[Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8 filter choice K3

[Jim Miller]

I think the reason for "including" a filter (2.7 or 2.8) is that it is
REQUIRED for transmit.  IF one was not included we would be forced to buy
one and people would be bitching about that.

I believe the better solution would be to offer a choice of the 2.7 or 2.8
and give the credit closer to the $100 they charge for the other 5 pole
filters.  i.e.. substituting the 2.8 for the 2.7 would be $25 or so, not
$95.  If the 2.7 costs them $30 and they sell it for $100, good for them.
BUT if the 2.8 costs them $25 more as reflected in their retail price of
$125 vs. $100, then allow the substitution for $25 (or even 40 or maybe 50
but NOT $95).  WHY?  It just isn't right.

IMHO,
Jim

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rick Dettinger" <k7mw78 at gmail.com>
To: "Elecraft" <elecraft at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8 filter choice K3


>
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig D. Smith wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion the difficulty in making the choice is because of the
> > pricing
> > structure adapted by Elecraft for this option.  If the filters were
> > sold
> > "ala carte", and you needed to buy the 2.7 or 2.8 in addition to the
> > K3 (or
> > sub receiver), I'm guessing that most people, including me, would
> > elect to
> > pay $120 for the 2.8 rather than $100 for the 2.7.
> >
> >
> >
> > =======================
>
> > I think that Elecraft wanted to sell a working radio for the base
> > price.  That is the way that I ordered my K3 and it has worked very
> > well.  I am a CW only operator and I would never have considered
> > ordering any rig without a 500 hz filter, in years gone by.  For my
> > use, since I am not a contest operator and run from pileups, I found
> > the 2.7 khz filter just fine with the bandwidth set at CW widths.  I
> > have since ordered the 6 khz, 1 khz and 500 hz filters, just
> > because.  Also, the general coverage filter board because I didn't
> > have a good general coverage receiver.  I have read discussions on
> > other reflectors  involving the concept that under heavy QRN
> > conditions, filters characterized as having steep skirts, with the
> > resulting sharp shoulders, cause mixing products with the desired
> > signal, and that the result is unpleasant to listen to when QRM is
> > not a problem.  For the operating I do, especially on the lower
> > frequencies, QRN is usually the problem.  I seldom have to deal with
> > QRM over S9 and have decided to go with the 5 pole filters where
> > they are available.  But I am also fine with the 8 pole, 1 khz
> > filter to experiment with.  This seems to be my go to filter on CW
> > these days but I will be comparing  both.  With a strong interfering
> > signal close by, I can use the 1 khz filter, with its steeper
> > skirts, along with shift, to eliminate the QRM.   The shift seems to
> > change the center of the passband in 50 hz steps.  I usually have to
> > fine tune with VFO A after getting close with the shift control.
> > Not a problem, as I am always working split, since  I prefer that to
> > RIT.
> >
> > 73
> > Rick Dettinger
> > K7MW
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>