I would not have upgraded to the KDSP2. Not for the performance, because although I'm mainly a CW operator, I could probably benefit from it.
My main objection to the KDSP2 is user interface. The K2 was not designed for the KDSP2 in the first place as can be seen in how complicated it is to set up and operate compared to the other K2 modules. Given the few buttons of the K2, the user interface for the KDSP2 is probably as good as it can be, but still it is so much harder to use than the other options. The otherwise well thought-out user interface of the K2 is made unncessary complicated by the KDSP2 with all its features. This can be read indirectly from the history of Elecraft here: http://udel.edu/~mm/ham/elecraft/history/ Quote: "A major milestone in our history was the KDSP2 option for the K2. Lyle Johnson, KK7P, became known to us *after* he had mostly completed this highly versatile DSP unit. He reverse-engineered the auxBus protocol and made the KDSP2 behave as if it were a KAF2, which plugged into the same spot. He showed it to us, and we immediately adopted both the product and Lyle himself." ----- Sverre, LA3ZA K2 #2198, K3 #3391, LA3ZA Blog: http://la3za.blogspot.com, LA3ZA Unofficial Guide to K2 modifications: http://la3za.blogspot.com/p/la3za-unofficial-guide-to-elecraft-k2.html -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K2-Question-Is-the-DSP-Board-a-Worthwhile-upgrade-tp7609953p7609972.html Sent from the Elecraft 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@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
