CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX CW Signal Quality Concerns

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX CW Signal Quality Concerns
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 13:12:09 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On 6/8/2020 7:59 AM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
Don't stop there Jim, maybe you could provide a supplemental list that specifically calls out the rigs that are acceptable in this respect. And perhaps your objective metric that provides the dividing line between good and bad.

With what funding? Isn't that the job of our organizations like ARRL and RSGB?

So far, you state the FT2K as belonging in the "bad" (replace) category,

On the basis of 6 msec being the slowest possible rise time. That's not one of the rigs in my 2014 analysis of ARRL Lab data. The radios I chose to compare were those used at the recent WRTC and then popular at lower cost.

and from prior statements on the topic, the K3 falls in the "good" category.  Lot of other radios out there needing your judgement and owners needing your advice.

All of the Elecraft rigs since 2008 are "good" from a keying bandwidth point of view. They achieve rise time of about 2.5 msec, but without the clicks of the simpler "time-constant" keying of the other rigs, and they've said that the new K4 uses the same technique. Although I haven't been able to get one to measure, it's my understanding that Flex 6000-series adopted shaping inspired by the Elecraft method, but not before ARRL Labs tested one that wasn't at all good. There are a lot of those radios in use by contesters, and I've yet to hear clicks from them.

73, Jim K9YC









_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>