[Elecraft] reflections on the WPX contest

[VR2BrettGraham]

K2AV continued:

>I had to set back and remember some of the criticism on the MP reflector 
>when I was listening to that...
>
>One was, that the sub RX was not a true second RX, couldn't listen off 
>bands, having many selectivity issues, and being unable to independently 
>operate off band, yada, yada, yada...

 From an active operator's standpoint, the limitations in the MP's 
sub-receiver are
not much of a problem - to remove the separate front-end section in the MP, 
which
came out after the 1000, did seem odd considering the general trend to add 
features
to new products.

I got my MP after a stint with a TS-950, which in terms of flexibility of 
what can be
done with the sub-rcvr & lack of filtering for CW left a lot to be 
desired.  Thankfully
W2VJN has kept INRAD going - allowing me to transplant the original Yaesu 
sub-rcvr
filter into my current 50 Mc/satellite rig (the 950 long ago also had an 
INRAD TS-50
CW filter grafted into it's sub-rcvr).

>A PAIR of K2's just needs an interoperability module/software to be the 
>best SO2R platform on the planet. Could get away with only one 100W module 
>and the internal equivalent of one of the SO2R boxes. Program the 
>interlocks using the aux bus communication, let the contest software set 
>the transmitter/ant.

Wasn't it mentioned in the recent NCJ review of the K2 that a K2/100 + 
second K2
is also cheaper than one of the various dual-rcvr major brand 
products?  Far more
radio for the money & the resultant redundancy is also highly desirable.

Let's hope that N6TR is toying with the idea of doing something just like 
that with
TRlog - otherwise, as I tend to do a lot of single-band contests, the SO1.5R
stuff that VE7FO has been trying out with his MP is awfully tempting.

>One K2 does take care of the BASICS, not the subtleties. Two K2s bomb the 
>competition for flexibility.

Not to mention being far more field-serviceable (a big consideration out 
here & one
that has been driven home loud & clear through a raft of failures of major 
brand
products I've experienced over the past few years).

> From a receiving standpoint, only thing I wish my K2 had was passband 
> skirts equivalent to the matching 400 hz INRAD filters in both IF's of my 
> MP, ultimate measured >100 db rejection up or down 500 hz, etc. (How 
> COULD one improve a K2 in that direction, beyond the crystal mod?)

The recent posts here about liking the sound of the K2 over other rigs is 
contrary to
my impression here - my MP with 400 & 2k cycle INRADs plus the audio frequency
response mod sounds much better to the ear than my K2 - but then again my K2
still awaits fitting of recent modifications & I suspect the filters aren't 
quite set up
right to begin with, anyway.

Somebody posted here some time ago about a comment about an INRAD filter
model (770?) for an Elecraft something - I couldn't find mention of it 
anywhere on
their web page.  I concur with you that better IF filtering for the K2 
would be highly
desirable.

Having done a lot of filter add-ons to rigs over the years (including 
transplanting &
cascading ICOM filters into an FT-726R - which have different center 
frequencies),
I'd be happy to bodge something together instead of sacrificing the noise 
blanker
as had been suggested by GI4KSH - I'm afraid the NB is an absolute 
must-have for
any rig (and might have been necessary to work you in the recent CQ WW RTTY,
John ;^).

73, VR2BrettGraham