I don't know how you interpret 4 to 3 Dick, but I'd call it a
'non-decision'. That's how it's been among the user comments since the KDSP2
was introduced several years ago.
For some it's great. For others it's unnecessary.
>From what I can make out reading the posts over the past years, it depends
upon the needs of the operator for comfortable copy.
Some have a hard time copying anything that isn't as "clean" as a code
practice oscillator in a quiet room. QRM and QRN are distractions that can
seriously interfere with copy. For them the KDSP2 makes operating enjoyable,
perhaps even possible, under more conditions.
Others, and I include myself in this group, certainly do not mind a clean
signal on a quiet QRM/N free band, but we'd much rather hear any stations
near the frequency and don't mind copying CW in the noise as long as it's
not too deep down below the noise level. For that reason we often use wider
bandwidth I.F. filters and forego any further signal processing wherever
possible. Sure, there are times when filtering is the only thing that's
going to suppress high level QRM too close to a weak signal, but I've always
found the I.F. filters in the K2 do that very well.
For high-level impulse QRN, the KNB2 does an excellent job.
Ron AC7AC
-Original Message-
Thank you all for your input. Your vote was 4 to 3 in favor.
More importantly the additional information you all provided is very
helpful.
73
Dick
AD1G
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
