Bluntly, as clever as the CW filter scheme was for both cost and effectiveness, the DSP for me really put the finishing touches on the performance. But that is a contesting analysis. No contesting, maybe I don't care.
I have the four CW widths and I have the DSP filters set to exactly match the skirts. A bit of a pain getting that right, but when I'm out working on an antenna somewhere running battery, I don't have an issue that I wish I had my K3 out there for hearing. And when I've got something matched by the auto tuner, I know the network values being used to do it. 73, Guy. On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:46 PM, John <[email protected]> wrote: > One question I have about the choice between the KAF2 and KDSP2 is what > about having neither. > > How would one describe the receiver/filter capabilities of the bare K2? > > Thanks. > > John, kx4o > > On 5/1/12 1:29 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > > For serious contest use of the K2 on 160, I found that the extra skirt > > depth afforded by the DSP was extremely useful when running as opposed to > > search and pounce. On the other hand the easy rolloff of audio off the > > center frequency was useful. Like some others what I really wanted was > > BOTH. > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > 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:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
