[Elecraft] Fwd: What is this about?????

[Kevin Rock]

Can anyone give this person a reasonable answer to his question?  I seem 
to remember something about this during the K3 thread but don't remember 
the details.
    Help?
        Kevin.   KD5ONS




------- Forwarded message -------
From: Timothy Germann <res04nyt@gte.net>
To: Kevin Rock <kevinrock@earthlink.net>
Subject: What is this about?????
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:00:19 -0800

> Dear Kevin Rock,
>
> I found this in the web and wonder if you can tell what this criticism 
> means.
>
> If you are too busy with your school work, just forget it.
>
> Timothy Germann
> 15001 Mission Hills Road
> Mission Hills
> California 91345-1102
> Voice: 818-365-6371
> Fax: 818-361-5717
> Email: res04nyt@gte.net
> KG6RII
> K2 3785
>
>
>
>>> I also don't like the fact that the sideband used on CW
>>> is different on some bands.  It's annoying when you're
>>> used to the pitch of signals going in one direction as
>>> you tune each band and then finding different behavior on
>>> the K2.  There is a "reverse" switch, but I don't think
>>> one should have to use it when changing bands.
>>
>> The reverse works, and the mode is remembered on each band, so this
>> shouldn't be a big deal. In reality, though, I haven't really noticed
>> the reversed tuning.
>
> You're right, it is remembered.  The point was that the
> operator shouldn't have to hit the reverse switch at all.
> This particular human factor should have been thought about
> and included in the design.  I'm surprised that none of
> the beta testers noticed this.  In any case, it should be
> very easy to correct in firmware.  If done from the outset,
> it would have been a zero-cost fix.
>
>>> Overall, the receiver is very good in the presence of
>>> strong signals (until you get very close, as Bill noted).
>>> I very much like the single-conversion approach.  It
>>> would be nice if they had the ability to use at least
>>> one 8-pole filter and, preferably, the ability to
>>> cascade two 8-pole filters (like the old TS-180S).
>>
>> Biggest problem is -- where would you put it? The K2 is really squeezed
>> tight. The SSB board is already crammed full.
>
> Exactly!  Some of these things simply cannot be corrected
> on the K2.  Maybe a physically larger K3 will address these
> issues.  (I hope, I hope, I hope!)>> I also don't like the fact that the 
> sideband used on CW
>>> is different on some bands.  It's annoying when you're
>>> used to the pitch of signals going in one direction as
>>> you tune each band and then finding different behavior on
>>> the K2.  There is a "reverse" switch, but I don't think
>>> one should have to use it when changing bands.
>>
>> The reverse works, and the mode is remembered on each band, so this
>> shouldn't be a big deal. In reality, though, I haven't really noticed
>> the reversed tuning.
>
> You're right, it is remembered.  The point was that the
> operator shouldn't have to hit the reverse switch at all.
> This particular human factor should have been thought about
> and included in the design.  I'm surprised that none of
> the beta testers noticed this.  In any case, it should be
> very easy to correct in firmware.  If done from the outset,
> it would have been a zero-cost fix.
>
>>> Overall, the receiver is very good in the presence of
>>> strong signals (until you get very close, as Bill noted).
>>> I very much like the single-conversion approach.  It
>>> would be nice if they had the ability to use at least
>>> one 8-pole filter and, preferably, the ability to
>>> cascade two 8-pole filters (like the old TS-180S).
>>
>> Biggest problem is -- where would you put it? The K2 is really squeezed
>> tight. The SSB board is already crammed full.
>
> Exactly!  Some of these things simply cannot be corrected
> on the K2.  Maybe a physically larger K3 will address these
> issues.  (I hope, I hope, I hope!)



--