[CQ-Contest] Fwd: [FCG] riding the RF gain...

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

My guess at why the K2 has the receiver it does, aside from good design, is
because it doesn't have a noise blanker, and so doesn't need the bandwidth
at some point in the front end to allow the NB to sense the quick rise times
for blanking. It's narrow from the get-go and so there is less coming
through the pipe to cause trouble. That's a real advantage if you don't
need/want the NB.

Myself, have rarely used the NB on my MP. I've often wondered what would
happen if I yanked that circuit on the MP, and replaced that 15Khz filter
with a 4.

73, Guy.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Coleman" <aa4lr at arrl.net>
To: "BROCK-FISHER,TONY (A-hsgAndover,ex1)" <tony_brock-fisher at hsgmed.com>;
<tree at kkn.net>
Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: [FCG] riding the RF gain...


>
> On 12/14/01 11:31 AM, BROCK-FISHER,TONY (A-hsgAndover,ex1) at
> tony_brock-fisher at hsgmed.com wrote:
>
> >Not really! Yes the K2 is a simple, elegant design with really good
> >performance numbers. BUT, it's not a contest rig, as it lacks many
features
> >now considered essential for serious contest operation.
>
> I dunno, Tony. Look again. Didn't "Team Vertical" do a all QRP, all K2
> effort this year from Jamaica? 6 stations, all running single-operator,
> single-band efforts and turn in some really amazing scores? And read the
> notes on how they felt about the rig.
>
> The FT-1000MP is probably the definitive contest rig at the moment. A
> decked-out K2 doesn't have as many features, I'll admit. But it has the
> essentials. How often do you really need dual receive? Or the DSP? (The
> MP sounds pretty good without the EDSP on)
>
> Perhaps the most limiting thing about the K2 is that it is QRP-only at
> the moment. Elecraft is working on a 100 watt PA. It's in pre-production
> now.
>
> >Look at the many
> >multi-multi's that now run one or two 781's at each postion. A major
reason
> >for this is the spectrum scope feature, which helps them find and
maintain a
> >clear frequency. I'm sure we'd all agree that a clear frequency on
receive
> >is worth many dB on transmit...
>
> Amen. And having a more crunch-free Rx is why the K2 is a pretty amazing
> box.
>
> >This is just one example - there are many
> >others, such as power output, all band capability, selectivity options,
etc.
>
> The K2 has got just about all of these covered, except for the 100 watt
> PA.
>
> >Let me know when KC1XX has a K2 at each operating position...
>
> Don't make up your mind just now, Tony. I'm seeing a lot more K2s around.
>
> >Receiver design is a complex balance of tradeoffs and compromises. The K2
> >can do an excellent job of receiver performance, because many of the
> >constraints of a full-featured rig were removed, making it easier to
> >concentrate on doing 'a few things well'.
>
> That's exactly the quality that makes it a great rig. Many of the
> "constraints" in modern "full-featured" rig actually tend to make it have
> less performance.
>
>
>
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
>             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>
>


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com