[Elecraft] XV144 state of the art or ... Test of the Large SignalBehaviour of some 144 MHz Radios?

[Mark]

Hello Don,
Some comments from my side in between your text below

Don Wilhelm wrote:
> If I read it correctly, this 'test report' and comments were for the K2
> operated without the transverter, but all the data presented was for testing
> with a transverter.
>   

> **Yes, I agree. Both my K2's perform lovely under heavy contest on the lowbands. Have no problem with its AGC behavior.
>   

> I am not certain of this individual's intent, but it would appear to me that
> he was determined to present the K2 in a bad light.
>   

> ** I think we cannot jump to that conclusion. I see no clear evidence of that. I 'assume'there simply was ample time for them to look into details why the test performed worse than average. I do tend to feel that some hams tend to exagarate the performance of their 'own'(home build) equipment and that in return others have a pre-biased negative tendency towards that. I try to neglect both and focus on real-life performance. 
>   

> For one, I do not understand why he chose only to operate the K2 with the
> preamp ON when used with a transverter - the transverter should provide all
> the front-end gain needed, and turning the pre-amp on should accomplish
> nothing for weak signal detection, but certainly does reduce the IF receiver
> dynamic range (and thus effects his 'blocking test').
***Totally agree with you on both aspects. That at least explains the 
low IP3 figures.

>   In addition, he used
> 2 borrowed K2s, and we have no information about the health of these K2s,
> they may not have been operating properly.  Remember that the K2 is not an
> 'off the shelf' transceiver, and setup and alignment is done by the
> individual builder rather than on a factory assembly line.  Many K2s are
> operating at top performance, but many are not.  Alignment and calibration
> are not difficult, but we have no assurance that it was done correctly for
> the K2s used.
>   
***Yup, again agree totally. Especially the gain setting of the K2's 
preamp can be altered upon your own spec. I have been succesfull on that 
while matching it together with a DEM transverter.
Optimized gain setting on all stages affect both the sytem noise figure 
as well as the IP3, or better said the  IF overload (K2).
> All in all, this report does not square with others which do document the
> test setup and conditions used along with unbiased results.  I refer you to
> the ARRL lab test which do document their entire setup and test methodology.
> Since the results in this 'report' are quite different than from other
> reports,
*** Although a well documented methodology it only compares apples to 
apples. It does not show wether you will hear and work the dx.
We are too much focussed on things like MDS, or in the case of this 
german test the system noise figure,  whereas I found that it does not 
validate that lower MDS offers better reception. I noticed that internal 
phase noise covers the wanted dx, especially when the band is more 
crowded. So I forget about the long list of MDS measurements I performed 
in the last couple of years.  I use real life testing as my  
qualification reference. My point is; the germans never had true RX 
performance in mind. They wanted to investigate the TX performance of 
nowadays 144Mhz equipment and/or transverter combo's with older stuff. 
Too much noisy TX signals on the bands during contests cover all weak 
stations. Local phase noise seems no design issue for the manufacturers.
Next to that they added the found system noise figure and IP3 test 
results. Interesting data but the first largely depends on correct 
adjustment of gain matching in all stages. The second rather too. You 
need more time to set things up correctly than to throw in a couple of 
transverters and some HF rigs. However I do respect there try very much; 
I think they made a serious point here TX-wise and failed RX-wise.

>  I believe he either had malfunctioning K2s to work with or intended
> to skew the report.
>   
*** I feel uncomfortable with their blunt statements too, but see only 
evidence of a lack of knowledge in their whole test procedure RX-wise.
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>   
***73 Mark, PA5MW
K2; 2036 and 3323, 1x XV50

>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Hello,
>>
>> Taken from, the http://www.df9ic.de/tech/trxtest/trxtest.html
>>
>> "The Elecraft K2 also has a low IF design using conventional VCOs
>> which should result in a good LO noise supression but does not.
>> You may compare the ARRL test results of the LO noise that
>> Elecraft publishes on their own website and which is closely
>> within our blocking test result (our measured -95 dB RX blocking
>> in 20 kHz offset is equivalent to -129 dBc/Hz LO noise). The high
>> level of TX noise shows that there seem to be design flaws
>> choosing too low signal levels internally. The AGC threshold is
>> ridiculously high (subjective impression). I also do not
>> understand why it uses low quality ladder crystal filters instead
>> of a filter from monolithic duals like any other radio does.
>> Overall it was the worst HF radio in the test (OK, a 144 MHz
>> IC910H is still worse...)."
>>
>> Is the K2 + XV144 really bad combo or the others transverters are
>> much better?
>>
>> 73' SM7VZX
>>
>>     
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date: 12/9/2006
> 3:41 PM
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft    
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>
>
>