Victor 4X6GP wrote: "Personally I use full QSK less than 10% of the time,
but I would want a QSK-capable amp even if I never used it."
I feel EXACTLY the same. This is why I cancelled my order for the PG-XL and
am considering the Elecraft KPA 1500.
Mickey Baker, N4MB
Fort Lauderdale, FL
*“Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me,
and I will learn.” *Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:53 AM Vic Rosenthal <k2vco.vic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most CW ops that do not use full QSK do operate semi-QSK. And in that case
> the delay between the amp key signal being asserted and the t/r relays
> closing and settling reliably is just as critical as full QSK. Many non-QSK
> amps are deficient in this area, which leads to hot switching, chopped
> initial characters, loud initial transients, etc.
> There is also the annoyance of the noise in the shack from clunky relays,
> also an issue with SSB VOX.
> Personally I use full QSK less than 10% of the time, but I would want a
> QSK-capable amp even if I never used it.
>
> Victor 4X6GP
>
> > On 11 Oct 2018, at 19:47, Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> >> Just because you don't operate CW doesn't mean there isn't a market out
> >> there for a CW amplifier.
> >
> > I fully agree on that. The question is just how large that market is,
> compared to the market for an amplifier without QSK capability but slightly
> less expensive.
> >
> >> "More than 10,000 logs have been submitted for the CQ World Wide DX
> >> Contest, according to Contest Director Bob Cox, K3EST.
> >
> > That shows how very few hams engage in contesting! Assuming that one
> third of all contesters worldwide participated in this most important
> international contest, that would tell that about 30,000 hams worldwide are
> at least occasional contesters - among a total ham population of roughly
> two million!
> >
> > Of course almost ALL contesters own at least one amp, while among the
> general ham population maybe one in ten owns an amp. Even so, contesters
> are only a minor part of the potential customer base for amplifiers, and a
> very minor part for other equipment.
> >
> > > In addition, Cox
> >> reports that the number of CW logs have exceeded the number of phone
> logs
> >> for the first time in more than 20 years.
> >
> > So this tells that CW is on the rise, at least among contesters. Indeed
> I have noticed some more interest in CW among local hams than, say, 10 or
> 20 years ago. But I wonder what percentage of CW operators value QSK
> capability high enough to be willing to spend extra money on it. Surely
> many do, but just how many? In what little CW activity I ever had, I never
> really missed QSK. And those CW ops I know all have non-QSK amps, and seem
> to be happy.
> >
> > I'm not saying that QSK is worthless - far from it! I just think (and I
> fully admit the possibility of being wrong in this) that only a relatively
> small percentage of hams really values QSK highly enough to only buy an amp
> that features it.
> >
> > Just tuning through the bands, I do hear about as much CW activity as
> SSB activity. Also a lot of activity in a few specific digimodes. But most
> of the CW activity I hear does not seem to be in QSK. Only rarely do I hear
> a CW op breaking in and the other reacting to that. Most activity is with
> very clear and explicit TX/RX changeover, suggesting non-QSK operation.
> This is pretty much the same as VOX operation in SSB - most SSB operators
> aren't using VOX.
> >
> >> Evidently there is still a LOT of interest in CW.
> >
> > That's for sure. CW is far from being dead.
> >
> >> At least 5272 potential customers are out there.
> >
> > Assuming that every ham who submitted a log for the CQWWDX contest in
> CW is a potential customer for a specific QSK-capable amp is very
> misleading. Firstly, many CW ops seem to be happy with non-QSK amps.
> Secondly, those who buy only QSK amps will still spread out among all
> available QSK-capable amps, as customers. Thirdly, each ham might buy one
> amp in his lifetime, or perhaps a few, but will hardly run and buy a new
> amp just because it has become available. So the actual sales of a specific
> amp model to contesters, over its entire production run, will be FAR lower
> than the number of active contesters. And more importantly, a LOT of hams
> who aren't contesters also buy amps, so it would be wrong to judge the
> market for an amp by just looking at contesters!
> >
> > Well, anyone really wanting to know why that specific amp doesn't
> provide QSK capability should ask the manufacturer. Surely Flex has good
> reasons for it. In my previous post I outlined what I THINK these reasons
> could be, but I'm just speculating. I have never talked to anyone at Flex.
> >
> > And I don't mean to put down CW or its enthusiastic followers! I think
> that it's good that enough hams continue to cultivate this mode and keep it
> alive. The more variety we have, the better. But a manufacturer doesn't
> have any obligation to optimize all his products for a specific mode.
> Instead he might optimize SOME of them for CW, and others for other modes.
> And typically manufacturers will choose what tradeoffs to make according to
> what has the best market chances.
> >
> > Manfred
> >
> >
> > ========================
> > Visit my hobby homepage!
> > http://ludens.cl
> > ========================
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amps mailing list
> > Amps@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|