[CW] What about a FT-450 for CW?

[hank k8dd]

A FT450 better than a TS930S?  Not from what I've heard from some serious
contesters.
And Joe is absolutely correct about the K3.  Although the price on the K3 
may
be above what you want to spend ..... but if it is, consider the K2 - even 
without
all the bells and whistles that a lot of radios have, the K2 is still right 
up there with
the K3 for receiver performance.
I believe that the K2 and K3 are the best CW radios out there .... and they 
aren't
too bad on that other mode that uses something that you talk into!
73    Hank    K8DD


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "aa4nn" <aa4nn at earthlink.net>
To: "CW Reflector" <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [CW] What about a FT-450 for CW?


> Do yourself a favor and checkout the Elecraft
> K3 if you are serioius about a CW receiver.
> You will not be sorry.
> de Joe, aa4nn
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Michael Josefsson" <mj at isy.liu.se>
> To: "CW Reflector" <cw at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:56 AM
> Subject: [CW] What about a FT-450 for CW?
>
>
>> Well XMAS is approaching. Will a FT-450 make me happier than I am now 
>> using a 1984 vintage TS-930S? I find the 930 somewhat noisy but love  the 
>> QSK. And when operating field-day then I seem to be the only one  not 
>> being QRM:ed by the others - they QRM each other and I QRM them in  some 
>> extent, but I come out on top usually:)
>>
>> So is a FT-450 an improvement? At least *something* must have happend 
>> the last decades, or...  :)
>>
>>
>> Ideas welcome!
>> /Micke
>> _______________________________________________
>> CW mailing list
>> CW at mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>