mile away.  Not "bad"...just not like it "should" be.

Normally, I HATE subjective opinions...but this one that really "rings true."

Thanks for the review!

de Doug KR2Q
_______________________________________________
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 Cutter]

I prefer the FT1000MP sound to the Pro3.  It's more like my Drake TR7: a softer (shall I say) analogue sound.  I get quickly fatigued with the Pro3 which I find harsh, rasping; though I do hear weaker stations, ie better for dx seeking than contesting.  Looking forward to putting the K3 in an A/B test.

David
G3UNA

>
> From: "DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL" <[hidden email]>
> Date: 2007/07/23 Mon PM 12:21:11 BST
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Elecraft] that Drake or Collins "sound"
>
> WØYK sed:
>
> [snip]
> The K3 simply "sounds better" on all modes, including RTTY.  The band noise
> is less severe to listen to, and the difference is striking just having the
> ProIII in one ear and the K3 in the other with no signals in the passbands.
> Yet, the K3 dynamic range accepts a much larger range of signal levels and
> the K3 pre-amp can be left on even on the low bands where the attenuator
> does NOT need to be turned on except in severe situations.  I ran with the
> pre-amp on, maximum sensitivity, and the attenuator off on all bands 10-80
> for the entire NAQP.  The K3 was less fatiguing to listen to for long
> periods of time with the audio sounding very natural, whereas the ProIII
> does sound digitized or artificial.  (Maybe if you're not old enough to have
> spent many hours in front of a Drake or Collins receiver, you can't
> appreciate this point!)
> [end snip]
>
> This is GREAT news for me!  While I don't "do" RTTY, I sure "do" CW.
> Over the years, I have listened multiple times on the 756 Pro series,
> and I must say that to my admittedly "sensitive" ear, I just can't
> stand that "digital" sound (very "flutey," if there is such a word).
> >From home, I can even hear it on the xmited signal.  I can pick out an
> Icom radio a mile away.  Not "bad"...just not like it "should" be.
>
> Normally, I HATE subjective opinions...but this one that really "rings true."
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> de Doug KR2Q
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

_______________________________________________
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

[Brett gazdzinski-2]

Great news to me also.
I am used to using the old gear, and all the new stuff I have
ever used sounds noisy and harsh, the newer it is, the worse
it gets.

Not sure if it's the multi conversions or the cheap audio amps, but
all the newer stuff was very noisy.
Even the R390a had way more noise then many other radios.

The K2 is fairly quiet, but it's a CW/SSB rig and the audio is restricted
I suspect..

Sounds like the K3 is going to be fantastic.

Thanks for the detailed review.

Well, I suppose its not long now!


Brett
N2DTS



 

> This is GREAT news for me!  While I don't "do" RTTY, I sure "do" CW.
> Over the years, I have listened multiple times on the 756 Pro series,
> and I must say that to my admittedly "sensitive" ear, I just can't
> stand that "digital" sound (very "flutey," if there is such a word).
> >From home, I can even hear it on the xmited signal.  I can
> pick out an
> Icom radio a mile away.  Not "bad"...just not like it "should" be.
>
> Normally, I HATE subjective opinions...but this one that
> really "rings true."
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> de Doug KR2Q
>

_______________________________________________
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

[Charly]

If u hv never listened to CW on a 75A-4 with a matching spkr, u have not
really heard CW.

Maybe we should get Bob Heil to teach new rcvr engineers a thing or two?  73


Charles Harpole
[hidden email]

_________________________________________________________________
http://liveearth.msn.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

[Jim Younce]

Perhaps the one thing that we are all overlooking in the nice sound of the
Collins and Drake radios is that their bandpass was much wider than the
modern day radios and today there is far more QRM on the bands due to
increased numbers of amateurs in the same spectrum.  I  loved my KWM-2 and
used it for 14 years but doubt that it would be a very good radio to use in
a contest in this day and time.

Jim Younce K4ZM
K2  SN:18
K2 Field Tester

_______________________________________________
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

[Darwin, Keith]

 
I did some A/B testing with my K2, Drake 2B and R4A.  The 2B was in
fabulous condition and had the Q multiplier.  The 4A had some issues
which made it work just not quite right.

I found the 2B to be a wonderful sounding rig for CW.  It was warm and
rich and the signals had a smoothness that was wonderful.  The K2 didn't
sound a nice but it wasn't that far behind.

The AGC in the Drake was not my cup of tea.  It attempted to keep
everything at the same output level (no slope) so the background noise
between elements was as strong as the signal.  Also, it was slow on the
attack.  The leading edge of most elements had a spike for one audio
cycle that could be seen in Spectrograph (or whatever it is called) but
was quick enough to not be heard.  That spike would cause the AGC to
over react a bit so the first part of a long dash would be a bit quieter
than the latter part.  Still, the sound was very sweet.

The K2's AGC was more up to the task.  There was no slow reaction, no
overshoot on the leading edge of an element and no over reacting.

In the end, the sweet, smooth tone of the 2B was not enough to trump the
better overall performance of the K2 who's received tone very good.

We talk about Drake, Collins & the great rigs from years ago, but I'd
like to suggest that thanks to Elecraft, THESE are the good old days!

- Keith N1AS -
- K2 5411.ssb.100 -
_______________________________________________
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

[Brett gazdzinski-2]

 
On the kwm2 and kwm2a, cw was an afterthought, and done
in a poor way. I think they used audio tones into the mike circuit
for CW, and  maybe the ssb filter?

I don't think those rigs were great CW radios.

Not sure about the drake 2b, the r4c I had was very nice for its
age, and with some mods can be as good as the modern stuff I hear.
Mine sounded quite nice stock, under normal conditions anyway.

I don't suppose any of the old stuff would be any good in any
contest, but maybe some of it sounded much better on all modes.

Not everyone contests or goes after rare DX, but everyone
seems to be stuck with poor sounding radios these days,
because they are built for contests, or for general coverage
from 50KHz to 50MHz, or use noisy parts, or poor designs,
or whatever....

Brett
N2DTS

 



_______________________________________________
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

[N2EY]

-----Original Message-----
From: Brett gazdzinski <[hidden email]>

>On the kwm2 and kwm2a, cw was an afterthought, and done
>in a poor way. I think they used audio tones into the mike circuit
>for CW, and  maybe the ssb filter?

The KWM-2 and -2A did indeed use audio tones for CW. They used
a very high tone (to most CW ops) so that the unwanted-sideband
rejection
would be good after the filtering.

>I don't think those rigs were great CW radios.

They were barely usable on CW IMHO. No RIT, no sharp filter, no way to
turn
the AGC off nor to change its characteristics without a soldering iron.

It didn't have to be that way. A carrier crystal setup could have been
used instead of
audio injection. Collins made narrow mechanical filters that could have
been used, etc.

They were primarily SSB rigs, pure and simple. And they did that job
very well,
particularly compared to what else was available to hams at the time.

Perhaps Collins was concerned that if they made the KWM-2 a really good
CW rig,
it would hurt sales of the rest of the S-line.

Unfortunately, most of the HF ham transceivers for the next decade or
so imitated
the KWM-2 in many ways.

>I don't suppose any of the old stuff would be any good in any
>contest, but maybe some of it sounded much better on all modes.

Depends on which rig and how it is used. I have used older rigs and
homebrew rigs
using very old technology in contests with very good results. The rig
you see on
my homepage was responsible for over 620 QSOs on FD 1995 with only
simple
 antennas.

>Not everyone contests or goes after rare DX, but everyone
>seems to be stuck with poor sounding radios these days,

I'm not. Two reasons: Elecraft and homebrew.

>because they are built for contests, or for general coverage
>from 50KHz to 50MHz, or use noisy parts, or poor designs,
>or whatever....

A lot depends on what someone considers "good sounding" and "poor
sounding".
In my experience there are all sorts of factors:

- Harmonic distortion (audio)
- IM distortion (audio & rf/if)
- Phase distortion (mostly IF)
- AGC characteristics (or lack thereof)
- Smooth vs. sharp rolloff of filter characteristics, filter ringing,
etc.

What some ops describe as "noise" is often actually distortion in some
cases,
AGC artifacts in others, and filter response in still other cases. Or a
combination.

73 de Jim, N2EY







_______________________________________________
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


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.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

[waltk8cv4612amos]

Built to a PRICE in ASIA :-) Every ham wants his IC-718 to sound like a $10,
000 radio but only pay $599
:-)))))))))

Yeah, had one of those KWM-2 things and it sure was pretty inside and
smelled so good when it was cooking :-) " THE SMELL OF HOT TUBES IN THE
MORNING, THE SMELL OF VICTORY " :-))

But the thing was crap on CW, but it was a phone mans wet dream !! It did
have great AUDIO but wasn't all that sensitive though.

Things always seem better in MEMORY LANE :-) I loved my DRAKE C-LINE but it
had hum and other assorted problems.

Right NOW I love my ORION II but the K-3 may make me change my mind :-)
soooooooooooooon I hope, maybe even before the snow flies ? Say it isn't so
, Christmas and no K-3 , mine heart is wounded or whatever that D-DAY
message was ...................

The K-3 is coming ....................... coming .........................
soon ?

K-3 DAY !!

Walt K8CV Royal Oak, MI.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett gazdzinski" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] that Drake or Collins "sound"

>
> On the kwm2 and kwm2a, cw was an afterthought, and done
> in a poor way. I think they used audio tones into the mike circuit
> for CW, and  maybe the ssb filter?
>
> I don't think those rigs were great CW radios.
>
> Not sure about the drake 2b, the r4c I had was very nice for its
> age, and with some mods can be as good as the modern stuff I hear.
> Mine sounded quite nice stock, under normal conditions anyway.
>
> I don't suppose any of the old stuff would be any good in any
> contest, but maybe some of it sounded much better on all modes.
>
> Not everyone contests or goes after rare DX, but everyone
> seems to be stuck with poor sounding radios these days,
> because they are built for contests, or for general coverage
> from 50KHz to 50MHz, or use noisy parts, or poor designs,
> or whatever....
>
> Brett
> N2DTS
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Vic K2VCO]

Brett gazdzinski wrote:

> On the kwm2 and kwm2a, cw was an afterthought, and done
> in a poor way. I think they used audio tones into the mike circuit
> for CW, and  maybe the ssb filter?
>
> I don't think those rigs were great CW radios.
>
> Not sure about the drake 2b, the r4c I had was very nice for its
> age, and with some mods can be as good as the modern stuff I hear.
> Mine sounded quite nice stock, under normal conditions anyway.

I once had the following setup: R4B receiver, Hallicrafters HA-5
hetrodyne VFO, Heathkit DX-60B, and homemade 813 amplifier with a t/r
switch hooked directly to the plate circuit. The keyer was homebrew and
a NC contact on the keying relay activated the R4B muting circuit.

After the addition of one bypass capacitor in the audio of the R4B, I
had what I remember to be absolutely perfect QSK. When I turned off the
sidetone from the keyer, keying the transmitter (about 250w input)
resulted in smooth pulses of silence from the receiver.

Maybe it's like your first girlfriend, the way time clouds memory, but
this is the standard that I apply to modern rigs, most of which don't
come close.

I also got a certificate from ARRL in the frequency measuring test by
calibrating the R4B to WWV and then just reading the frequency off the dial.
--
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

[Goody K3NG]

A $25 Rockmite in an Altoids tin or an ugly homebrew 2N2222 rig can have
"that sound"....it's all about your frame of mind :-)

72
Goody
K3NG

--
Blog: http://thek3ngreport.blogspot.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

[Charly]

Yes, the old rigs were that good and memory is accurate.... but, anyone got
a 2007 estimate of the today cost in usd of these oldies?  I'll bet it is
handsome sum.

73

Charles Harpole
[hidden email]

_________________________________________________________________
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507

_______________________________________________
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

[Stephen W. Kercel]

Charles and all:

In 1964 the basic Drake 2B receiver without the Q-multiplier was
$279. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, that
is the equivalent of $1875 in 2007.

73,

Steve Kercel
AA4AK


At 11:09 AM 7/24/2007, Charles Harpole wrote:

>Yes, the old rigs were that good and memory is accurate.... but,
>anyone got a 2007 estimate of the today cost in usd of these
>oldies?  I'll bet it is handsome sum.
>
>73
>
>Charles Harpole
>[hidden email]
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
>
>_______________________________________________
>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]

I am not certain what speakers you folks are using for these comparison
tests, but if using the internal speakers, that alone can make a big
difference.

I use my K2 with an external speaker (a 6 inch woofer - amplified of
course) - and I can say that if I feed it to the inputs of my shack
stereo system it really sounds good - the internal speaker makes things
sound a bit 'tinny' just because it is a small speaker.

73,
Don W3FPR

Darwin, Keith wrote:
>  
> I did some A/B testing with my K2, Drake 2B and R4A.  The 2B was in
> fabulous condition and had the Q multiplier.  The 4A had some issues
> which made it work just not quite right.
>
> I found the 2B to be a wonderful sounding rig for CW.  It was warm and
> rich and the signals had a smoothness that was wonderful.  The K2 didn't
> sound a nice but it wasn't that far behind.
>
_______________________________________________
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

[Darwin, Keith]

Yes, good point Don.

When I did my tests, I fed the antenna to both rigs and tuned them to
the same signal.  I routed the rigs headphone output to a mixer and then
to the Delta 44 sound card in my computer.  The signals were recorded in
Cakewalk Home Studio.  This allowed me to listen to how each rig did on
the same signal at the same time and to listen to it under studio
headphones.

The rig's speaker was not part of the equation.

- Keith N1AS -
- K2 5411.100.ssb -

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Don Wilhelm
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:49 AM
Cc: elecraft@Elecraft List
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] that Drake or Collins "sound"

I am not certain what speakers you folks are using for these comparison
tests, but if using the internal speakers, that alone can make a big
difference.

I use my K2 with an external speaker (a 6 inch woofer - amplified of
course) - and I can say that if I feed it to the inputs of my shack
stereo system it really sounds good - the internal speaker makes things
sound a bit 'tinny' just because it is a small speaker.

73,
Don W3FPR

Darwin, Keith wrote:
>  
> I did some A/B testing with my K2, Drake 2B and R4A.  The 2B was in
> fabulous condition and had the Q multiplier.  The 4A had some issues
> which made it work just not quite right.
>
> I found the 2B to be a wonderful sounding rig for CW.  It was warm and

> rich and the signals had a smoothness that was wonderful.  The K2
> didn't sound a nice but it wasn't that far behind.
>
_______________________________________________
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

[k6dgw]

Stephen W. Kercel wrote:
> Charles and all:
>
> In 1964 the basic Drake 2B receiver without the Q-multiplier was $279.
> Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, that is the
> equivalent of $1875 in 2007.

I used a KWM-2A on CW as HS1FJ for about 6 weeks in the mid-60's.  I was
CW only, and don't recall any problems [other than having the entire
planet call me :-) ].  It was VOX QSK of course.  I had an S3-line for
many years, again mainly CW, and don't recall any issues.  In both
cases, CW was with headfones, and the SSB quality depended heavily on
the speaker I was using.  I had a 2B also, and until I got my K2, really
thought it was the greatest rx I had ever seen, better than the 75S3,
but again, "sound" quality depended nearly totally on the speaker.  The
filters in my K2 rival the Collins mech filters, and in fact have gotten
me back into RTTY contesting.

FWIW:  In the 3.8 years I served in the USAF in SE Asia in the 60's, we
had KWM-2A's in every environment you can imagine.  They got beat up in
trucks and jeeps, full of sand and dirt, wet, overheated, and subject to
less than ideal power regulation [OK, really crappy regulation].  They
tolerated extreme VSWR.  We pulled them out the back of low-flying
C-130's on shock pallets with snap-opening cargo parachutes [LAPES] in
the middle of the night, they fell off tables and boxes being used as
tables when someone tripped over the coax or power cord.  They became
scratched and worn.  I remember one that fell on the front panel and
fractured the tuning knob.  Our depot in the Philippines sent a new knob
and the radio continued to work just fine.  In all of this, the failure
rate was exactly zero ... a very good thing since more than once, our
survival depended on the KWM-2A working.  I wonder how many $10K radios
of today could duplicate that reliability and durability?

Rest in peace, Art ... and ignore all the latter-day critics.  Your
radios were engineering marvels.  I now have another engineering marvel
on my desk, it's much smaller and lighter than a KWM-2A, and its
performance surpasses your marvel.  Fittingly, its name begins with a "K".

A number of our airborne missions required that we destroy all of our
gear with thermite when we ran out of JP4 for the turbine generators and
the Army came to recover us in a couple of CH3's.  We had two KWM-2A's
on every mission.  We ran 21 of those missions.  Does anyone know how
hard it was for a ham to purposely destroy 42 KWM-2A's? :-(

I'll be in the Flight of the Bumblebees this coming Sunday with my K2
and KX1 as back-up.  Hope to work a bunch of Elecrafters.

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2007 CQP Oct 6-7
- www.cqp.org

K2 #4398
KX1 #897
KPA100
KAT100
_______________________________________________
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

[Brett gazdzinski-2]

Jim,
Tell me about your homebrew receiver.

I have built 2 superhets, both work fantastic
but on AM, I might add CW (a product detector).

Unfortunately, kiwa does not make narrow filters anymore...

Brett
N2DTS

> >I don't suppose any of the old stuff would be any good in any
> >contest, but maybe some of it sounded much better on all modes.
>
> Depends on which rig and how it is used. I have used older rigs and
> homebrew rigs
> using very old technology in contests with very good results. The rig
> you see on
> my homepage was responsible for over 620 QSOs on FD 1995 with only
> simple
>  antennas.
>
>>

_______________________________________________
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

[Phil Kane-2]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:17:30 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:

>It didn't have to be that way. A carrier crystal setup could have
>been used instead of audio injection. Collins made narrow
>mechanical filters that could have been used, etc.

>Perhaps Collins was concerned that if they made the KWM-2 a
>really good CW rig, it would hurt sales of the rest of the
>S-line.

  As you probably know, Jim, audio tone injection was the
  commercial standard more than 50 years ago.  Collins made great
  commercial multi-channel multi-tone HF rigs and they saw no
  reason to change a winning design.  CW is a single-channel
  single-channel application, trivial by commercial standards.
  With their commercial gear as the cash cow, why change a
  winner?

--
   73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
   Elecraft K2/100   s/n 5402



_______________________________________________
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

[N2EY]

In a message dated 7/24/07 11:35:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> basic Drake 2B receiver without the Q-multiplier was
> $279. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, that
> is the equivalent of $1875 in 2007
>
>

Lessee - that's about the price of a bare-bones K3 or a fully-loaded K2/100,
isn't it?

And the 2B wasn't considered a top-of-the-line receiver in its time!
One big cause of its popularity was that it was considered
*inexpensive* for the performance and features you got for $279.
And it was, even though it wouldn't transceive and the basic 2B
did not include 160 meters, a calibrator, a noise blanker (it had a
limiter), the Q multiplier, nor even a built-in speaker IIRC.

A 2B was far beyond my means back in the day.

73 de Jim, N2EY


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the
all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
_______________________________________________
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

[N2EY]

In a message dated 7/24/07 4:54:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes:


> audio tone injection was the
>   commercial standard more than 50 years ago.  Collins made great
>   commercial multi-channel multi-tone HF rigs and they saw no
>   reason to change a winning design.  CW is a single-channel
>   single-channel application, trivial by commercial standards.
>   With their commercial gear as the cash cow, why change a
>   winner?

Because they were making a ham rig, not a commercial one.
What the commercial services do isn't always the best thing
for amateur radio applications.

There's nothing theoretically wrong with audio injection for CW.
But when a rig that cost as much as the KWM-2 did in its time
expects the op to listen to 2 kHz tone on CW, doesn't provide
a narrow filter even as an option, nor RIT or AGC OFF,
I call shenanigans.

The KWM-2 was meant for *amateur radio* SSB, and it had no
peer in that role in its day.
 
All IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the
all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
_______________________________________________
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