[Elecraft] Tuner efficiency question

[vze3v8dt at verizon.net]

I haven't had lots of different tuners to compare myself, but I do have 
a Johnson KW Matchbox tuner.  It does a great job on Balanced lines.  I 
didn't really know about the Palastar but just checked it out on the 
website.  Looked like an interesting tuner.  But to me the downside of 
it was that there is a balun on the output, which of course as Don 
stated is a dominating factor in losses in a tuner (at least maybe that 
is what I took away from his comments as well as other discussions on 
this subject in the past).  Is there a modern tuner out there for 
balanced lines that doesn't use a balun? 

Maybe the proper comparison for more apples to apples comparison should 
be made for tuners that are designed for type of feedline output or 
maybe Hi-Z vs Lo-Z, as most today, including the Elecraft, are likely 
moreso designed not for balanced line output and Hi-Z but coaxial output 
and Lo-Z.  Sure, many tuners may also have a balanced line output 
option, but that is likely there as a convenience or for marketing or 
whatever but is really just added on as compared to the overall tuner 
being designed for Hi-Z and balanced output.  While I like my Johnson KW 
tuner for certain antennas I may opt for some other tuner for other 
types of antennas.  The type of tuner should be considered as a whole in 
the antenna system, not as a one size fits all solution (unless there is 
a tuner out there that really can do both ends of the spectrum equally 
well). 

When I first started getting back into QRP just over one year ago I had 
my RockMite-40 sitting on top of the Johnson KW Matchbox.  It was going 
to a resonant antenna and didn't go through the tuner.  Even though the 
Matchbox is supposedly a low loss antenna tuner it did seem like there 
was something just wrong about using it with a QRP rig, maybe like some 
sort of sacralidge in its own way, but maybe that is just me. 

Maybe the purist would say that only resonant antennas should be used so 
a tuner is not needed.  Okay, that makes some sense, but maybe I can get 
an antenna with better overall performance than the extra losses 
involved when using a tuner.  Again, the whole systems needs to be 
evaluated an not just individual parts of a system.  If individual parts 
are selected because they are the best but when put together they don't 
work so well collectively it doesn't seem like a good solution. Maybe a 
tuner with more versatility even if it has slightly higher losses is a 
better solution for the next ham who doesn't use just one antenna at a 
fixed location all the time.  Certainly as QRPers we are all aware that 
antenna systems are quite important and band conditions really dominate 
how well we can communicate.  But really, given good band conditions and 
being able to somehow get some signal to something to radiate things 
will result in being able to communicate. 

I just installed the KAT2 in my K2 and am amazed at how fast it tunes.  
I haven't tried it with a variety of different antenna configurations, 
so I can't comment much on its verstatility.  Unfortunately I'm not 
currently using my balanced feedline antenna anymore due to a change in 
QTH and a temporary hamshack setup, but the KAT2 seems to suit my needs 
for now.  If anything, at this time the Matchbox at least still looks 
quite respectable sitting on the bench (farther away from the K2 than 
when I had the RockMite sitting on top of the Matchbox, HI! HI!).

I hope my late night ramblings make some sense.  Sorry if they don't.

Mark, NK8Q
K2 4876