Discussion:
OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
(too old to reply)
James Sarte
2010-11-14 19:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Did anyone read the December QST's review of the FTDX5000MP?

And I quote:

"The FTDX5000 series establishes a new benchmark, the highest close-in IMD
dynamic range and third-order intercept we've ever measured."

And the review goes on to state:

"For Receiver A, at the where-it-really-matters 2kHz spacing, the two-tone
third-order IMD dynamic range at 14 MHz is just as good as at 20 kHz
spacing. In all cases, IMD dynamic range was well over 100dB. This is the
receiver with a 9 MHz first IF and narrow roofing filters, currently the hot
setup for top-of-the-line close-in dynamic range."

"For Receiver B, with a VHF IF and without the narrow roofing filters, the
worst-case dynamic range was 88 dB on 14 MHz at 2 kHz spacing; all other
numbers were in the 90s, the best being 98 dB on 14 MHz at 5 kHz spacing,
yielding an IP3 of +25 dBm."

According to the measurement summary, 2 kHz blocking gain compression is 136
dB on 20m and 80m. The third-order dynamic range was measured at 114 dB on
20. On the TX side, transmit 3rd order IMD was -30 dB on 80m, and -35 dB on
20.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's pretty impressive. Even
the sub receiver's performance (while no match for the K3's sub with
filters) still puts on a good show, and is a lot better receiver than some
other rig's main receivers.

For $6,000, it's a lot of radio (literally), and would never fit on my
desk. But if you compare it to the FT-9000 or IC-7800, it's a relative
bargain.

Honestly, it looks like a great radio if you like a lot of knobs and
buttons. I won't be buying an FTDX5000 anytime soon, as the K3 does all of
that and more at the fraction of the cost, size, and weight. Plus, Elecraft
has in my opinion the best support in the industry. For those however that
want a "big rig", I think this is the one to beat.

--
73 de James K2QI
President UNARC/4U1UN
Rick Prather
2010-11-14 19:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Impressive!

Sets an new standard for big Japanese radios. Sure would tick me off if I had recently bought an FT-2000 or worse yet, an FTdx-9000!

For myself, I would not be in the least bit tempted to replace my K3 with it though.

I'll be interested in Rob's numbers when he gets around to it.

Rick
K6LE
Joe Subich, W4TV
2010-11-14 22:23:04 UTC
Permalink
> Sure would tick me off if I had recently bought an FT-2000

Ticks me off as an early owner of a FT-2000. The FT-5000 provides
the performance that the FT-2000 *should have provided*. Instead,
Yaesu released a transceiver that is arguably the modern day FT-101.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 11/14/2010 2:38 PM, Rick Prather wrote:
> Impressive!
>
> Sets an new standard for big Japanese radios. Sure would tick me off if I had recently bought an FT-2000 or worse yet, an FTdx-9000!
>
> For myself, I would not be in the least bit tempted to replace my K3 with it though.
>
> I'll be interested in Rob's numbers when he gets around to it.
>
> Rick
> K6LE
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
James Sarte
2010-11-14 22:31:24 UTC
Permalink
I'm so glad I didn't buy the FT2K when I was looking for something to
replace my Yaesu FT-840. Before buying the K3, I based my search on the
following criteria:

1. Excellent receiver
2. Great customer support and user interaction
3. Made in USA (not mandatory, but it's always nice to support your country)
4. Easy enough to move around

The only product that met those requirements was the Elecraft K2 and K3.
I'm happy with my purchase decision, even after 2 years of ownership.

Maybe one day, when I have a proper home and room for a big box radio, the
FTDX5000 will be a contender. Or who knows... maybe the K4 will be the next
big thing... :)

73,
James K2QI



On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com> wrote:

>
> > Sure would tick me off if I had recently bought an FT-2000
>
> Ticks me off as an early owner of a FT-2000. The FT-5000 provides
> the performance that the FT-2000 *should have provided*. Instead,
> Yaesu released a transceiver that is arguably the modern day FT-101.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>
>
Craig D. Smith
2010-11-14 23:03:33 UTC
Permalink
I read and enjoyed the review. It looks like a very good product, and will
no doubt sell well - as it should.

For me the only advantage it would have over my K3/P3 is the integrated 200
W capability and integrated power supply with > 12V power - both nice
features. But I wouldn't consider buying one, the deal breakers being:
size/weight, audible QSK relay and single color panadapter w/o waterfall.
Not to mention the more intangibles, such as ease of firmware updates and
ability to do 80% of the servicing myself. Close, but no cigar ;>)

73 Craig AC0DS
James Sarte
2010-11-14 23:08:21 UTC
Permalink
I don't have the article in front of me at the moment, but I believe I read
that Yaesu was aware of the QSK relay issue and a circuit fix is available
for existing customers. All future production units will have the fix
already implemented.

James K2QI

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Craig D. Smith <craig at powersmith.net>wrote:

> I read and enjoyed the review. It looks like a very good product, and will
> no doubt sell well - as it should.
>
> For me the only advantage it would have over my K3/P3 is the integrated 200
> W capability and integrated power supply with > 12V power - both nice
> features. But I wouldn't consider buying one, the deal breakers being:
> size/weight, audible QSK relay and single color panadapter w/o waterfall.
> Not to mention the more intangibles, such as ease of firmware updates and
> ability to do 80% of the servicing myself. Close, but no cigar ;>)
>
> 73 Craig AC0DS
>
>
>
>


--
73 de James K2QI
President UNARC/4U1UN
Johnny Siu
2010-11-15 00:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Hello?Craig,

Is there a 'manual notch within AGC loop' in the FTDX5000?? I have not read the
product review yet.

I trust 'manual notch within AGC loop' is a must in any high end transceiver.
?cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC



----- ???? ----
???? Craig D. Smith <craig at powersmith.net>
???? James Sarte <k2qi.nyc at gmail.com>; "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
??(CC) elecraft at mailman.qth.net
????? 2010/11/15 (?) 7:03:33 AM
??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

I read and enjoyed the review.? It looks like a very good product, and will
no doubt sell well - as it should.

For me the only advantage it would have over my K3/P3 is the integrated 200
W capability and integrated power supply with > 12V power - both nice
features.? But I wouldn't consider buying one, the deal breakers being:
size/weight, audible QSK relay and single color panadapter w/o waterfall.
Not to mention the more intangibles, such as ease of firmware updates and
ability to do 80% of the servicing myself.? Close, but no cigar? ;>)

73? Craig? AC0DS
N1JM
2010-11-15 02:05:24 UTC
Permalink
One of my pet peeves of the K3 is the notch is not within the agc loop and
yes I know it's not good for IMD but so what. It's not engaged all the time.
The other is excessive birdies which the 5000 does not hardly have any.

John N1JM


Johnny Siu wrote:
>
> Hello?Craig,
>
> Is there a 'manual notch within AGC loop' in the FTDX5000?? I have not
> read the
> product review yet.
>
> I trust 'manual notch within AGC loop' is a must in any high end
> transceiver.
> ?cheers,
>
>
> Johnny VR2XMC
>
>
>
> ----- ???? ----
> ???? Craig D. Smith <craig at powersmith.net>
> ???? James Sarte <k2qi.nyc at gmail.com>; "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <lists at subich.com>
> ??(CC) elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> ????? 2010/11/15 (?) 7:03:33 AM
> ??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
>
> I read and enjoyed the review.? It looks like a very good product, and
> will
> no doubt sell well - as it should.
>
> For me the only advantage it would have over my K3/P3 is the integrated
> 200
> W capability and integrated power supply with > 12V power - both nice
> features.? But I wouldn't consider buying one, the deal breakers being:
> size/weight, audible QSK relay and single color panadapter w/o waterfall.
> Not to mention the more intangibles, such as ease of firmware updates and
> ability to do 80% of the servicing myself.? Close, but no cigar? ;>)
>
> 73? Craig? AC0DS
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

--
View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/OT-QST-s-review-of-the-Yaesu-FTDX5000MP-tp5738046p5738771.html
Sent from the [HAM] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Johnny Siu
2010-11-15 03:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Hi?John,

Excessive? birdies in K3 will consume a lot?of the DSP power in eliminating
them.? I?would think the DSP power?should be used / reserved for other
meaningful radio functions.
?cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC



----- ???? ----
???? N1JM <johnn1jm at gmail.com>
???? elecraft at mailman.qth.net
????? 2010/11/15 (?) 10:05:24 AM
??? Re: [Elecraft] Re? OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP


One of my pet peeves of the K3 is the notch is not within the agc loop and
yes I know it's not good for IMD but so what. It's not engaged all the time.
The other is excessive birdies which the 5000 does not hardly have any.

John N1JM


Johnny Siu wrote:
>
> Hello?Craig,
>
> Is there a 'manual notch within AGC loop' in the FTDX5000?? I have not
> read the
> product review yet.
>
> I trust 'manual notch within AGC loop' is a must in any high end
> transceiver.
> ?cheers,
>
>
> Johnny VR2XMC
>
>
>
> ----- ???? ----
> ???? Craig D. Smith <craig at powersmith.net>
> ???? James Sarte <k2qi.nyc at gmail.com>; "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <lists at subich.com>
> ??(CC) elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> ????? 2010/11/15 (?) 7:03:33 AM
> ??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
>
> I read and enjoyed the review.? It looks like a very good product, and
> will
> no doubt sell well - as it should.
>
> For me the only advantage it would have over my K3/P3 is the integrated
> 200
> W capability and integrated power supply with > 12V power - both nice
> features.? But I wouldn't consider buying one, the deal breakers being:
> size/weight, audible QSK relay and single color panadapter w/o waterfall.
> Not to mention the more intangibles, such as ease of firmware updates and
> ability to do 80% of the servicing myself.? Close, but no cigar? ;>)
>
> 73? Craig? AC0DS
>
>
>? ? ?
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/OT-QST-s-review-of-the-Yaesu-FTDX5000MP-tp5738046p5738771.html

Sent from the [HAM] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Gary Gregory
2010-11-15 07:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Aaah, the humble Holden Commodore. Yes it IS a great car (not a Ford) made
by GM of course.

Have a look at the website for HSV Commodore and you will see the Oz version
of the Pontiac. Awesome cars.

There are few consumer products made here now which is sad but as we only
have some 22 million people here I guess the price of production makes it
all uneconomical to produce...:-(

Elecraft are quite amazing in both their ability to design and manufacturer
a leading contender (if not the best which it is in my personal opinion) HAM
radio transceiver available. Gee, look at what the dealers are asking for an
FT-5000 here and the K3 is by far a better solution. Yaesu still like to
have expensive add-ons to sell and to my way of thinking they do not give me
good value for money.

There service here is legendary...or if you like plain talk...lousy, slow,
expensive and uncommunicative...sorry Eric, that is an honest opinion and I
don't wish to start a kerfuffle on the reflector, but, as I was previously a
Yaesu Dealer I feel I have a right to be critical without denigrating
anyone..:-)

With advent of the KPA-500 and shortly thereafter the KAT-500?...my needs
will be filled and I don't want any of you guys telling Elecraft to build a
K4 coz I aint got room for one and don't want to feel left out...:-)

OK, back in my hole I go....

73' to all
Elecraft Rocks...now who stole my Kool-Aid?

Gary

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Johnny Siu <vr2xmc at yahoo.com.hk> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Excessive birdies in K3 will consume a lot of the DSP power in eliminating
> them. I would think the DSP power should be used / reserved for other
> meaningful radio functions.
> cheers,
>
>
> Johnny VR2XMC
>
>
>
> ----- ???? ----
> ???? N1JM <johnn1jm at gmail.com>
> ???? elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> ????? 2010/11/15 (?) 10:05:24 AM
> ??? Re: [Elecraft] Re? OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
>
>
> One of my pet peeves of the K3 is the notch is not within the agc loop and
> yes I know it's not good for IMD but so what. It's not engaged all the
> time.
> The other is excessive birdies which the 5000 does not hardly have any.
>
> John N1JM
>
>
> Johnny Siu wrote:
> >
> > Hello Craig,
> >
> > Is there a 'manual notch within AGC loop' in the FTDX5000? I have not
> > read the
> > product review yet.
> >
> > I trust 'manual notch within AGC loop' is a must in any high end
> > transceiver.
> > cheers,
> >
> >
> > Johnny VR2XMC
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- ???? ----
> > ???? Craig D. Smith <craig at powersmith.net>
> > ???? James Sarte <k2qi.nyc at gmail.com>; "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> > <lists at subich.com>
> > ??(CC) elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> > ????? 2010/11/15 (?) 7:03:33 AM
> > ??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
> >
> > I read and enjoyed the review. It looks like a very good product, and
> > will
> > no doubt sell well - as it should.
> >
> > For me the only advantage it would have over my K3/P3 is the integrated
> > 200
> > W capability and integrated power supply with > 12V power - both nice
> > features. But I wouldn't consider buying one, the deal breakers being:
> > size/weight, audible QSK relay and single color panadapter w/o waterfall.
> > Not to mention the more intangibles, such as ease of firmware updates and
> > ability to do 80% of the servicing myself. Close, but no cigar ;>)
> >
> > 73 Craig AC0DS
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
>
> http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/OT-QST-s-review-of-the-Yaesu-FTDX5000MP-tp5738046p5738771.html
>
> Sent from the [HAM] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>



--
Gary
VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile
http://www.qsl.net/vk4fd/
K3 #679, P3 #546
For everything else there's Mastercard!!!
James Sarte
2010-11-15 15:51:57 UTC
Permalink
I had the chance to look at the FTDX5000's manual last night, as I was
curious to see how the rig could be connected to a computer for digital
modes. I had almost forgotten what a pain it was to hook up my FT840 to a
PC, and I see with the FTDX5000, not much has changed. In order to connect
to the computer and use something like DM780, one would need to purchase a
separate TNC.

I'm surprised that Yaesu still insisted on using a proprietary interface
requiring a special connector. At least the new Icom's can pass rig
commands and audio via their built-in USB ports. I would have assumed that
Yaesu would have followed suit, but I guess not.

It suddenly occurred to me how well designed the K3 really is, especially if
one purchases the KIO3 module. No mess, no fuss, no external boxes and
settings to deal with. It's as close to plug-and-play as one can get. All
I needed to interface the K3 with my computer was 2 stereo cables for line
in and line out, and an RS232 straight cable for rig control.

In a word - brilliant!

--
73 de James K2QI
President UNARC/4U1UN
Joe Subich, W4TV
2010-11-15 16:33:16 UTC
Permalink
>> I'm surprised that Yaesu still insisted on using a proprietary interface
>> requiring a special connector.

The FT-990/1000/2000/5000/9000 PKT input with a standard DIN 5 is
hardly "proprietary." Other than the DIN 5 that has been around
for many years - the PKT jack is not functionally different than
the KIO3 with its 2 x 3.5mm jacks for audio and DB15HD for PTT.

Some of the other new Yaesu (FT-450/8x7/950) rigs have adopted the
mini-DIN6 "DATA" jack that has become an amateur industry standard.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 11/15/2010 10:51 AM, James Sarte wrote:
> I had the chance to look at the FTDX5000's manual last night, as I was
> curious to see how the rig could be connected to a computer for digital
> modes. I had almost forgotten what a pain it was to hook up my FT840 to a
> PC, and I see with the FTDX5000, not much has changed. In order to connect
> to the computer and use something like DM780, one would need to purchase a
> separate TNC.
>
> I'm surprised that Yaesu still insisted on using a proprietary interface
> requiring a special connector. At least the new Icom's can pass rig
> commands and audio via their built-in USB ports. I would have assumed that
> Yaesu would have followed suit, but I guess not.
>
> It suddenly occurred to me how well designed the K3 really is, especially if
> one purchases the KIO3 module. No mess, no fuss, no external boxes and
> settings to deal with. It's as close to plug-and-play as one can get. All
> I needed to interface the K3 with my computer was 2 stereo cables for line
> in and line out, and an RS232 straight cable for rig control.
>
> In a word - brilliant!
>
James Sarte
2010-11-15 16:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for pointing that out Joe. I should probably have used a better
word. By proprietary, I was simply meaning that it's not as common an
interface as an RS232 port, and two 3.5mm audio jacks. Almost everyone has
stereo patch cables and perhaps a straight DB9 serial cable laying around.
Not many might have a DIN 5 plug. At least I don't. :)

73,
James K2QI

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com> wrote:

>
> >> I'm surprised that Yaesu still insisted on using a proprietary interface
> >> requiring a special connector.
>
> The FT-990/1000/2000/5000/9000 PKT input with a standard DIN 5 is
> hardly "proprietary." Other than the DIN 5 that has been around
> for many years - the PKT jack is not functionally different than
> the KIO3 with its 2 x 3.5mm jacks for audio and DB15HD for PTT.
>
> Some of the other new Yaesu (FT-450/8x7/950) rigs have adopted the
> mini-DIN6 "DATA" jack that has become an amateur industry standard.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
Don Cunningham
2010-11-15 16:42:44 UTC
Permalink
James,
As Joe said, the Din 5 plug has been around a LONG time. I first used itin
the late 1970's with my old Radio Shack Model I computer!! It is a well
made device, easily soldered even for those of us with impaired vision. I
have a "cheater" pigtail built for each of my rigs so the old HAL RTTY TU
only needs to see an RCA on each end. Works well for an old guy, hi.
73,
Don, WB5HAK
KW4H
2010-11-15 17:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Not to be deliberately crass, but I have absolutely no use for a $6,000+
radio -- contesting or not. Like most hams, this is a hobby I do for fun,
and spending that kind of money on a transceiver is virtually unthinkable.
For the price of that rig, I could buy some new living room furniture and
take the XYL on a two week Caribbean cruise.

73!

Steve, KW4H
Pete Smith
2010-11-15 19:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Perhas best not on Carnival...

73, Pete N4ZR

The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000


On 11/15/2010 12:01 PM, KW4H wrote:
> Not to be deliberately crass, but I have absolutely no use for a $6,000+
> radio -- contesting or not. Like most hams, this is a hobby I do for fun,
> and spending that kind of money on a transceiver is virtually unthinkable.
> For the price of that rig, I could buy some new living room furniture and
> take the XYL on a two week Caribbean cruise.
>
> 73!
>
> Steve, KW4H
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
James Sarte
2010-11-15 20:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Well, I would certainly hope that if one had the disposable income to buy an
FTDX5000, he would also have the resources to take care of the family.

My K3 was slightly north of $4k after all was said and done. To many
others, that might seem exorbitant. Anyway, it's all relative.

The important thing to keep in mind is priorities. I'd certainly frown upon
someone who goes out to buy any expensive item and then not have the money
to feed the kids, take care of the YL, etc. etc.

This is after all, just a hobby.

Cheers,
James K2QI

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM, KW4H <kw4h at arrl.net> wrote:

> Not to be deliberately crass, but I have absolutely no use for a $6,000+
> radio -- contesting or not. Like most hams, this is a hobby I do for fun,
> and spending that kind of money on a transceiver is virtually unthinkable.
> For the price of that rig, I could buy some new living room furniture and
> take the XYL on a two week Caribbean cruise.
>
> 73!
>
> Steve, KW4H
>
>
James Sarte
2010-11-15 17:05:07 UTC
Permalink
I stand corrected!

I don't think I've ever had something that used a DIN 5 plug... not sure
about my FT-840; that was a long time ago.

73,
James K2QI

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Don Cunningham <wb5hak at martineer.net>wrote:

> James,
> As Joe said, the Din 5 plug has been around a LONG time. I first used itin
> the late 1970's with my old Radio Shack Model I computer!! It is a well
> made device, easily soldered even for those of us with impaired vision. I
> have a "cheater" pigtail built for each of my rigs so the old HAL RTTY TU
> only needs to see an RCA on each end. Works well for an old guy, hi.
> 73,
> Don, WB5HAK
>



--
73 de James K2QI
President UNARC/4U1UN
Joe Subich, W4TV
2010-11-15 17:23:57 UTC
Permalink
> not sure about my FT-840; that was a long time ago.

FT-840 had no provision for AFSK (no "PACKET" jack or "Patch" jack).

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 11/15/2010 12:05 PM, James Sarte wrote:
> I stand corrected!
>
> I don't think I've ever had something that used a DIN 5 plug... not sure
> about my FT-840; that was a long time ago.
>
> 73,
> James K2QI
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Don Cunningham<wb5hak at martineer.net>wrote:
>
>> James,
>> As Joe said, the Din 5 plug has been around a LONG time. I first used itin
>> the late 1970's with my old Radio Shack Model I computer!! It is a well
>> made device, easily soldered even for those of us with impaired vision. I
>> have a "cheater" pigtail built for each of my rigs so the old HAL RTTY TU
>> only needs to see an RCA on each end. Works well for an old guy, hi.
>> 73,
>> Don, WB5HAK
>>
>
>
>
James Sarte
2010-11-15 17:43:44 UTC
Permalink
LOL.. maybe that's why I had such a hard time interfacing it. If memory
serves, I think I ordered a kit TNC called TiniCAT or something like that.
It worked OK; didn't really function well with HRD though.

James K2QI

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com> wrote:

>
> > not sure about my FT-840; that was a long time ago.
>
> FT-840 had no provision for AFSK (no "PACKET" jack or "Patch" jack).
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
--
73 de James K2QI
President UNARC/4U1UN
N8LP
2010-11-15 20:23:09 UTC
Permalink
The panadapter limitations are easily taken care of with a 3rd party
panadapter. FT5K versions are among the top 4 selling versions of LP-PAN.
They were smart enough to include a built in IF output. More than I can say
for Kenwood, who not only didn't provide an IF output jack on their latest
offering, but came up with perhaps the goofiest conversion scheme I have
seen in a long time.

Larry N8LP



Craig D. Smith wrote:
>
> I read and enjoyed the review. It looks like a very good product, and
> will
> no doubt sell well - as it should.
>
> For me the only advantage it would have over my K3/P3 is the integrated
> 200
> W capability and integrated power supply with > 12V power - both nice
> features. But I wouldn't consider buying one, the deal breakers being:
> size/weight, audible QSK relay and single color panadapter w/o waterfall.
> Not to mention the more intangibles, such as ease of firmware updates and
> ability to do 80% of the servicing myself. Close, but no cigar ;>)
>
> 73 Craig AC0DS
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/OT-QST-s-review-of-the-Yaesu-FTDX5000MP-tp5738046p5741394.html
Sent from the [HAM] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
James Sarte
2010-11-15 20:33:29 UTC
Permalink
This is one thing I don't understand with the TS-590s:

"For 1.8/3.5/7/14/21MHz amateur bands, when receiving in CW/FSK/SSB modes
down conversion is selected automatically if the final passband is 2.7kHz or
less"

So does that mean if the passband selected is greater than 2700 Hz, the
receiver switches to upconversion?!?

James K2QI

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, N8LP <n8lp at telepostinc.com> wrote:

>
> The panadapter limitations are easily taken care of with a 3rd party
> panadapter. FT5K versions are among the top 4 selling versions of LP-PAN.
> They were smart enough to include a built in IF output. More than I can say
> for Kenwood, who not only didn't provide an IF output jack on their latest
> offering, but came up with perhaps the goofiest conversion scheme I have
> seen in a long time.
>
> Larry N8LP
>
>
>
Larry Phipps
2010-11-15 20:50:40 UTC
Permalink
'Yup, as far as I can tell, and also for any BW on 12, 10 or 6m.

Larry N8LP


On 11/15/2010 3:33 PM, James Sarte wrote:
> This is one thing I don't understand with the TS-590s:
>
> "For 1.8/3.5/7/14/21MHz amateur bands, when receiving in CW/FSK/SSB
> modes down conversion is selected automatically if the final passband
> is 2.7kHz or less"
>
> So does that mean if the passband selected is greater than 2700 Hz,
> the receiver switches to upconversion?!?
>
> James K2QI
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, N8LP <n8lp at telepostinc.com
> <mailto:n8lp at telepostinc.com>> wrote:
>
>
> The panadapter limitations are easily taken care of with a 3rd party
> panadapter. FT5K versions are among the top 4 selling versions of
> LP-PAN.
> They were smart enough to include a built in IF output. More than
> I can say
> for Kenwood, who not only didn't provide an IF output jack on
> their latest
> offering, but came up with perhaps the goofiest conversion scheme
> I have
> seen in a long time.
>
> Larry N8LP
>
>
>
Joe Subich, W4TV
2010-11-15 22:08:13 UTC
Permalink
>> So does that mean if the passband selected is greater than 2700 Hz, the
>> receiver switches to upconversion?!?

Yes, as well is operation on 30, 17, 12 and 10 meters <G>.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 11/15/2010 3:33 PM, James Sarte wrote:
> This is one thing I don't understand with the TS-590s:
>
> "For 1.8/3.5/7/14/21MHz amateur bands, when receiving in CW/FSK/SSB modes
> down conversion is selected automatically if the final passband is 2.7kHz or
> less"
>
> So does that mean if the passband selected is greater than 2700 Hz, the
> receiver switches to upconversion?!?
>
> James K2QI
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, N8LP<n8lp at telepostinc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The panadapter limitations are easily taken care of with a 3rd party
>> panadapter. FT5K versions are among the top 4 selling versions of LP-PAN.
>> They were smart enough to include a built in IF output. More than I can say
>> for Kenwood, who not only didn't provide an IF output jack on their latest
>> offering, but came up with perhaps the goofiest conversion scheme I have
>> seen in a long time.
>>
>> Larry N8LP
>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
riese-k3djc
2010-11-14 23:11:09 UTC
Permalink
There's the rub

members of my local club were not overly interested in my K3 as it doesnt
have all the
knobs etc on the front panel, you cant change the color of the display
and it isnt heavy
I really find that sad ,, I would get lost from time to time placing my
TS 850 in a unknown
state by accidently pushing a wrong button ,, hasnt happened on the K3
the GUI is great
but simple and some think simple relates to poor or ineffective
as I am a casual operator and dont use 1/10 the features avaible but
wanted a rig that would hold
up to some of the nasty krap on HF ,,, K3 Rocks,, was fun to build and
has great support

Bob K3DJC




> Honestly, it looks like a great radio if you like a lot of knobs
> and
> buttons. I won't be buying an FTDX5000 anytime soon, as the K3 does
> all of
> that and more at the fraction of the cost, size, and weight. Plus,
> Elecraft
> has in my opinion the best support in the industry. For those
> however that
> want a "big rig", I think this is the one to beat.
>
> --
> 73 de James K2QI
____________________________________________________________
Become Six Sigma Certified
Villanova Six Sigma Certification 100% Online Program - Free Info.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ce06ccc49b0e5560bm03vuc
Gary Gregory
2010-11-14 23:25:18 UTC
Permalink
OTOH, locals here are impressed with the receiver and what the K3 CAN do and
it's inbuilt versatility and great receiver.

Nobody seemed too concerned withthe lack of size, knobs, whistles, clicks
and bells etc offered with 'other' boxes.

If enough people took the time to 'LEARN' how to set up there own K3 such as
on SSB adjusting the Hi/Lo Cut then most would stop complaining about what
some term 'edgy' AF etc.

What constantly amazes me is the barrage of seemingly endless complaints
about some perceived limitation or design deficiency in the K3 when a little
more time spent in front of the K3 'learning' 'how' to use the K3 would
enhance their personal appreciation of a superb radio.

In Australia we live in a 'throw away' or 'trade-in' society due to lack of
manufacturing and I for one appreciate very much the amount of thought and
sweat that has gone into the production of the K3 and being badged "Born in
the USA' is a very real factor in deciding what next I will 'acquire'.

Just about everything we turn over to look at the label states 'Made in
China' and whilst many good products come from Asia it is still terrific to
see a very well run company responsive to customer concerns without the
common response of 'send it back for replacement' or trade it in on the next
new 'box' being released to 'fix' the design or manufacturer faults created
at birth.

Oh well, turn of my mouth and sit and receive for awhile now....:-)

Flame suit on and zipped up, air bag at the ready :-)

73's
Gary

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:11 PM, <riese-k3djc at juno.com> wrote:

> There's the rub
>
> members of my local club were not overly interested in my K3 as it doesnt
> have all the
> knobs etc on the front panel, you cant change the color of the display
> and it isnt heavy
> I really find that sad ,, I would get lost from time to time placing my
> TS 850 in a unknown
> state by accidently pushing a wrong button ,, hasnt happened on the K3
> the GUI is great
> but simple and some think simple relates to poor or ineffective
> as I am a casual operator and dont use 1/10 the features avaible but
> wanted a rig that would hold
> up to some of the nasty krap on HF ,,, K3 Rocks,, was fun to build and
> has great support
>
> Bob K3DJC
>
>
>
>
> > Honestly, it looks like a great radio if you like a lot of knobs
> > and
> > buttons. I won't be buying an FTDX5000 anytime soon, as the K3 does
> > all of
> > that and more at the fraction of the cost, size, and weight. Plus,
> > Elecraft
> > has in my opinion the best support in the industry. For those
> > however that
> > want a "big rig", I think this is the one to beat.
> >
> > --
> > 73 de James K2QI
> ____________________________________________________________
> Become Six Sigma Certified
> Villanova Six Sigma Certification 100% Online Program - Free Info.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ce06ccc49b0e5560bm03vuc
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>



--
Gary
VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile
http://www.qsl.net/vk4fd/
K3 #679, P3 #546
For everything else there's Mastercard!!!
Ron D'Eau Claire
2010-11-15 00:28:39 UTC
Permalink
A great many people purchase what they feel others will admire or that has
the correct "look and feel" based on their personal bias. Objective
performance of a rig may be nowhere near the top of their list of
decision-making criteria.

A life-long home brewer, I've had other Hams tell me they'd never consider
building a rig from scratch because they do not have the money or resources
to make it look "professional" (i.e. factory-assembled). Sometimes it's not
even the Ham but the XYL who refuses to have anything in the house that
doesn't "look right". (Shoot back in the 1950's and 60's Collins used to run
ads directed at XYLs telling them to insist 'hubby' get one of their rigs
because of its neat appearance on the desk!)

Personally, I'm just happy if my creations work.

We can never make everyone we know happy. The goal, I think, is to avoid
making others unhappy.

Ron AC7AC



-----Original Message-----
There's the rub

members of my local club were not overly interested in my K3 as it doesnt
have all the
knobs etc on the front panel, you cant change the color of the display
and it isnt heavy
I really find that sad ,, I would get lost from time to time placing my
TS 850 in a unknown
state by accidently pushing a wrong button ,, hasnt happened on the K3
the GUI is great
but simple and some think simple relates to poor or ineffective
as I am a casual operator and dont use 1/10 the features avaible but
wanted a rig that would hold
up to some of the nasty krap on HF ,,, K3 Rocks,, was fun to build and
has great support

Bob K3DJC
Wes Stewart
2010-11-15 00:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Not everything is made in China, I drive a car made in Australia.? Unfortunately, the new management (the US government) decided to kill the brand (Pontiac). I'm an old guy driving a young person's performance car while in China, the young Chinese love our old folks' Buicks. It's a crazy world.


--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Gary Gregory <garyvk4fd at gmail.com> wrote:

Just about everything we turn over to look at the label states 'Made in
China' and whilst many good products come from Asia it is still terrific to
see a very well run company responsive to customer concerns without the
common response of 'send it back for replacement' or trade it in on the next
new 'box' being released to 'fix' the design or manufacturer faults created
at birth.
george fritkin
2010-11-15 01:14:43 UTC
Permalink
First I have 2)K3s and I highly respect and like the folks at Elecraft. ?I agree with weight and size and knobs (thing about this... there are more "knobs" on the K3 than one might think), but the cost is not a great deal different when you option up the K3 to the same features as the 5K. ?Performance is probably a push, but Elecraft support rocks and that is the difference. ?Their competitors will achieve comparable performance levels, but they will not duplicate Elecraft as a company
George, W6GF

--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Gary Gregory <garyvk4fd at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Gary Gregory <garyvk4fd at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
To: riese-k3djc at juno.com
Cc:?
Date: Sunday, November 14, 2010, 3:25 PM

OTOH, locals here are impressed with the receiver and what the K3 CAN do and
it's inbuilt versatility and great receiver.

Nobody seemed too concerned withthe lack of size, knobs, whistles, clicks
and bells etc offered with 'other' boxes.

If enough people took the time to 'LEARN' how to set up there own K3 such as
on SSB adjusting the Hi/Lo Cut then most would stop complaining about what
some term 'edgy' AF etc.

What constantly amazes me is the barrage of seemingly endless complaints
about some perceived limitation or design deficiency in the K3 when a little
more time spent in front of the K3 'learning' 'how' to use the K3 would
enhance their personal appreciation of a superb radio.

In Australia we live in a 'throw away' or 'trade-in' society due to lack of
manufacturing and I for one appreciate very much the amount of thought and
sweat that has gone into the production of the K3 and being badged "Born in
the USA' is a very real factor in deciding what next I will 'acquire'.

Just about everything we turn over to look at the label states 'Made in
China' and whilst many good products come from Asia it is still terrific to
see a very well run company responsive to customer concerns without the
common response of 'send it back for replacement' or trade it in on the next
new 'box' being released to 'fix' the design or manufacturer faults created
at birth.

Oh well, turn of my mouth and sit and receive for awhile now....:-)

Flame suit on and zipped up, air bag at the ready :-)

73's
Gary

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:11 PM, <riese-k3djc at juno.com> wrote:

> There's the rub
>
> members of my local club were not overly interested in my K3 as it doesnt
> have all the
> knobs etc on the front panel, you cant change the color of the display
> and it isnt heavy
> I really find that sad ,, I would get lost from time to time placing my
> TS 850 in a unknown
> state by accidently pushing a wrong button ,, hasnt happened on the K3
> the GUI is great
> but simple and some think simple relates to poor or ineffective
> as I am a casual operator and dont use 1/10 the features avaible but
> wanted a rig that would hold
> up to some of the nasty krap on HF ,,, K3 Rocks,, was fun to build and
> has great support
>
> Bob K3DJC
>
>
>
>
> > Honestly, it looks like a great radio if you like a lot of knobs
> > and
> > buttons.? I won't be buying an FTDX5000 anytime soon, as the K3 does
> > all of
> > that and more at the fraction of the cost, size, and weight.? Plus,
> > Elecraft
> > has in my opinion the best support in the industry.? For those
> > however that
> > want a "big rig", I think this is the one to beat.
> >
> > --
> > 73 de James K2QI
> ____________________________________________________________
> Become Six Sigma Certified
> Villanova Six Sigma Certification 100% Online Program - Free Info.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ce06ccc49b0e5560bm03vuc
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>



--
Gary
VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile
http://www.qsl.net/vk4fd/
K3 #679, P3 #546
For everything else there's Mastercard!!!
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Hector Padron
2010-11-15 20:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Well Steve,some guys takes hamradio very seriously and in spite of we can do better with a less than 3 grands K3,I know a guy who wanted deeply to own an IC-7800 but did not had that amount of cash,so what he did he waited till he payed off his last new car and then using a credit card he payed the 10 grands to purchase him a brand new IC-7800 that made feel very happy,and guess what even he is still paying montly the CC bills,he has never left his whole family out of anything,he can afford well his home bills with no problems,he has a healthy happy family and they all love him,and the best of all,he is a happy owner of a $10K radio in spite of it will take him 3 to 4 years to pay it off.Life in this country is for everybody so far you can pay your debts.
?
Hector
AD4C

"If you see a driver handling a cell phone on her/his hands while driving,do please stay away from that vehicle,its a moving bomb.Your life is at danger.Keep yourself and your family alive"

--- On Mon, 11/15/10, James Sarte <k2qi.nyc at gmail.com> wrote:


From: James Sarte <k2qi.nyc at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
To: "KW4H" <kw4h at arrl.net>
Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Date: Monday, November 15, 2010, 8:04 PM


Well, I would certainly hope that if one had the disposable income to buy an
FTDX5000, he would also have the resources to take care of the family.

My K3 was slightly north of $4k after all was said and done.? To many
others, that might seem exorbitant.? Anyway, it's all relative.

The important thing to keep in mind is priorities.? I'd certainly frown upon
someone who goes out to buy any expensive item and then not have the money
to feed the kids, take care of the YL, etc. etc.

This is after all, just a hobby.

Cheers,
James K2QI

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM, KW4H <kw4h at arrl.net> wrote:

> Not to be deliberately crass, but I have absolutely no use for a $6,000+
> radio -- contesting or not.? Like most hams, this is a hobby I do for fun,
> and spending that kind of money on a transceiver is virtually unthinkable.
> For the price of that rig, I could buy some new living room furniture and
> take the XYL on a two week Caribbean cruise.
>
> 73!
>
> Steve, KW4H
>
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-7800,
Wes Stewart
2010-11-15 20:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Well, since I already took the XYL on a 2-week Alaskan cruise in August, I guess I'm good to go for the FT5000 :-)

But I won't. I know I'm in the minority here, but if they took the second receiver out and lowered the cost accordingly, it would have more appeal. I appreciate the TX IMD, except that keying waveform and resulting spectrum sucks. I could do without the panadapter since the SDR-IQ as I use on the K3 suits my needs. The FT5000 size is more my cup of tea though.

I'm old enough to remember when the first new car I bought (also a Pontiac) stickered at $1,800, so $6K for a radio sounds like a lot of dough. But that was before the $100 bill became the new twenty and it was then half a year's salary.

To put things in perspective, I paid $2,200 for my TS-870 over 10 years ago and I still have it, and I wouldn't sell it for less than half that. So on a cost per year basis, it's not much. I don't play golf, so I'm entitled to at least one other indulgence.

Regards,

Wes Stewart, N7WS


--- On Mon, 11/15/10, KW4H <kw4h at arrl.net> wrote:

> Not to be deliberately crass, but I
> have absolutely no use for a $6,000+
> radio -- contesting or not.? Like most hams, this is a
> hobby I do for fun,
> and spending that kind of money on a transceiver is
> virtually unthinkable.
> For the price of that rig, I could buy some new living room
> furniture and
> take the XYL on a two week Caribbean cruise.
>
> 73!
>
> Steve, KW4H
k2qi.nyc
2010-11-15 21:38:27 UTC
Permalink
That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you or anyone else here well versed in radio design please explain to me why the Kenwood engineers would do this?

Tnx,
James K2QI
------Original Message------
From: Larry Phipps
To: James Sarte
Cc: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
Sent: Nov 15, 2010 15:50

'Yup, as far as I can tell, and also for any BW on 12, 10 or 6m.

Larry N8LP


On 11/15/2010 3:33 PM, James Sarte wrote:
> This is one thing I don't understand with the TS-590s:
>
> "For 1.8/3.5/7/14/21MHz amateur bands, when receiving in CW/FSK/SSB
> modes down conversion is selected automatically if the final passband
> is 2.7kHz or less"
>
> So does that mean if the passband selected is greater than 2700 Hz,
> the receiver switches to upconversion?!?
>
> James K2QI
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, N8LP <n8lp at telepostinc.com
> <mailto:n8lp at telepostinc.com>> wrote:
>
>
> The panadapter limitations are easily taken care of with a 3rd party
> panadapter. FT5K versions are among the top 4 selling versions of
> LP-PAN.
> They were smart enough to include a built in IF output. More than
> I can say
> for Kenwood, who not only didn't provide an IF output jack on
> their latest
> offering, but came up with perhaps the goofiest conversion scheme
> I have
> seen in a long time.
>
> Larry N8LP
>
>
>



Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Joe Subich, W4TV
2010-11-15 22:13:35 UTC
Permalink
>> That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you or anyone else here
>> well versed in radio design please explain to me why the Kenwood
>> engineers would do this?

The best guess is that Kenwood did not want to invest in 1) the high
performance front end (bandpass) filters for the non-amateur bands,
2) quality 6 KHz and 15 KHz (low frequency) IF filters, 3) give up
coverage +/- 500 KHz of the "first" IF, and 4) their unlocked DDS
synthesizer would not work above 33 MHZ (limiting down conversion
to a maximum frequency of 22 MHz).

Very bad design with slick marketing.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 11/15/2010 4:38 PM, k2qi.nyc at gmail.com wrote:
> That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you or anyone else here well versed in radio design please explain to me why the Kenwood engineers would do this?
>
> Tnx,
> James K2QI
> ------Original Message------
> From: Larry Phipps
> To: James Sarte
> Cc: Elecraft Reflector
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
> Sent: Nov 15, 2010 15:50
>
> 'Yup, as far as I can tell, and also for any BW on 12, 10 or 6m.
>
> Larry N8LP
>
>
> On 11/15/2010 3:33 PM, James Sarte wrote:
>> This is one thing I don't understand with the TS-590s:
>>
>> "For 1.8/3.5/7/14/21MHz amateur bands, when receiving in CW/FSK/SSB
>> modes down conversion is selected automatically if the final passband
>> is 2.7kHz or less"
>>
>> So does that mean if the passband selected is greater than 2700 Hz,
>> the receiver switches to upconversion?!?
>>
>> James K2QI
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, N8LP<n8lp at telepostinc.com
>> <mailto:n8lp at telepostinc.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The panadapter limitations are easily taken care of with a 3rd party
>> panadapter. FT5K versions are among the top 4 selling versions of
>> LP-PAN.
>> They were smart enough to include a built in IF output. More than
>> I can say
>> for Kenwood, who not only didn't provide an IF output jack on
>> their latest
>> offering, but came up with perhaps the goofiest conversion scheme
>> I have
>> seen in a long time.
>>
>> Larry N8LP
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
ab2tc
2010-11-15 22:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Hmm, item 4 about the synth not going above 33MHz does not make any sense.
With a 1st IF of 73MHz for the up-conversion path, the LO would have to be
103MHz just to reach 30MHz and 127MHz to get to 54MHz.

AB2TC - Knut


Joe Subich, W4TV-4 wrote:
>
>
>>> That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you or anyone else here
>>> well versed in radio design please explain to me why the Kenwood
>>> engineers would do this?
>
> The best guess is that Kenwood did not want to invest in 1) the high
> performance front end (bandpass) filters for the non-amateur bands,
> 2) quality 6 KHz and 15 KHz (low frequency) IF filters, 3) give up
> coverage +/- 500 KHz of the "first" IF, and 4) their unlocked DDS
> synthesizer would not work above 33 MHZ (limiting down conversion
> to a maximum frequency of 22 MHz).
>
> Very bad design with slick marketing.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
> <snip>
>

--
View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/OT-QST-s-review-of-the-Yaesu-FTDX5000MP-tp5738046p5741904.html
Sent from the [HAM] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Joe Subich, W4TV
2010-11-15 22:58:56 UTC
Permalink
> Hmm, item 4 about the synth not going above 33MHz does not make any
> sense. With a 1st IF of 73MHz for the up-conversion path, the LO
> would have to be 103MHz just to reach 30MHz and 127MHz to get to
> 54MHz.

The "up conversion" receiver uses a completely different synthesizer
(and different synthesizer design). In fact, the "up conversion"
receiver is essentially an entirely separate receiver from the
antenna (T/R switch) to the DSP unit.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 11/15/2010 5:48 PM, ab2tc wrote:
>
> Hmm, item 4 about the synth not going above 33MHz does not make any sense.
> With a 1st IF of 73MHz for the up-conversion path, the LO would have to be
> 103MHz just to reach 30MHz and 127MHz to get to 54MHz.
>
> AB2TC - Knut
>
>
> Joe Subich, W4TV-4 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you or anyone else here
>>>> well versed in radio design please explain to me why the Kenwood
>>>> engineers would do this?
>>
>> The best guess is that Kenwood did not want to invest in 1) the high
>> performance front end (bandpass) filters for the non-amateur bands,
>> 2) quality 6 KHz and 15 KHz (low frequency) IF filters, 3) give up
>> coverage +/- 500 KHz of the "first" IF, and 4) their unlocked DDS
>> synthesizer would not work above 33 MHZ (limiting down conversion
>> to a maximum frequency of 22 MHz).
>>
>> Very bad design with slick marketing.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
ab2tc
2010-11-15 23:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Wow, that is really bizarre. Talk about waisting resources. The price is
really a bargain considering all the hardware you get...

AB2TC - Knut


Joe Subich, W4TV-4 wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> The "up conversion" receiver uses a completely different synthesizer
> (and different synthesizer design). In fact, the "up conversion"
> receiver is essentially an entirely separate receiver from the
> antenna (T/R switch) to the DSP unit.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
> <snip again>
>

--
View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/OT-QST-s-review-of-the-Yaesu-FTDX5000MP-tp5738046p5742076.html
Sent from the [HAM] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
George A. Thornton
2010-11-16 00:28:39 UTC
Permalink
When I was in the market for my K3 someone told me that what is at the
top of the heap today may be surpassed by someone else tomorrow.
Supposedly the Yaesu has a better receiver, at least on CW.

What would bother me about this kind of a rig is that after spending all
that money on it, I may find myself owning an outmoded rig in a couple
of years. They only maintain the current state of the art up to a
point, then they want to sell a new model. I would be extremely mad if
I had bought the FT-2000 and now find the FT-5000 offering significantly
enhanced performance.

The other thing that would bother me is having to deal with product
defects. Judging from what I read in the report, this unit already has
a number of issues. That is not surprising for new technology but the
question is what are they going to do about it. Sure, they will fix
some things now but I am probably going to have to send it in to the
factory for a month or more.

The beauty of the K3 is the absolutely stellar service. Plus the fact
that most issues can be fixed with a simple swap of a board or a part.
Instead of sending the unit in whenever something goes wrong, I can with
the help of the factory figure out what is probably wrong and fix it
myself. I just did that with a defective B encoder.

Further, as long as they continue to make K3's I know I am going to be
able to benefit from all the improvements. I may have to pay a little
for parts but I am not going to have to shell out $5000 for a new radio.
Johnny Siu
2010-11-16 01:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Hello George,

I?have recently purchased a second?hand K3 and discovered the KPA3 was not
working.? Since?K3 is modular?design, I?simply?sent the?problematic KPA3 back
for repair.? Modular design is good for overseas user like myself.

A modular design is?workable as long as?majority of the users,?Elecrafters,?have
some technical knowledge (all of us passed the radio amateur examination).? Or,
the users, like the Elecrafters here,?at least border to look into the radio.?
For commercial / institutional radios, when there are causal?users not so
technical oriented or simply don't have the luxury of time,?the?approach in K3
may have to be carefulluy considered.

For most commercial radio manufacturers,?I suppose they have to comply?all the
ISO (i.e. ISO 9000, 9001, 9002) requirements.??Manufacturers will possibly be
worried about whether plug out / plug in modules will affect the performance of
the radios under those ISO requirements.

On the other hand, extensive support service (like Elecraft) has to be provided
to cope with all those updates and exchange / replacement of modules /
PCB.??Elecraft is doing very well now.? However, how about if?Elecraft's sales
volume like the Icom, Yaesu and Kenwood (I think Wayne and Eric would like to
have that sales volume), extensive support service could be a burden?from
business point of view.

I shall be back on the air again with K3 upon?finish repair of the KPA3.
?cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC



----- ???? ----
???? George A. Thornton <gthornton at thorntonmostullaw.com>
???? elecraft at mailman.qth.net
????? 2010/11/16 (?) 8:28:39 AM
??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

When I was in the market for my K3 someone told me that what is at the
top of the heap today may be surpassed by someone else tomorrow.
Supposedly the Yaesu has a better receiver, at least on CW.?

What would bother me about this kind of a rig is that after spending all
that money on it, I may find myself owning an outmoded rig in a couple
of years.? They only maintain the current state of the art up to a
point, then they want to sell a new model.? I would be extremely mad if
I had bought the FT-2000 and now find the FT-5000 offering significantly
enhanced performance.

The other thing that would bother me is having to deal with product
defects.? Judging from what I read in the report, this unit already has
a number of issues.? That is not surprising for new technology but the
question is what are they going to do about it.? Sure, they will fix
some things now but I am probably going to have to send it in to the
factory for a month or more.

The beauty of the K3 is the absolutely stellar service.? Plus the fact
that most issues can be fixed with a simple swap of a board or a part.
Instead of sending the unit in whenever something goes wrong, I can with
the help of the factory figure out what is probably wrong and fix it
myself.? I just did that with a defective B encoder.

Further, as long as they continue to make K3's I know I am going to be
able to benefit from all the improvements.? I may have to pay a little
for parts but I am not going to have to shell out $5000 for a new radio.
Rob May
2010-11-16 01:58:43 UTC
Permalink
>
> What would bother me about this kind of a rig is that after spending all
> that money on it, I may find myself owning an outmoded rig in a couple
> of years. They only maintain the current state of the art up to a
> point, then they want to sell a new model. I would be extremely mad if
> I had bought the FT-2000 and now find the FT-5000 offering significantly
> enhanced performance.
>

Why would you be mad if you bought an FT-2000 and then Yaesu comes out with the FT-5000 with significantly better performance?? It costs twice as much, it'd better have significantly better performance.? Now if I was an FT-9000 owner, I'd really be ticked off!? :)

Rob
NV5E
Nate Bargmann
2010-11-16 02:12:56 UTC
Permalink
* On 2010 15 Nov 20:00 -0600, Rob May wrote:
>
>
> Why would you be mad if you bought an FT-2000 and then Yaesu comes out with the FT-5000 with significantly better performance?? It costs twice as much, it'd better have significantly better performance.? Now if I was an FT-9000 owner, I'd really be ticked off!? :)

So that's why we're here as Elecraft customers. :-)

73, de Nate N0NB >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html
Don Wilhelm
2010-11-15 23:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Conclusion - they are not using the DDS synth for the up-conversion.
Now, I don't know that for certain, but speculation says that may be
what is happening.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 11/15/2010 5:48 PM, ab2tc wrote:
> Hmm, item 4 about the synth not going above 33MHz does not make any sense.
> With a 1st IF of 73MHz for the up-conversion path, the LO would have to be
> 103MHz just to reach 30MHz and 127MHz to get to 54MHz.
>
> AB2TC - Knut
>
Wayne Burdick
2010-11-15 22:17:56 UTC
Permalink
They're probably trying to save money by eliminating a bunch of tight
band-pass filters for the ham bands. They're betting that no one needs
high dynamic range on any bands other than 1.8/3.5/7/14/21 MHz, nor on
any modes other than SSB/FSK/CW.

I beg to differ :)

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Nov 15, 2010, at 1:38 PM, k2qi.nyc at gmail.com wrote:

> That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you or anyone else here
> well versed in radio design please explain to me why the Kenwood
> engineers would do this?
>
> Tnx,
> James K2QI
> ------Original Message------
> From: Larry Phipps
> To: James Sarte
> Cc: Elecraft Reflector
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
> Sent: Nov 15, 2010 15:50
>
> 'Yup, as far as I can tell, and also for any BW on 12, 10 or 6m.
>
> Larry N8LP
>
>
> On 11/15/2010 3:33 PM, James Sarte wrote:
>> This is one thing I don't understand with the TS-590s:
>>
>> "For 1.8/3.5/7/14/21MHz amateur bands, when receiving in CW/FSK/SSB
>> modes down conversion is selected automatically if the final passband
>> is 2.7kHz or less"
>>
>> So does that mean if the passband selected is greater than 2700 Hz,
>> the receiver switches to upconversion?!?
>>
>> James K2QI
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, N8LP <n8lp at telepostinc.com
>> <mailto:n8lp at telepostinc.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The panadapter limitations are easily taken care of with a 3rd
>> party
>> panadapter. FT5K versions are among the top 4 selling versions of
>> LP-PAN.
>> They were smart enough to include a built in IF output. More than
>> I can say
>> for Kenwood, who not only didn't provide an IF output jack on
>> their latest
>> offering, but came up with perhaps the goofiest conversion scheme
>> I have
>> seen in a long time.
>>
>> Larry N8LP
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Eugene Balinski
2010-11-15 22:58:57 UTC
Permalink
I am sure that they were all design trade-offs made to
get the radio to meet a certain market price point. The
question is "how much bang do you get for the buck"? Is a
K-3 worth the (nominal) $1,200 more ?

To us, the answer is yes. To others, the improvement
seen in the receiver may not be worth the extra money given
the manner is which they operate. Also, there are plenty
of hams that can just not afford a $3,000.00 + radio no
matter how good it is, and the Kenwood gives them a nice
rig for the price point. As they say, different
strokes....

73
Gene K1NR

K2 - 6Kxx


On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:17:56 -0800
Wayne Burdick <n6kr at elecraft.com> wrote:
> They're probably trying to save money by eliminating a
> bunch of tight
> band-pass filters for the ham bands. They're betting that
> no one needs
> high dynamic range on any bands other than
> 1.8/3.5/7/14/21 MHz, nor on
> any modes other than SSB/FSK/CW.
>
> I beg to differ :)
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR
>
> On Nov 15, 2010, at 1:38 PM, k2qi.nyc at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you or anyone
> else here
> > well versed in radio design please explain to me why
> the Kenwood
> > engineers would do this?
> >
> > Tnx,
> > James K2QI
> > ------Original Message------
> > From: Larry Phipps
> > To: James Sarte
> > Cc: Elecraft Reflector
> > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu
> FTDX5000MP
> > Sent: Nov 15, 2010 15:50
> >
> > 'Yup, as far as I can tell, and also for any BW on 12,
> 10 or 6m.
> >
> > Larry N8LP
> >
> >
> > On 11/15/2010 3:33 PM, James Sarte wrote:
> >> This is one thing I don't understand with the TS-590s:
> >>
> >> "For 1.8/3.5/7/14/21MHz amateur bands, when receiving
> in CW/FSK/SSB
> >> modes down conversion is selected automatically if the
> final passband
> >> is 2.7kHz or less"
> >>
> >> So does that mean if the passband selected is greater
> than 2700 Hz,
> >> the receiver switches to upconversion?!?
> >>
> >> James K2QI
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, N8LP
> <n8lp at telepostinc.com
> >> <mailto:n8lp at telepostinc.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The panadapter limitations are easily taken care of
> with a 3rd
> >> party
> >> panadapter. FT5K versions are among the top 4
> selling versions of
> >> LP-PAN.
> >> They were smart enough to include a built in IF
> output. More than
> >> I can say
> >> for Kenwood, who not only didn't provide an IF
> output jack on
> >> their latest
> >> offering, but came up with perhaps the goofiest
> conversion scheme
> >> I have
> >> seen in a long time.
> >>
> >> Larry N8LP
> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider.
http://www.nni.com/
Randy Hall
2010-11-15 23:12:04 UTC
Permalink
I am just glad to see Kenwood has finally hatched a new radio.

It has been a long time coming.

Yaesu FTxx-5000, Tentec Eagle, the more the better!

Randy
K7AGE
Luis V. Romero
2010-11-16 03:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Joe:

Ahhh, Product Marketing/Management. I miss it so. :)

> Very bad design with slick marketing.

You mean it was designed by Sony Broadcast? :)

Your points are dead on. But I think there is more. It may be that in the
next two years, they will be able to offer you the upgraded TS590S(G) with a
real dual receiver system and quality IF filters, or they will bail from the
market altogether. Successful patterns are repeated in Product Marketing.
This looks to me like a "stalling" tactic while working on proving market
segment competitiveness to help make a decision; continue to play or fold?

More than likely, funds were limited because they were starved for product
development resources while merging with JVC, and Corporate wants better
data to see if the Amateur Radio market makes sense, so they chose to stay
with the basic TS570 "platform" and "enhance" it much in the same way
Betacam became BetacamSP (some added signals here, some metal tape there.
Presto!).

Good Marketing will take care of the rest! "We build Legends" is
"performance by association" from the era when there were resources for
product line development and R&D. There's still a lot of Goodwill from the
TS950/TS850 days! Even from TS520 days!

And Larry, you're right, from a technical perspective, the 590 receiver
schema is really Goofy!

But they will sell a ton of them, as will Ten Tec with the Eagle, which is
the 590's true competitor IMHO!

Then there is the Icom Behemoth. I still think that all the Icom Marketing
folks are disciples of Alfred P. Sloan. Their product line looks exactly
like General Motors in the late 60's early 70's. Products from Cradle to
Grave, with a sports car and some trucks thrown in for good measure!

Elecraft's well targeted market niche is being attacked from above by the
FTdx5k and from below by the 590 and to a lesser extent, the Eagle. Most of
the erosion will be in the lower side of the equation. Main K3 competitor
is really the IC7600, and technically it leaves a lot to be desired and is
not as customizable, but undercuts K3 in price and it has the Icom "mystique
by association". Icom has done a masterful job at brand identity.

So the K3 niche is still rather exclusive, but eroding a little bit.

Frankly, Yaesu has just cannibalized the FTdx9k product line AFAIC! That
platform is a dead end now and must be awfully expensive to continue to
market, so I expect for it to quietly fade away.

Elecraft is a lot like Honda in the mid 70's. Pick the niche, build a solid
product and back it with uncompromising service, winning one customer at a
time.

-lu-w4lt-
K3 # 3192


----------------------

Message: 29
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:13:35 -0500
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Message-ID: <4CE1B08F.1050205 at subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed


>> That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you or anyone else here
>> well versed in radio design please explain to me why the Kenwood
>> engineers would do this?

The best guess is that Kenwood did not want to invest in 1) the high
performance front end (bandpass) filters for the non-amateur bands,
2) quality 6 KHz and 15 KHz (low frequency) IF filters, 3) give up
coverage +/- 500 KHz of the "first" IF, and 4) their unlocked DDS
synthesizer would not work above 33 MHZ (limiting down conversion
to a maximum frequency of 22 MHz).

Very bad design with slick marketing.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

No virus found in this outgoing message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.1.0.25 - 6.14880).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/
Nate Bargmann
2010-11-16 12:14:42 UTC
Permalink
* On 2010 15 Nov 21:49 -0600, Luis V. Romero wrote:
> Good Marketing will take care of the rest! "We build Legends" is
> "performance by association" from the era when there were resources for
> product line development and R&D. There's still a lot of Goodwill from the
> TS950/TS850 days! Even from TS520 days!

Bingo! I've long thought that Kenwood had rested on its laurels from
the TS-520/TS-820/TS-830 era. That's not say that some of their later
products weren't good, just that they had lost their edge, especially to
Yaesu in the early '90s.

> And Larry, you're right, from a technical perspective, the 590 receiver
> schema is really Goofy!

It strikes me as rather odd as well. I suppose that the Kenwood
engineers and management have their reasons, but wow! When I read
preliminary information on it, I came to the conclusion that it was more
complicated than it needed to be.

> Elecraft's well targeted market niche is being attacked from above by the
> FTdx5k and from below by the 590 and to a lesser extent, the Eagle. Most of
> the erosion will be in the lower side of the equation. Main K3 competitor
> is really the IC7600, and technically it leaves a lot to be desired and is
> not as customizable, but undercuts K3 in price and it has the Icom "mystique
> by association". Icom has done a masterful job at brand identity.

And here I thought ICOM stood for "I Can Only Monitor"! ;-) To be
fair, I've only owned two Icom transceivers over the years, an IC-290A
2m all mode that was the first commercial rig I bought in 1985 and later
a 4AT HT. Both served their purposes well. Early on I would fall into
the Kenwood camp for HF gear and later Yaesu for all my gear. In fact,
I was all Yaesu until I received the K3 last month. I liked the idea of
performance that rivaled the big boxes in a size near that of my
FT-890AT. Watching this list and seeing Elecraft's interaction with its
customers won me over.

> So the K3 niche is still rather exclusive, but eroding a little bit.

I'll agree the K3 is niche, but I'm not sure it's saleas are eroding.
Of course I don't have sales figures, but it would appear that at least
100 more have sold since I got mine on the air about a month ago which
seems healthy for a niche product that is positioned toward the high end
of a niche hobby. Considering as well that the overall economy is not
doing as well as when the K3 was introduced, I'd say it's doing quite
well.

I'd also submit that as mentioned earlier in this thread that there are
those who would not be comfortable buying a K3 for their main
transceiver as they feel more comfortable going with a product from one
of the brand names. I can understand that as it took me a while to
accept the idea as I spent several months evaluating Elecraft as a
company before I took the plunge. The established players are known
quantities while Elecraft is still building its reputation in the larger
amateur radio community. I'm a bit of a risk taker on things like this
so I suspect I'll receive some questions about the K3 at tonight's club
meeting.

> Elecraft is a lot like Honda in the mid 70's. Pick the niche, build a solid
> product and back it with uncompromising service, winning one customer at a
> time.

I take for granted you're referring to Honda cars. In motorcycles, they
were a juggernaut at the time. Which allowed them to bring products
like the CBX to market. By 1980 they had forced Kawasaki into catch-up
mode where Kawi had been regarded as the performance king just a few
years earlier. Then Suzuki came along with its GSX-R line...

73, de Nate N0NB >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html
Johnny Siu
2010-11-16 13:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Hello Nate,

In relation to your comments about IC7600,?I would add the following:

1.??There is 'manual notch within AGC loop' in IC7600.? This function is very
useful when I use it to notch out a strong offending carrier right adjoining to
my wanted desired weak signal.? Since the notch is within AGC loop,?the wanted
weak DX signal will pop out?right from the noise ground after the
carrier?is?notched.? The desense of AGC by the strong carrier disappears at the
same time.

I did an A/B comparison of the above during the recent CQ WW SSB contest.

2. When?we calculate the cost for comparison, we have to add P3 to K3 to bring
it in line.? Bearing in mind, IC7600 only costs US$3,250 in Hong Kong

I am still running my K3 but just plainly spell out the fact as?above.
?cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC
www.qrz.com/callsign/vr2xmc



----- ???? ----
???? Nate Bargmann <n0nb at n0nb.us>
???? elecraft at mailman.qth.net
????? 2010/11/16 (?) 8:14:42 PM
??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

* On 2010 15 Nov 21:49 -0600, Luis V. Romero wrote:
> Good Marketing will take care of the rest!? "We build Legends" is
> "performance by association" from the era when there were resources for
> product line development and R&D.? There's still a lot of Goodwill from the
> TS950/TS850 days! Even from TS520 days!

Bingo!? I've long thought that Kenwood had rested on its laurels from
the TS-520/TS-820/TS-830 era.? That's not say that some of their later
products weren't good, just that they had lost their edge, especially to
Yaesu in the early '90s.

> And Larry, you're right, from a technical perspective, the 590 receiver
> schema is really Goofy!

It strikes me as rather odd as well.? I suppose that the Kenwood
engineers and management have their reasons, but wow!? When I read
preliminary information on it, I came to the conclusion that it was more
complicated than it needed to be.

> Elecraft's well targeted market niche is being attacked from above by the
> FTdx5k and from below by the 590 and to a lesser extent, the Eagle.? Most of
> the erosion will be in the lower side of the equation.? Main K3 competitor
> is really the IC7600, and technically it leaves a lot to be desired and is
> not as customizable, but undercuts K3 in price and it has the Icom "mystique
> by association".? Icom has done a masterful job at brand identity.?

And here I thought ICOM stood for "I Can Only Monitor"!? ;-)? To be
fair, I've only owned two Icom transceivers over the years, an IC-290A
2m all mode that was the first commercial rig I bought in 1985 and later
a 4AT HT.? Both served their purposes well.? Early on I would fall into
the Kenwood camp for HF gear and later Yaesu for all my gear.? In fact,
I was all Yaesu until I received the K3 last month.? I liked the idea of
performance that rivaled the big boxes in a size near that of my
FT-890AT.? Watching this list and seeing Elecraft's interaction with its
customers won me over.

> So the K3 niche is still rather exclusive, but eroding a little bit.

I'll agree the K3 is niche, but I'm not sure it's saleas are eroding.
Of course I don't have sales figures, but it would appear that at least
100 more have sold since I got mine on the air about a month ago which
seems healthy for a niche product that is positioned toward the high end
of a niche hobby.? Considering as well that the overall economy is not
doing as well as when the K3 was introduced, I'd say it's doing quite
well.

I'd also submit that as mentioned earlier in this thread that there are
those who would not be comfortable buying a K3 for their main
transceiver as they feel more comfortable going with a product from one
of the brand names.? I can understand that as it took me a while to
accept the idea as I spent several months evaluating Elecraft as a
company before I took the plunge.? The established players are known
quantities while Elecraft is still building its reputation in the larger
amateur radio community.? I'm a bit of a risk taker on things like this
so I suspect I'll receive some questions about the K3 at tonight's club
meeting.

> Elecraft is a lot like Honda in the mid 70's.? Pick the niche, build a solid
> product and back it with uncompromising service, winning one customer at a
> time.? ?

I take for granted you're referring to Honda cars.? In motorcycles, they
were a juggernaut at the time.? Which allowed them to bring products
like the CBX to market.? By 1980 they had forced Kawasaki into catch-up
mode where Kawi had been regarded as the performance king just a few
years earlier.? Then Suzuki came along with its GSX-R line...

73, de Nate N0NB >>

--
Joe Subich, W4TV
2010-11-16 15:07:42 UTC
Permalink
>> 2. When we calculate the cost for comparison, we have to add P3 to K3 to bring
>> it in line. Bearing in mind, IC7600 only costs US$3,250 in Hong Kong

And you need to include a second Icom receiver (R?) to bring the
receive capability up to that of the K3 with KRX3. Icom's "dual watch"
is a poorly performing joke compared to even the second complete
receiver in the FT-2000


73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 11/16/2010 8:59 AM, Johnny Siu wrote:
> Hello Nate,
>
> In relation to your comments about IC7600, I would add the following:
>
> 1. There is 'manual notch within AGC loop' in IC7600. This function is very
> useful when I use it to notch out a strong offending carrier right adjoining to
> my wanted desired weak signal. Since the notch is within AGC loop, the wanted
> weak DX signal will pop out right from the noise ground after the
> carrier is notched. The desense of AGC by the strong carrier disappears at the
> same time.
>
> I did an A/B comparison of the above during the recent CQ WW SSB contest.
>
> 2. When we calculate the cost for comparison, we have to add P3 to K3 to bring
> it in line. Bearing in mind, IC7600 only costs US$3,250 in Hong Kong
>
> I am still running my K3 but just plainly spell out the fact as above.
> cheers,
>
>
> Johnny VR2XMC
> www.qrz.com/callsign/vr2xmc
>
>
>
> ----- ???? ----
> ???? Nate Bargmann<n0nb at n0nb.us>
> ???? elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> ????? 2010/11/16 (?) 8:14:42 PM
> ??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
>
> * On 2010 15 Nov 21:49 -0600, Luis V. Romero wrote:
>> Good Marketing will take care of the rest! "We build Legends" is
>> "performance by association" from the era when there were resources for
>> product line development and R&D. There's still a lot of Goodwill from the
>> TS950/TS850 days! Even from TS520 days!
>
> Bingo! I've long thought that Kenwood had rested on its laurels from
> the TS-520/TS-820/TS-830 era. That's not say that some of their later
> products weren't good, just that they had lost their edge, especially to
> Yaesu in the early '90s.
>
>> And Larry, you're right, from a technical perspective, the 590 receiver
>> schema is really Goofy!
>
> It strikes me as rather odd as well. I suppose that the Kenwood
> engineers and management have their reasons, but wow! When I read
> preliminary information on it, I came to the conclusion that it was more
> complicated than it needed to be.
>
>> Elecraft's well targeted market niche is being attacked from above by the
>> FTdx5k and from below by the 590 and to a lesser extent, the Eagle. Most of
>> the erosion will be in the lower side of the equation. Main K3 competitor
>> is really the IC7600, and technically it leaves a lot to be desired and is
>> not as customizable, but undercuts K3 in price and it has the Icom "mystique
>> by association". Icom has done a masterful job at brand identity.
>
> And here I thought ICOM stood for "I Can Only Monitor"! ;-) To be
> fair, I've only owned two Icom transceivers over the years, an IC-290A
> 2m all mode that was the first commercial rig I bought in 1985 and later
> a 4AT HT. Both served their purposes well. Early on I would fall into
> the Kenwood camp for HF gear and later Yaesu for all my gear. In fact,
> I was all Yaesu until I received the K3 last month. I liked the idea of
> performance that rivaled the big boxes in a size near that of my
> FT-890AT. Watching this list and seeing Elecraft's interaction with its
> customers won me over.
>
>> So the K3 niche is still rather exclusive, but eroding a little bit.
>
> I'll agree the K3 is niche, but I'm not sure it's saleas are eroding.
> Of course I don't have sales figures, but it would appear that at least
> 100 more have sold since I got mine on the air about a month ago which
> seems healthy for a niche product that is positioned toward the high end
> of a niche hobby. Considering as well that the overall economy is not
> doing as well as when the K3 was introduced, I'd say it's doing quite
> well.
>
> I'd also submit that as mentioned earlier in this thread that there are
> those who would not be comfortable buying a K3 for their main
> transceiver as they feel more comfortable going with a product from one
> of the brand names. I can understand that as it took me a while to
> accept the idea as I spent several months evaluating Elecraft as a
> company before I took the plunge. The established players are known
> quantities while Elecraft is still building its reputation in the larger
> amateur radio community. I'm a bit of a risk taker on things like this
> so I suspect I'll receive some questions about the K3 at tonight's club
> meeting.
>
>> Elecraft is a lot like Honda in the mid 70's. Pick the niche, build a solid
>> product and back it with uncompromising service, winning one customer at a
>> time.
>
> I take for granted you're referring to Honda cars. In motorcycles, they
> were a juggernaut at the time. Which allowed them to bring products
> like the CBX to market. By 1980 they had forced Kawasaki into catch-up
> mode where Kawi had been regarded as the performance king just a few
> years earlier. Then Suzuki came along with its GSX-R line...
>
> 73, de Nate N0NB>>
>
Johnny Siu
2010-11-16 15:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Hello Joe,

Dual watch is not equal to dual receivers for sure.? Therefore,?I did not add in
KRX3 in cost comparison.? I am afraid that adding the cost of KRX3?is not a like
with like comparison.

My cost comparison is K3 single receiver Vs? IC7600 single receiver.? To this
end, dual watch in IC7600 is simply an additional feature to my convenience.

I once used XV144 with IC7600.? The?band spectrum of IC7600 under 'dual watch'
can read both the uplink and downlink of a 2m repeater i.e. I read both
145.650Mhz and 145.050 Mhz in the band spectrum.??This is a very convenient
feature.
?cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC



----- ???? ----
???? "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
???? elecraft at mailman.qth.net
????? 2010/11/16 (?) 11:07:42 PM
??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP


>> 2. When we calculate the cost for comparison, we have to add P3 to K3 to
bring
>> it in line.? Bearing in mind, IC7600 only costs US$3,250 in Hong Kong

And you need to include a second Icom receiver (R?) to bring the
receive capability up to that of the K3 with KRX3.? Icom's "dual watch"
is a poorly performing joke compared to even the second complete
receiver in the FT-2000


73,

? ? ... Joe, W4TV

On 11/16/2010 8:59 AM, Johnny Siu wrote:
> Hello Nate,
>
> In relation to your comments about IC7600, I would add the following:
>
> 1.? There is 'manual notch within AGC loop' in IC7600.? This function is very
> useful when I use it to notch out a strong offending carrier right adjoining
to
> my wanted desired weak signal.? Since the notch is within AGC loop, the wanted
> weak DX signal will pop out right from the noise ground after the
> carrier is notched.? The desense of AGC by the strong carrier disappears at
the
> same time.
>
> I did an A/B comparison of the above during the recent CQ WW SSB contest.
>
> 2. When we calculate the cost for comparison, we have to add P3 to K3 to bring
> it in line.? Bearing in mind, IC7600 only costs US$3,250 in Hong Kong
>
> I am still running my K3 but just plainly spell out the fact as above.
>? cheers,
>
>
> Johnny VR2XMC
> www.qrz.com/callsign/vr2xmc
Igor Kosvin
2010-11-17 00:50:23 UTC
Permalink
I don't recall, does the IC7600 has independent second receiver? Perhaps you can ADD second receiver to it? Can you ADD 500 Hz or 250 Hz roofing filter to it? No? Too bad, I will pass. Still not enough bang for the buck.

73, Igor, N1YX

-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Johnny Siu
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:59 AM
To: Nate Bargmann; elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

Hello Nate,

In relation to your comments about IC7600, I would add the following:

1. There is 'manual notch within AGC loop' in IC7600. This function is very
useful when I use it to notch out a strong offending carrier right adjoining to
my wanted desired weak signal. Since the notch is within AGC loop, the wanted
weak DX signal will pop out right from the noise ground after the
carrier is notched. The desense of AGC by the strong carrier disappears at the
same time.

I did an A/B comparison of the above during the recent CQ WW SSB contest.

2. When we calculate the cost for comparison, we have to add P3 to K3 to bring
it in line. Bearing in mind, IC7600 only costs US$3,250 in Hong Kong

I am still running my K3 but just plainly spell out the fact as above.
cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC
www.qrz.com/callsign/vr2xmc



----- ???? ----
???? Nate Bargmann <n0nb at n0nb.us>
???? elecraft at mailman.qth.net
????? 2010/11/16 (?) 8:14:42 PM
??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

* On 2010 15 Nov 21:49 -0600, Luis V. Romero wrote:
> Good Marketing will take care of the rest! "We build Legends" is
> "performance by association" from the era when there were resources for
> product line development and R&D. There's still a lot of Goodwill from the
> TS950/TS850 days! Even from TS520 days!

Bingo! I've long thought that Kenwood had rested on its laurels from
the TS-520/TS-820/TS-830 era. That's not say that some of their later
products weren't good, just that they had lost their edge, especially to
Yaesu in the early '90s.

> And Larry, you're right, from a technical perspective, the 590 receiver
> schema is really Goofy!

It strikes me as rather odd as well. I suppose that the Kenwood
engineers and management have their reasons, but wow! When I read
preliminary information on it, I came to the conclusion that it was more
complicated than it needed to be.

> Elecraft's well targeted market niche is being attacked from above by the
> FTdx5k and from below by the 590 and to a lesser extent, the Eagle. Most of
> the erosion will be in the lower side of the equation. Main K3 competitor
> is really the IC7600, and technically it leaves a lot to be desired and is
> not as customizable, but undercuts K3 in price and it has the Icom "mystique
> by association". Icom has done a masterful job at brand identity.

And here I thought ICOM stood for "I Can Only Monitor"! ;-) To be
fair, I've only owned two Icom transceivers over the years, an IC-290A
2m all mode that was the first commercial rig I bought in 1985 and later
a 4AT HT. Both served their purposes well. Early on I would fall into
the Kenwood camp for HF gear and later Yaesu for all my gear. In fact,
I was all Yaesu until I received the K3 last month. I liked the idea of
performance that rivaled the big boxes in a size near that of my
FT-890AT. Watching this list and seeing Elecraft's interaction with its
customers won me over.

> So the K3 niche is still rather exclusive, but eroding a little bit.

I'll agree the K3 is niche, but I'm not sure it's saleas are eroding.
Of course I don't have sales figures, but it would appear that at least
100 more have sold since I got mine on the air about a month ago which
seems healthy for a niche product that is positioned toward the high end
of a niche hobby. Considering as well that the overall economy is not
doing as well as when the K3 was introduced, I'd say it's doing quite
well.

I'd also submit that as mentioned earlier in this thread that there are
those who would not be comfortable buying a K3 for their main
transceiver as they feel more comfortable going with a product from one
of the brand names. I can understand that as it took me a while to
accept the idea as I spent several months evaluating Elecraft as a
company before I took the plunge. The established players are known
quantities while Elecraft is still building its reputation in the larger
amateur radio community. I'm a bit of a risk taker on things like this
so I suspect I'll receive some questions about the K3 at tonight's club
meeting.

> Elecraft is a lot like Honda in the mid 70's. Pick the niche, build a solid
> product and back it with uncompromising service, winning one customer at a
> time.

I take for granted you're referring to Honda cars. In motorcycles, they
were a juggernaut at the time. Which allowed them to bring products
like the CBX to market. By 1980 they had forced Kawasaki into catch-up
mode where Kawi had been regarded as the performance king just a few
years earlier. Then Suzuki came along with its GSX-R line...

73, de Nate N0NB >>

--



______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
James Sarte (K2QI)
2010-11-17 00:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Regarding the IC-7700, which is a lot more expensive than the 7600, here's
what an Icom fan had to say about the missing 2nd receiver. Pay close
attention to the first bullet point.


Single HF receiver <http://www.ab4oj.com/icom/ic7700/rx.html> with I/Q
second mixer, offering +40dBm 3rd-order intercept point*.

- *The single receiver should be seen not as a disadvantage, but as a
plus.* The single receiver allows no-compromise RX performance at a
reasonable price; BNC sockets on the rear panel, and CI-V, allow easy
connection and synchronization of a second Icom transceiver such as the
756Pro3 as a secondary receiver. Many prospective IC-7700 buyers already own
an IC-756Pro3. Add <http://www.ab4oj.com/icom/ic7700/2rx.html> the
IC-7700 to your existing Pro3 for the perfect contest station; use the
IC-7700 as your main transceiver, and the IC-756Pro3 as a spotting receiver.

- Upgrade from your IC-765 or IC-775DSP, and get the benefits of a
spectrum scope.

I love this guy's logic. :)

73,
James K2QI

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Igor Kosvin <k.igor at comcast.net> wrote:

> I don't recall, does the IC7600 has independent second receiver? Perhaps
> you can ADD second receiver to it? Can you ADD 500 Hz or 250 Hz roofing
> filter to it? No? Too bad, I will pass. Still not enough bang for the buck.
>
> 73, Igor, N1YX
>
>
>
Edward R. Cole
2010-11-16 10:17:30 UTC
Permalink
I had the brochure of the K3 on my bulletin board for several years
as "unabtainium". I studied the reviews, and considered the comments
of several owners of the K3, and it finally came down to raiding my
401K for the $3,199.97 that I spend for my K3/10+KRX3. That is more
than my first car cost in 1965 (Mustang). And I consider it my last
significant ham purchase now that I am retired. Fortunately, it
appears to be a good investment since it is continually improving
thru firmware advances (the promise of SDR technology).

I have lots invested in my ham hobby (if I were to total everything
it might approach $15-20K acquired over 50-years). In 2008 I spent
$5K installing a 16-foot dish (to work maybe 200-400 hams world-wide
on 1296-eme). But then I do not own a $35K Harley, or a $80K
motorhome, either.

For what its worth the $6K Yaesu represents two month's retirement
income. But It would not interest me even if I were a
Millionaire. If I had six figure income it would go into some fine
test equipment (and some travel with my wife to exotic places).

73, Ed - KL7UW
500-KHz to 10-GHz

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:01:19 -0500
From: KW4H <kw4h at arrl.net>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=rnbsm+sybp2tcqxLgZMbDNkuDEvxy1JyZf0qM at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Not to be deliberately crass, but I have absolutely no use for a $6,000+
radio -- contesting or not. Like most hams, this is a hobby I do for fun,
and spending that kind of money on a transceiver is virtually unthinkable.
For the price of that rig, I could buy some new living room furniture and
take the XYL on a two week Caribbean cruise.

73!

Steve, KW4H





73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
======================================
BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
EME: 144-800*w, 432-100w, 1296-testing*, 3400-winter?
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa at hotmail.com
======================================
*temp not in service
KW4H
2010-11-16 11:39:41 UTC
Permalink
I pretty much did the same thing -- I'm close to retirement and made my last
significant transceiver purchase a couple of years ago. Personally, I love
anything Elecraft (especially the KX1), but I did end up with an Omni-VII as
my main rig, which I'm very happy with. My point is that for around $3k I
can get a mighty fine radio that I'll be happy with and can handle a variety
of operating circumstances. When you get significantly above that, the
return on investment becomes narrower and it becomes more of a status
symbol. I've been a professional communicator all of my working life, and
while the difference between a 3-dollar radio and a 3-thousand-dollar radio
is huge, the difference between a 3-thousand-dollar radio and a
6-thousand-dollar radio is mostly features.

Steve, KW4H

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Edward R. Cole <kl7uw at acsalaska.net> wrote:

> I had the brochure of the K3 on my bulletin board for several years
> as "unabtainium". I studied the reviews, and considered the comments
> of several owners of the K3, and it finally came down to raiding my
> 401K for the $3,199.97 that I spend for my K3/10+KRX3. That is more
> than my first car cost in 1965 (Mustang). And I consider it my last
> significant ham purchase now that I am retired. Fortunately, it
> appears to be a good investment since it is continually improving
> thru firmware advances (the promise of SDR technology).
>
> I have lots invested in my ham hobby (if I were to total everything
> it might approach $15-20K acquired over 50-years). In 2008 I spent
> $5K installing a 16-foot dish (to work maybe 200-400 hams world-wide
> on 1296-eme). But then I do not own a $35K Harley, or a $80K
> motorhome, either.
>
> For what its worth the $6K Yaesu represents two month's retirement
> income. But It would not interest me even if I were a
> Millionaire. If I had six figure income it would go into some fine
> test equipment (and some travel with my wife to exotic places).
>
> 73, Ed - KL7UW
> 500-KHz to 10-GHz
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:01:19 -0500
> From: KW4H <kw4h at arrl.net>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP
> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=rnbsm+sybp2tcqxLgZMbDNkuDEvxy1JyZf0qM at mail.gmail.com<rnbsm%2Bsybp2tcqxLgZMbDNkuDEvxy1JyZf0qM at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Not to be deliberately crass, but I have absolutely no use for a $6,000+
> radio -- contesting or not. Like most hams, this is a hobby I do for fun,
> and spending that kind of money on a transceiver is virtually unthinkable.
> For the price of that rig, I could buy some new living room furniture and
> take the XYL on a two week Caribbean cruise.
>
> 73!
>
> Steve, KW4H
>
>
>
>
>
> 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
> ======================================
> BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
> EME: 144-800*w, 432-100w, 1296-testing*, 3400-winter?
> DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa at hotmail.com
> ======================================
> *temp not in service
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
Benny Aumala
2010-11-16 18:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Nice to see new good rigs on market.
We have plenty to choose, it is clearly bonus for all hams.

When K3 came I told this RX architecture will soon be a standard
(as Rob Sherwood told long time ago).

To-day we have K3 and welcome Kenwood back again with TS590.
There is TT 599 Eagle and now this FT5K. Fine rigs all, and available.
Waiting for Icom.

Ft5K has possibility for class-A PA, which is a bonus for everybody on
SSB bands.
This could be copied by other manufacturers, too.

But I am happy with my K3 s/n 119 with latest softwares.
Service from Elecraft to Finland is impeccable.
We hams live good times.

Benny OH9NB
James Sarte (K2QI)
2010-11-16 19:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Hi Benny,

Only new Icom expected is the IC-9100 Daylight to DC box. Looks
interesting, and would most likely be compared to the Kenwood TS-2000.

The receiver is a double conversion superheterodyne. They claim +30 dBm
IP3. How they tested that, I don't know. Their promotional material also
states that the first receiver has a 15 KHz filter for the first IF, and 3/6
KHz filters are optional. Not sure about the second receiver.

Price is another issue. If you look at Icom's market pricing strategy, then
expect this rig to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,000 without the
1.2GHz module or additional filters. Maybe, and this is just my estimate,
that fully loaded will probably be somewhere around $4500.

I'm waiting to see what reviewers have to say before jumping to
conclusions. One thing that I can say right off the bat, is that I wish it
had the screen from the 7600 or 7700. Right now, it looks like they took
the LCD panel straight off an Icom 746.

73,
James K2QI

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Benny Aumala <benny.aumala at gmail.com>wrote:

> To-day we have K3 and welcome Kenwood back again with TS590.
> There is TT 599 Eagle and now this FT5K. Fine rigs all, and available.
> Waiting for Icom.
>
> Benny OH9NB
>
>
73 de James K2QI
President UNARC/4U1UN
Wes Stewart
2010-11-16 22:25:35 UTC
Permalink
There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft "invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9 MHz range.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know that the folks at Elecraft would never claim as much. I had a Henry Radio Tempo-1 (Yaesu FT-200) back when radios warmed up the shack. It was a 9 MHz i-f transceiver.

Wes Stewart, N7WS

--- On Tue, 11/16/10, Benny Aumala <benny.aumala at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> When K3 came I told this RX architecture will soon be a
> standard
> (as Rob Sherwood told long time ago).
James Sarte (K2QI)
2010-11-16 22:49:57 UTC
Permalink
I believe some of the older Kenwood's also had a low MHz IF out - 8.8 or 8.9
MHz.

I know this because I have a Kenwood SM-230 that requires an 8.9 MHz IF
input.

James K2QI

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Wes Stewart <n7ws at yahoo.com> wrote:

> There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft
> "invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9
> MHz range.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know that the folks at
> Elecraft would never claim as much. I had a Henry Radio Tempo-1 (Yaesu
> FT-200) back when radios warmed up the shack. It was a 9 MHz i-f
> transceiver.
>
> Wes Stewart, N7WS
>
> --- On Tue, 11/16/10, Benny Aumala <benny.aumala at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > When K3 came I told this RX architecture will soon be a
> > standard
> > (as Rob Sherwood told long time ago).
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>



--
73 de James K2QI
President UNARC/4U1UN
gdaught6
2010-11-16 22:54:24 UTC
Permalink
> I believe some of the older Kenwood's also had a low MHz IF out - 8.8 or 8.9
> MHz.
>
> I know this because I have a Kenwood SM-230 that requires an 8.9 MHz IF
> input.
>
> James K2QI
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Wes Stewart <n7ws at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft
> > "invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9
> > MHz range.

Look at the "HBRTR" in QST of April and May, 1967.

73,

George T Daughters, K6GT
CU in the California QSO Party (CQP)
October 1-2, 2011
gdaught6
2010-11-16 22:54:24 UTC
Permalink
> I believe some of the older Kenwood's also had a low MHz IF out - 8.8 or 8.9
> MHz.
>
> I know this because I have a Kenwood SM-230 that requires an 8.9 MHz IF
> input.
>
> James K2QI
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Wes Stewart <n7ws at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft
> > "invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9
> > MHz range.

Look at the "HBRTR" in QST of April and May, 1967.

73,

George T Daughters, K6GT
CU in the California QSO Party (CQP)
October 1-2, 2011
Fred Jensen
2010-11-16 22:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Similar to my Swan 500 [another shack warmer] with a 5 MHz IF.

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2011 Cal QSO Party 1-2 Oct 2011
- www.cqp.org
On 11/16/2010 2:25 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:

> Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know that the folks at
> Elecraft would never claim as much. I had a Henry Radio Tempo-1
> (Yaesu FT-200) back when radios warmed up the shack. It was a 9 MHz
> i-f transceiver.
>
> Wes Stewart, N7WS
Ron D'Eau Claire
2010-11-16 23:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Sometime in the 1960's or early 70's one company started offering a 9 MHz
filter at a decent price that was widely used by homebrewers back then and
the subject of many QST and ARRL handbook designs as well as a number of
"commercial" rigs.

Obviously, those rigs up-converted the lower MF frequency bands and
down-converted the higher MF frequency bands.

Early M.F./H.F. superhetrodyne receivers all "down converted" to an I.F. in
the low MF range (usually 455 kHz) but designing input filters for the M.F.
range that would adequately reject the image response at 2X the I.F. became
very difficult. Filter technology limited the selectivity available at
higher frequencies, forcing designers to use a low frequency I.F., but the
press was on from the beginning for better I.F. filters at higher
frequencies.

Like all designs, it's always a compromise. The best designers are those who
make the best compromises using the components available at an acceptable
price.

Ron AC7AC


-----Original Message-----
There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft
"invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9
MHz range.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know that the folks at
Elecraft would never claim as much. I had a Henry Radio Tempo-1 (Yaesu
FT-200) back when radios warmed up the shack. It was a 9 MHz i-f
transceiver.

Wes Stewart, N7WS

--- On Tue, 11/16/10, Benny Aumala <benny.aumala at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> When K3 came I told this RX architecture will soon be a
> standard
> (as Rob Sherwood told long time ago).
Don Wilhelm
2010-11-16 23:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Actually, the 9 MHz IF got started and gained momentum from the first
SSB phasing generators. Some of the first SSB transmitters were phasing
types with the 9 MHz IF - using a 5.0 to 5.5 MHz VFO, one could cover
3.5 to 4.0 MHz and also 14.0 to 14.5 MHz with the same 9 MHz generator.
Transceivers were only a dream at that time. Receivers did not normally
use a phasing approach.

Then McCoy came out with a reasonably priced 9 MHz crystal filter that
made filter SSB transmitters possible with the same 9 MHz IF.
Transceivers were now possible with that filter, and there were several
homebrew designs as well as some commercial implementations of
transmitters and receivers and transceivers using a 9 MHz IF.

Another observation - sideband suppression and top-notch performance
were difficult using analog phasing methods (although Rick Campbell KK7B
does have some very good analog designs), the DSP algorithms are a
perfection of the phasing method of SSB generation and reception, so we
have come "full circle" with the advent of DSP implementations.

As far as the advantages of "down conversion" - that was very
successfully implemented in the K2, although there were other homebrew
implementations. The single conversion down-conversion receiver in the
K2 proved its worthiness to many operators while the rest of the world
was using up-conversion to obtain full 0.1 to 30 kHz continuous coverage
and few 'birdies'. Birdies are inevitable with a down-conversion
scheme, and the challenge is to keep them out of the ham bands.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 11/16/2010 6:11 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> Sometime in the 1960's or early 70's one company started offering a 9 MHz
> filter at a decent price that was widely used by homebrewers back then and
> the subject of many QST and ARRL handbook designs as well as a number of
> "commercial" rigs.
>
> Obviously, those rigs up-converted the lower MF frequency bands and
> down-converted the higher MF frequency bands.
>
> Early M.F./H.F. superhetrodyne receivers all "down converted" to an I.F. in
> the low MF range (usually 455 kHz) but designing input filters for the M.F.
> range that would adequately reject the image response at 2X the I.F. became
> very difficult. Filter technology limited the selectivity available at
> higher frequencies, forcing designers to use a low frequency I.F., but the
> press was on from the beginning for better I.F. filters at higher
> frequencies.
>
> Like all designs, it's always a compromise. The best designers are those who
> make the best compromises using the components available at an acceptable
> price.
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft
> "invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9
> MHz range.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know that the folks at
> Elecraft would never claim as much. I had a Henry Radio Tempo-1 (Yaesu
> FT-200) back when radios warmed up the shack. It was a 9 MHz i-f
> transceiver.
>
> Wes Stewart, N7WS
>
> --- On Tue, 11/16/10, Benny Aumala<benny.aumala at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When K3 came I told this RX architecture will soon be a
>> standard
>> (as Rob Sherwood told long time ago).
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
Johnny Siu
2010-11-17 00:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Hello Don,

Very true indeed.? Downward conversion is a good cost?Vs performance solution
for?radio targeting at ham band.

Elecraft's selection of downward conversation is clever because both K2 and K3
are targeting ham operators.
?cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC



----- ???? ----
???? Don Wilhelm <w3fpr at embarqmail.com>
???? Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
????? 2010/11/17 (?) 7:47:07 AM
??? Re: [Elecraft] OT: QST's review of the Yaesu FTDX5000MP

? Actually, the 9 MHz IF got started and gained momentum from the first
SSB phasing generators.? Some of the first SSB transmitters were phasing
types with the 9 MHz IF - using a 5.0 to 5.5 MHz VFO, one could cover
3.5 to 4.0 MHz and also 14.0 to 14.5 MHz with the same 9 MHz generator.?
Transceivers were only a dream at that time.? Receivers did not normally
use a phasing approach.

Then McCoy came out with a reasonably priced 9 MHz crystal filter that
made filter SSB transmitters possible with the same 9 MHz IF.?
Transceivers were now possible with that filter, and there were several
homebrew designs as well as some commercial implementations of
transmitters and receivers and transceivers using a 9 MHz IF.

Another observation - sideband suppression and top-notch performance
were difficult using analog phasing methods (although Rick Campbell KK7B
does have some very good analog designs), the DSP algorithms are a
perfection of the phasing method of SSB generation and reception, so we
have come "full circle" with the advent of DSP implementations.

As far as the advantages of "down conversion" - that was very
successfully implemented in the K2, although there were other homebrew
implementations.? The single conversion down-conversion receiver in the
K2 proved its worthiness to many operators while the rest of the world
was using up-conversion to obtain full 0.1 to 30 kHz continuous coverage
and few 'birdies'.? Birdies are inevitable with a down-conversion
scheme, and the challenge is to keep them out of the ham bands.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 11/16/2010 6:11 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> Sometime in the 1960's or early 70's one company started offering a 9 MHz
> filter at a decent price that was widely used by homebrewers back then and
> the subject of many QST and ARRL handbook designs as well as a number of
> "commercial" rigs.
>
> Obviously, those rigs up-converted the lower MF frequency bands and
> down-converted the higher MF frequency bands.
>
> Early M.F./H.F. superhetrodyne receivers all "down converted" to an I.F. in
> the low MF range (usually 455 kHz) but designing input filters for the M.F.
> range that would adequately reject the image response at 2X the I.F. became
> very difficult. Filter technology limited the selectivity available at
> higher frequencies, forcing designers to use a low frequency I.F., but the
> press was on from the beginning for better I.F. filters at higher
> frequencies.
>
> Like all designs, it's always a compromise. The best designers are those who
> make the best compromises using the components available at an acceptable
> price.
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft
> "invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9
> MHz range.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know that the folks at
> Elecraft would never claim as much.? I had a Henry Radio Tempo-1 (Yaesu
> FT-200) back when radios warmed up the shack.? It was a 9 MHz i-f
> transceiver.
>
> Wes Stewart,? N7WS
>
> --- On Tue, 11/16/10, Benny Aumala<benny.aumala at gmail.com>? wrote:
>
>> When K3 came I told this RX architecture will soon be a
>> standard
>> (as Rob Sherwood told long time ago).
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Bob Nielsen
2010-11-17 01:34:09 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:

> Actually, the 9 MHz IF got started and gained momentum from the first
> SSB phasing generators. Some of the first SSB transmitters were phasing
> types with the 9 MHz IF - using a 5.0 to 5.5 MHz VFO, one could cover
> 3.5 to 4.0 MHz and also 14.0 to 14.5 MHz with the same 9 MHz generator.
> Transceivers were only a dream at that time. Receivers did not normally
> use a phasing approach.

Ah, the Central Electronics 10-A (from 1952, the year I was first licensed), often used with an ARC-5 as a VFO. I remember really wanting one, but it's probably best that I never fulfilled that wish.

Bob, N7XY
Kok Chen
2010-11-16 23:17:11 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:

> There is a serious misconception by some true believers that Elecraft "invented" down-conversion (or at least conversion) to an i-f in the 8 to 9 MHz range.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth, and I know that the folks at Elecraft would never claim as much. I had a Henry Radio Tempo-1 (Yaesu FT-200) back when radios warmed up the shack. It was a 9 MHz i-f transceiver.

Check out "Solid-state Receiver Design with the MOS Transistor" in April and May 1967 issues of QST (WB6AIG is now K6GT).

Part II of the article starts with the description of the "9 Mc I.F. amplifier" and mentioned that the crystal filter is the same one as used in the SX-146 (part of the "Hallicrafter Twins").

73
Chen, W7AY
Kok Chen
2010-11-16 23:23:24 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Kok Chen wrote:

> Check out "Solid-state Receiver Design with the MOS Transistor" in April and May 1967 issues of QST (WB6AIG is now K6GT).

Whoops, George beat me to it :-).

73
Chen, W7AY
ab2tc
2010-11-16 23:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I'd love to but where do I find the article? I don't think my local library
has many back issues of QST.

AB2TC - Knut

PS. I wish I had brought my first ARRL Handbook (1967) with me when I moved
from Norway in 1981, but I obviously didn't. I have so vivid memories of
reading that handbook from cover to cover when I was in my teens. In those
days the handbook had ads from Collins and the other great American
companies. I am pretty sure that handbook is where I have the slogan "Clean,
strong signal from Collins" memory from.


Kok Chen wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Kok Chen wrote:
>
>> Check out "Solid-state Receiver Design with the MOS Transistor" in April
>> and May 1967 issues of QST (WB6AIG is now K6GT).
>
> Whoops, George beat me to it :-).
>
> 73
> Chen, W7AY
>
> <snip>
>

--
View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/OT-QST-s-review-of-the-Yaesu-FTDX5000MP-tp5738046p5745989.html
Sent from the [HAM] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Ron D'Eau Claire
2010-11-17 00:32:13 UTC
Permalink
If you are an ARRL member you can access the article online at arrl.org. Go
to "ARRL Periodicals Archive and Search".

I still have my first ARRL handbook, the 1941 issue. (I was only 3 at the
time - it was given to me in the late 40's.) I have picked up a few others
from the 50's and 60's at various used book stores. Whenever I go into one I
always poke around wherever they have "science" or "technology" books.

Just for fun I looked on line and there's a '67 up for sale right now with a
"buy it now" of under $30 including shipping.

Ron AC7AC

-----Original Message-----

Hi,

I'd love to but where do I find the article? I don't think my local library
has many back issues of QST.

AB2TC - Knut

PS. I wish I had brought my first ARRL Handbook (1967) with me when I moved
from Norway in 1981, but I obviously didn't. I have so vivid memories of
reading that handbook from cover to cover when I was in my teens. In those
days the handbook had ads from Collins and the other great American
companies. I am pretty sure that handbook is where I have the slogan "Clean,
strong signal from Collins" memory from.


Kok Chen wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Kok Chen wrote:
>
>> Check out "Solid-state Receiver Design with the MOS Transistor" in April
>> and May 1967 issues of QST (WB6AIG is now K6GT).
>
> Whoops, George beat me to it :-).
>
> 73
> Chen, W7AY
>
> <snip>
>

--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/OT-QST-s-review-of-the-Yaesu-FTDX5000MP
-tp5738046p5745989.html
Sent from the [HAM] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Kok Chen
2010-11-17 00:36:17 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:51 PM, ab2tc wrote:

> I'd love to but where do I find the article? I don't think my local library has many back issues of QST.

You should be able to read (some of) them at the ARRL web site if you are an ARRL member.

If not, you can try the QST View CD-ROMs.

ARRL no longer sells the CD-ROMs but you might be able to get them from the people who created QST View CDs for ARRL-- they were still selling them when I snooped around on the web a year or two ago. I have a link to the vendor's URL on my "QST Browser" web page:

http://homepage.mac.com/chen/w7ay/QST%20Browser/index.html

A funny anecdote is that the 1950-1959 QST View was the first set to disappear as ARRL was selling remaining stock. I had people who stumbled on "QST Browser" but could not find the 1950-1959 set to buy, so they wrote me to see if I knew of secret stashes :-). I suspect that it could be due to the ham "baby boom." Everyone wants the QST from when they first became hams, when they'd drooled over the ads of things like the S-Line which they could not afford as teenagers :-). ARRL sold out of them first, then vendors like Texas Towers and Universal Radio sold out of them. Until finally, only Radio Era had them. Today? estate sales, perhaps, if Radio Era does not keep stamping them out :-).

73
Chen, W7AY
Wayne Burdick
2010-11-16 23:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Of course we didn't invent it. But we appear to have helped
resuscitated it :) It was the only choice, as far as we were
concerned, to achieve our performance goals.

Wayne
N6KR
Bruce McLaughlin
2010-11-17 23:02:10 UTC
Permalink
I suspect it is going to become the standard for many if not most of the new
radios. As soon as it became apparent that effective roofing filters can
really improve the close in IMD performance, it seems as if a low first IF
frequency has become almost mandatory. I note that the Orion and the new
Yaesu FT 5000 both use down conversion for the first IF and, therefore, have
effective narrow roofing filters. I wonder when, or if, ICOM and the others
will follow suit.

By the way, thank you so much for the new APF feature. I think that was
something which was missing from the K-3 up until now. I have always found
that filter to be helpful in trying to hear very weak CW signals, especially
if the band is noisy. I have had good luck with it on my FT 1000D and I
missed it on my K-3s. Fortunately it is no longer missing and already I
found it to be very helpful. I guess I was lucky in that I really noticed
no problems with version 2.17 but I'm glad to see the update to that which I
have installed on one of my K-3s and it seems to be working very well.

Bruce-W8FU

-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Wayne Burdick
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:32 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Down-conversion


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Ron D'Eau Claire
2010-11-18 01:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Bruce, there is a limit on the upper signal frequency based on the I.F.
chosen and how good one can make the input filter in order to have adequate
image frequency rejection while avoiding excessive filter loss.

AFAIK, "up conversion" became popular as a way to cover the VLF frequencies
and avoid any tuning gaps (such as the K3 has between 8 and 9 MHz) by
putting the first I.F. up above the highest tuning range. That wasn't
practical in the past (esp. with vacuum tubes) because mixers and amplifiers
with low noise figures needed more protection from very strong signals. But
with more robust devices it became practical.

Even so, the best performance occurs with down conversion as it always has.

Ron AC7AC

-----Original Message-----


I suspect it is going to become the standard for many if not most of the new
radios. As soon as it became apparent that effective roofing filters can
really improve the close in IMD performance, it seems as if a low first IF
frequency has become almost mandatory. I note that the Orion and the new
Yaesu FT 5000 both use down conversion for the first IF and, therefore, have
effective narrow roofing filters. I wonder when, or if, ICOM and the others
will follow suit.

Bruce-W8FU

-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Wayne Burdick
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:32 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Down-conversion


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy
2010-11-18 12:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Bruce,

I believe that your suspicion is correct. The sticking point in the design
of a high performance up-conversion receiver at this time is the first LO,
whose phase noise must be suitably "low" and whose cost is acceptable. There
can be problems with VHF "Roofing" filters, but there are ways to overcome
these.

Regarding the use of very narrow roofing filters (crystal) in a
down-conversion receiver, there is an underlying filter generated IMD
problem which might or might not affect the IMD performance of the overall
receiver - depending upon the "IMD performance" of those parts of the
receiver ahead of and behind the filter. The problem is that for any given
quality of quartz used in the crystals, the IMD performance of a crystal
filter can be shown to worsen as the filter's bandwidth narrows. I suspect
that the 6 kHz roofing filter used in Kenwood's TS-590S ahead of the IF
crystal filters is there to give some protection to the narrower IF filters.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD


Bruce McLaughlin wrote on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 11:02 PM:


>I suspect it is going to become the standard for many if not most of the
>new
> radios. As soon as it became apparent that effective roofing filters can
> really improve the close in IMD performance, it seems as if a low first IF
> frequency has become almost mandatory. I note that the Orion and the new
> Yaesu FT 5000 both use down conversion for the first IF and, therefore,
> have
> effective narrow roofing filters. I wonder when, or if, ICOM and the
> others
> will follow suit.

<snip>
Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft
2010-11-18 17:49:30 UTC
Permalink
That is why we built special test fixtures for us and INRAD to test
strong signal IMD handling on all of our K3 filters.

73, Eric


On 11/18/2010 4:49 AM, Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I believe that your suspicion is correct. The sticking point in the design
> of a high performance up-conversion receiver at this time is the first LO,
> whose phase noise must be suitably "low" and whose cost is acceptable. There
> can be problems with VHF "Roofing" filters, but there are ways to overcome
> these.
>
> Regarding the use of very narrow roofing filters (crystal) in a
> down-conversion receiver, there is an underlying filter generated IMD
> problem which might or might not affect the IMD performance of the overall
> receiver - depending upon the "IMD performance" of those parts of the
> receiver ahead of and behind the filter. The problem is that for any given
> quality of quartz used in the crystals, the IMD performance of a crystal
> filter can be shown to worsen as the filter's bandwidth narrows. I suspect
> that the 6 kHz roofing filter used in Kenwood's TS-590S ahead of the IF
> crystal filters is there to give some protection to the narrower IF filters.
>
> 73,
> Geoff
> GM4ESD
>
>
> Bruce McLaughlin wrote on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 11:02 PM:
>
>
>> I suspect it is going to become the standard for many if not most of the
>> new
>> radios. As soon as it became apparent that effective roofing filters can
>> really improve the close in IMD performance, it seems as if a low first IF
>> frequency has become almost mandatory. I note that the Orion and the new
>> Yaesu FT 5000 both use down conversion for the first IF and, therefore,
>> have
>> effective narrow roofing filters. I wonder when, or if, ICOM and the
>> others
>> will follow suit.
> <snip>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Georges Ringotte F6DFZ
2010-11-18 07:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi to the group,

Here is a post I made on the TS-590 Yahoo Group about down or up conversion, close spaced signals dynamic range, and the
way receivers are classed in a few charts (Sherwood or W8JI for exemple).

I ordered very recently a K3, and it is on its way to France.
I must add that Elecraft took some measures to limit the problems associated
with down-conversion ; for exemple, transmit low pass filters are used to improve image rejection. There is also a complex
netwoork in the receiver path with notches on image frequencies of the upper ham bands. For remote signals IMD2 and IMD3,
relays are used to limit them.

Down-conversion is not a fatality, only a technical choise aimed to get the maximun performance on the ham bands.
If it's well implemented (as on the K3, I do hope !), all is fine. If not, you will have problems much more important than
limited 2 kHz dynamic range.

Professional receiver must cover the whole HF spectrum, and up-cpnversion is the only choise to do it.
It's possible to have a wide (aka 15 kHz) VHF roofing filter, and still very good 2 kHz dynamic range, but it comes
at a cost.

All receiver are compromises, between technical choise, cost, and even marketting. You must understand this to
make the better choise with the money you want to spend.



I have a lot of respect for the work done by Rob Sherwood. But
its chart, and the way receivers are classed, describes only a
very small part of receivers performances, even if it has the
merit to provoque the interest of prospective buyers and by way
of consequence the interest of marketing departments of
ham equipment manufacturers.

2kHz spacing IMD3 describes the behavior of a receiver in presence
of close spaced signals, mainly CW and data. A good figure
can be had by a tight selectivity near the frontend obtained
by a narrow bandwidth roofing filter (as narrow as 200 Hz for
the K3), and/or by a wideband roofing filter and judicious
gain distribution (as the RS XK2100 does).

As Rob pointed it, 2 kHz IMD3 has little to mean for SSB because
IMD generated by nearby transmitters is more prevalent than
IMD generated by the receiver itself ; there, selectivity obtained
by the DSP is the main factor.

The chart of Rob Sherwood is very incomplete ; for exemple,
he could add image rejection, and IMD2 and IMD3 generated by
remote signals.

Image rejection is not a problem with a good up-conversion
design, figures well over 100dB are mesured (FT-2000). But it's
not the same case with downconversion designs (K2, K3, high in
the Rob chart, Eagle, FT-5000, TS-590). With a 9MHz high IF,
it's difficult and costly to reject images over 70dB on the
higher ham bands, even more difficult with a lower IF (K2).
One must understand that these low figures are a real threat
when cycle 24 will peak. Can you imagine your "chart topping"
$5k+ receiver with the upper ham bands full of BC and utilities
image signals ?

Remote signals IMD2 and IMD3 are even more prevalent.
These measurements describe the behavior of a receiver in
presence of signals for which the sum and/or difference
(F1+F2 or F1-F2 for IMD2, 2xF1-F2 or 2xF2-F1 for IMD3) falls
were you want to receive.
Take real life exemples, described in CQDL magazine in the 80's
by the late DL1BU. Imagine for IMD2 large BC signals from
the 31m band combining with large BC signals from the 25m band.
If your receiver has poor IMD2 (see ARRL review of some
"chart topping" receivers), your 15m ham band will be full
of strong combs of BC signals each 5kHz.
The same problem exists for 31m and 19m BC bands falling inside
the 12m ham band, and for 21m and 19m BC bands falling inside
the 10m ham band, but there are a lot of over combinaisons doing
the same.
For IMD3, the 41, 31 and 21 m BC bands can generate
tremendous spurious signals on the 40, 30 and 20 m ham bands.

Speaking of real life, I bought in the mid 80's a brand new
TS-830s, a very good reveiver, with down-conversion and
a preselector. This receiver is quite high into Rob chart, and
highly regarded (see eHam.net). When, for the first time
I connected it to my Sommer XP507 antenna (a kind of
log periodic wide band beam), the receiver was useless during
certain parts of the day when the propagation was good on the
BC bands. I could solve the problem from IMD2 with 2 switchable
high-pass filters (18 MHz high-pass for 17 and 15 m ham bands, and
24 MHz for 12 and 10 m ham bands). For 40, 30 and 20 m ham bands,
the only solution was to use the 20 dB attenuator to reduce IMD3.
I could also have used an outboard preselector.

I can attest that with the peak of cycle 24, if you have a
large and/or broadband antenna, these same problems will occur
if your receiver has poor IMD2 and remote signals IMD3. I can
also certify that 2kHz IMD3 will have very little interest
because statisticaly you will have a few ham signals inside
your roofing filter, and thousands large BC and utilities
signals outside your roofing filters. RF selectivity
(VRF or Digisel), relays switching of RF band-pass filters
will be most important, not 2 kHz IMD3, even if it has its
own relative importance.

Think about your trafic, about your antenna, make your
own jugement and enjoy your rig, no one is perfect. Think,
it's just a hobby.

Best regards to the group.

Georges F6DFZ
Arie Kleingeld PA3A
2010-11-18 22:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Georges,

Interesting thoughts.

73,
Arie PA3A
Johnny Siu
2010-11-18 07:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Hello Georges,

Thanks for your informative message and I like to read it.

You are right.? Pofessional radios employ up conversion scheme and wide roofing
filter.
Of course, they have other expensive measures to ensure good 2Khz dynamic range.

For the insitutional users, they would use both digital and voice mode.? CW is
not their main interest.

?cheers,


Johnny VR2XMC



----- ???? ----
???? Georges Ringotte F6DFZ <f6dfz at sfr.fr>
???? elecraft at mailman.qth.net
????? 2010/11/18 (?) 3:05:42 PM
??? [Elecraft] Down-conversion

Hi to the group,

Here is a post I made on the TS-590 Yahoo Group about down or up conversion,
close spaced signals dynamic range, and the

way receivers are classed in a few charts (Sherwood or W8JI for exemple).

I ordered very recently a K3, and it is on its way to France.
I must add that Elecraft took some measures to limit the problems associated
with down-conversion ; for exemple, transmit low pass filters are used to
improve image rejection. There is also a complex

netwoork in the receiver path with notches on image frequencies of the upper ham
bands. For remote signals IMD2 and IMD3,
relays are used to limit them.

Down-conversion is not a fatality, only a technical choise aimed to get the
maximun performance on the ham bands.
If it's well implemented (as on the K3, I do hope !), all is fine. If not, you
will have problems much more important than

limited 2 kHz dynamic range.

Professional receiver must cover the whole HF spectrum, and up-cpnversion is the
only choise to do it.
It's possible to have a wide (aka 15 kHz) VHF roofing filter, and still very
good 2 kHz dynamic range, but it comes
at a cost.

All receiver are compromises, between technical choise, cost, and even
marketting. You must understand this to
make the better choise with the money you want to spend.



I have a lot of respect for the work done by Rob Sherwood. But
its chart, and the way receivers are classed, describes only a
very small part of receivers performances, even if it has the
merit to provoque the interest of prospective buyers and by way
of consequence the interest of marketing departments of
ham equipment manufacturers.

2kHz spacing IMD3 describes the behavior of a receiver in presence
of close spaced signals, mainly CW and data. A good figure
can be had by a tight selectivity near the frontend obtained
by a narrow bandwidth roofing filter (as narrow as 200 Hz for
the K3), and/or by a wideband roofing filter and judicious
gain distribution (as the RS XK2100 does).

As Rob pointed it, 2 kHz IMD3 has little to mean for SSB because
IMD generated by nearby transmitters is more prevalent than
IMD generated by the receiver itself ; there, selectivity obtained
by the DSP is the main factor.

The chart of Rob Sherwood is very incomplete ; for exemple,
he could add image rejection, and IMD2 and IMD3 generated by
remote signals.

Image rejection is not a problem with a good up-conversion
design, figures well over 100dB are mesured (FT-2000). But it's
not the same case with downconversion designs (K2, K3, high in
the Rob chart, Eagle, FT-5000, TS-590). With a 9MHz high IF,
it's difficult and costly to reject images over 70dB on the
higher ham bands, even more difficult with a lower IF (K2).
One must understand that these low figures are a real threat
when cycle 24 will peak. Can you imagine your "chart topping"
$5k+ receiver with the upper ham bands full of BC and utilities
image signals ?

Remote signals IMD2 and IMD3 are even more prevalent.
These measurements describe the behavior of a receiver in
presence of signals for which the sum and/or difference
(F1+F2 or F1-F2 for IMD2, 2xF1-F2 or 2xF2-F1 for IMD3) falls
were you want to receive.
Take real life exemples, described in CQDL magazine in the 80's
by the late DL1BU. Imagine for IMD2 large BC signals from
the 31m band combining with large BC signals from the 25m band.
If your receiver has poor IMD2 (see ARRL review of some
"chart topping" receivers), your 15m ham band will be full
of strong combs of BC signals each 5kHz.
The same problem exists for 31m and 19m BC bands falling inside
the 12m ham band, and for 21m and 19m BC bands falling inside
the 10m ham band, but there are a lot of over combinaisons doing
the same.
For IMD3, the 41, 31 and 21 m BC bands can generate
tremendous spurious signals on the 40, 30 and 20 m ham bands.

Speaking of real life, I bought in the mid 80's a brand new
TS-830s, a very good reveiver, with down-conversion and
a preselector. This receiver is quite high into Rob chart, and
highly regarded (see eHam.net). When, for the first time
I connected it to my Sommer XP507 antenna (a kind of
log periodic wide band beam), the receiver was useless during
certain parts of the day when the propagation was good on the
BC bands. I could solve the problem from IMD2 with 2 switchable
high-pass filters (18 MHz high-pass for 17 and 15 m ham bands, and
24 MHz for 12 and 10 m ham bands). For 40, 30 and 20 m ham bands,
the only solution was to use the 20 dB attenuator to reduce IMD3.
I could also have used an outboard preselector.

I can attest that with the peak of cycle 24, if you have a
large and/or broadband antenna, these same problems will occur
if your receiver has poor IMD2 and remote signals IMD3. I can
also certify that 2kHz IMD3 will have very little interest
because statisticaly you will have a few ham signals inside
your roofing filter, and thousands large BC and utilities
signals outside your roofing filters. RF selectivity
(VRF or Digisel), relays switching of RF band-pass filters
will be most important, not 2 kHz IMD3, even if it has its
own relative importance.

Think about your trafic, about your antenna, make your
own jugement and enjoy your rig, no one is perfect. Think,
it's just a hobby.

Best regards to the group.

Georges F6DFZ
Scott Ellington
2010-11-23 16:54:20 UTC
Permalink
I wonder if ANY commercial/military HF users require the kind of close-in dynamic range that we do. If you have a choice, why would you design a communications system that allows signals within 2 kHz of each other with a 140 dB difference in amplitude? Only the relative anarchy of the ham bands allows that! I'm not complaining, as long as we have receivers like the K3.

73,

Scott K9MA


On Nov 18, 2010, at 1:25 AM, Johnny Siu wrote:

> Pofessional radios employ up conversion scheme and wide roofing
> filter.
> Of course, they have other expensive measures to ensure good 2Khz dynamic range.

Scott Ellington
Madison, Wisconsin
USA
Georges Ringotte F6DFZ
2011-02-17 07:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Hi to the group,

When I had my K2/10, I had multiple failures of the PA transistors.
Close investigation showed that the problem came from my switching power
supply (a professional 5A one from Friwo).
When switching on the K2, the power supply emited large spikes that
destroyed the PA transistors.
If the K2 was first switched on its internal battery, and then the power
supply was switch on, no problem as the capacitors of the K2 were already
charged.

Before restauring your K2, check your power supply with a scope at switch
on.

Best regards.

Georges F6DFZ
John Ragle
2011-02-17 08:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Am I missing something here? Seems to me that the rational thing to do
is turn on the power supply and let it stabilize (should only take a
second or two), then turn on the K2/K3? Turning a K2 or K3 on and off
using the power supply switch never gives the firmware/software a chance
to initialize or shut down...just like pulling the plug on your computer
might well cause at least mild consternation to the machine! There are
no enormous filter caps in either Kn machine that need to be serviced at
power on. Seems to me that using a non-matched pair of transistors is
much more likely to be the cause of failure, as someone has already
pointed out.

John Ragle -- W1ZI

=====

On 2/17/2011 2:31 AM, Georges Ringotte F6DFZ wrote:
> Hi to the group,
>
> When I had my K2/10, I had multiple failures of the PA transistors.
> Close investigation showed that the problem came from my switching power
> supply (a professional 5A one from Friwo).
> When switching on the K2, the power supply emited large spikes that
> destroyed the PA transistors.
> If the K2 was first switched on its internal battery, and then the power
> supply was switch on, no problem as the capacitors of the K2 were already
> charged.
>
> Before restauring your K2, check your power supply with a scope at switch
> on.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Georges F6DFZ
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
>
Dave Sergeant
2011-02-17 09:08:45 UTC
Permalink
The K2 has a real on/off switch. So always using that to turn it on and
off is certainly a good idea.

I am certainly puzzled at these claims of pa blowups. My original pair
of transistors is going fine after 9 years and some 30k QSOs. I have
removed the heatsink several times while fitting mods, and the last
time I replaced the heatsink washers as well, and have never had any
problems. I agree that the mechanical arrangement is not the best, but
it does the job.

73 Dave G3YMC

On 17 Feb 2011 at 3:14, John Ragle wrote:

> Am I missing something here? Seems to me that the rational thing to do
> is turn on the power supply and let it stabilize (should only take a
> second or two), then turn on the K2/K3? Turning a K2 or K3 on and off
> using the power supply switch never gives the firmware/software a chance
> to initialize or shut down...just like pulling the plug on your computer
> might well cause at least mild consternation to the machine! There are
> no enormous filter caps in either Kn machine that need to be serviced at
> power on. Seems to me that using a non-matched pair of transistors is
> much more likely to be the cause of failure, as someone has already
> pointed out.


http://www.davesergeant.com
Mike Harris
2011-02-17 12:25:10 UTC
Permalink
You can't turn the K3 fully on with the PSU power switch otherwise
nearly everyone would be doing it all the time.

Regards,

Mike VP8NO

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ragle" <tpcj1r03 at crocker.com>
To: <elecraft at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K2 PA Failure


> Am I missing something here? Seems to me that the rational thing
> to do
> is turn on the power supply and let it stabilize (should only take
> a
> second or two), then turn on the K2/K3? Turning a K2 or K3 on and
> off
> using the power supply switch never gives the firmware/software a
> chance
> to initialize or shut down...just like pulling the plug on your
> computer
> might well cause at least mild consternation to the machine! There
> are
> no enormous filter caps in either Kn machine that need to be
> serviced at
> power on. Seems to me that using a non-matched pair of transistors
> is
> much more likely to be the cause of failure, as someone has
> already
> pointed out.
>
> John Ragle -- W1ZI
Georges Ringotte F6DFZ
2011-06-01 11:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Hi to the group,

Grab a K2 kit and/or its options as soon as you can.
Through hole components become more and more scarce, and I believe will come
a time
when Elecraft will announce they can no more produce these kits.
OHR, Wilderness Radio and others have such difficulties.

Regards

Georges
Georges Ringotte F6DFZ
2011-02-17 11:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Yes you are missing something.
The power supply was first switch on, then the K2.
At switch on the capacitors into the K2 charges themself, and the power supply answered to this by emiting spikes.
I never write that all power supply have the same behavior, but for mine, it explained the K2 PA transistors failure.
A scope showed clearly the problem with this power supply.
After changing the power supply, I had no more PA transistors failure.

Georges F6DFZ


Am I missing something here? Seems to me that the rational thing to do
is turn on the power supply and let it stabilize (should only take a
second or two), then turn on the K2/K3? Turning a K2 or K3 on and off
using the power supply switch never gives the firmware/software a chance
to initialize or shut down...just like pulling the plug on your computer
might well cause at least mild consternation to the machine! There are
no enormous filter caps in either Kn machine that need to be serviced at
power on. Seems to me that using a non-matched pair of transistors is
much more likely to be the cause of failure, as someone has already
pointed out.

John Ragle -- W1ZI

=====

On 2/17/2011 2:31 AM, Georges Ringotte F6DFZ wrote:
> Hi to the group,
>
> When I had my K2/10, I had multiple failures of the PA transistors.
> Close investigation showed that the problem came from my switching power
> supply (a professional 5A one from Friwo).
> When switching on the K2, the power supply emited large spikes that
> destroyed the PA transistors.
> If the K2 was first switched on its internal battery, and then the power
> supply was switch on, no problem as the capacitors of the K2 were already
> charged.
>
> Before restauring your K2, check your power supply with a scope at switch
> on.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Georges F6DFZ
Loading...