[Elecraft] Just how good is the K2?

[George, W5YR]

Thanks, Earl, for reporting your experience with these radios. I think that
you have made my point that despite the "inferior" BDR and IMD3 measurements
made by ARRL on the PRO2, its other capabilities allow it to remain
competitive. Certain of its unique capabilities might, in the minds of some,
elevate it above the others, but that is an individual taste and judgment
call.In my own experience, I have never found it to be lacking in a contest
or crowded band environment. But a degree of experience and knowledge of the
radio is required on the part of the user.

As for weak signal operation, I participate regularly (and
enthusiastically!) in the QRP-L Fox Hunts where one deals with 5-watt
signals, coming frequently from less than optimal antennas, that many times
are almost right on the noise floor, be it internal or band noise. The PRO2
appears to me to equal and in most cases exceed the K2 in this environment
because of the signal manipulation tools provided by the PRO2 which are
lacking in the K2.

Addition of the audio DSP module to the K2 evidently makes up for a lot of
this difference between the K2 and the PRO2. I would expect this from my use
of an outboard DSP unit (NIR-12) on my K2. Even there, however, lack of a
manual notch filter to use on CW is a serious shortcoming. The outboard
Datong FL3 audio filter while inferior to the NIR-12 in filtering and noise
reduction has good notch and peak filter capabilities.

The point here is that with the addition of suitable filters, etc. the basic
K2 can be made into a very competent receiver which many prefer over the
more complex IF DSP models. Given these additions, the superior IMD3 and BDR
of the K2 is the basis for excellent overall performance.

73, George W5YR
w5yr@att.net




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Earl W Cunningham" <k6se@juno.com>
To: <w5yr@att.net>; <elecraft@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Just how good is the K2?


> George, W5YR wrote:
>
> "Remember that I was not attempting to put down the K2 in favor of the
> PRO2.  I merely was enquiring as to why the K2 has gained such favor as
> the "preferred" station receiver, based upon BDR and IMD3 measurements,
> in the face of the features and functions that it lacks in its design."
> ==========
> Clearly the IC-756Pro2 does not have as good BDR and IMD3 figures as the
> K2 (and the FT-1000MP).  I have used all three radios in 160-meter CW
> contests where many strong signals prevail with the following findings
> (all three radios were used with their preamps turned off):
>
> The strongest signals encountered are less than S9+40 dB and BDR has
> never been a problem with any of the radios.
>
> IMD3, which manifests itself by occasional bleeps and birdies being heard
> on a clear frequency, has never never been a problem with the K2, even
> with the attenuator turned off.  The FT-1000MP eliminates them when I use
> 6 dB of attenuation.  The IC-756Pro2 requires 12 dB of attenuation to
> eliminate them.
>
> My conclusion, then, is that the K2 is the best receiver of the three
> with respect to IMD3, with the FT-1000MP placing second and the
> IC-756Pro2 third.
>
> Even with 12 dB of attenuation, the Pro2's receiver has adequate gain to
> hear even the weakest signals with the audio gain control set to less
> than 12 o'clock.  The FT-1000MP's audio gain sits at wide open on those
> weak signals, as does the K2's audio gain control.
>
> So, even though the Pro2's IMD3 figures aren't as good as some other
> radios, it's not a show-stopper when you are DX or contesting.
>
> 73, de Earl, K6SE
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> You must be subscribed to post to the list.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Elecraft Web Page: http://www.elecraft.com
> Also see: http://www.elecraft.com/elecraft_list_guidelines.htm