On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 11:06, Darwin, Keith wrote:
> I did my comparisons a few years ago so what follows is my recollection
> of my tests.
...
> Drake 2B vs. K2
>
> The Drake is a fabulous sounding rig. Very clean, smooth, sweet.
> Unfortunately, it has a very aggressive AGC so you'll never he
:08 -0700
From: "Gary D Krause" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Elecraft] Chasing the numbers
To: "Elecraft" ,
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1;format="flowed"
Since the K3 is at the top of the list now and the K2 isn&
Gary,
Based on your scenario, it would take me a few hours operating a contest to
make a decision, but I feel confident that I could pick the better receivers
out of the group, "for my purposes."
Now, this may not be the same selection that someone else makes. However, if
you have a large
Very broad topic here.
One thing that you might very well notice about the different
receivers, is how much different they sound, one from another, even in
a situation where you're listening to a single signal on an otherwise
clear band.
Audiophiles would know the correct buzz-words, but tube rec
-Original Message-
From: Gary D Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I've been wondering how the numbers really affect what we hear. If a
ham were to sit down in front of all the top rigs, >blind folded and
not allowed to touch them, would he or she be able to pick out the one
with the best rece
-Original Message-
From: Darrell Bellerive [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keith,
I would be interested in reading about your observations on the
differences between receivers. Please consider posting them to the
reflector.
-
I did my comparisons a few years ago so w
Gary D Krause wrote:
Since the K3 is at the top of the list now and the K2 isn't far behind,
I've been wondering how the numbers really affect what we hear. If a
ham were to sit down in front of all the top rigs, blind folded and not
allowed to touch them, would he or she be able to pick out t
Thanks Keith, that's good to know. I only have two other rigs to compare my K2
with and they are older rigs that I bought in the eighties. I believe they are
both single conversion designs and I swear that I can sometimes hear weak
signals better on them than on my K2 but, the K2 has much better
--- the forwarded message follows ---
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@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
Keith,
I would be interested in reading about your observations on the differences
between receivers. Please consider posting them to the reflector.
Darrell
On Thursday 28 February 2008 09:01, you wrote:
> I've done this, or as close to it as I can get. Yes, there is a big
> difference.
>
>
I've done this, or as close to it as I can get. Yes, there is a big
difference.
I hook up 2 rigs to the same antenna and then feed their audio outputs
(speaker outs) into a mixing board. I adjust the audio to give the best
S/N ratio on the rig and then trim each channel on the mixer to get both
Gary,
Those better numbers will allow you to copy weaker signals than a
receiver with a poorer numbers.
So there is something to it other than just chasing numbers.
Will the average ragchewing ham notice a difference - maybe, but that is
not the type who typically dig for weak signals. The DX
Since the K3 is at the top of the list now and the K2 isn't far behind, I've
been wondering how the numbers really affect what we hear. If a ham were to
sit down in front of all the top rigs, blind folded and not allowed to touch
them, would he or she be able to pick out the one with the best r
13 matches
Mail list logo
