In a message dated 5/20/06 12:41:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Do you folks think that the Orion II is worth the great difference in > > price based on performance? > Depends how you define performance. Certainly the Orion's numbers are better. They should be - the basic Orion costs five times what the basic K2 costs! Compare the price of a K2/100 with SSB, 160 and noise blanker with an Orion II and some filters, and see the price differential. > Certainly factors like unit size and bulk, pride of building, and the > fact hat the K2 is not software based > are important, but is the Omni a functionally better rig? In some ways the Orion II wins - as it should, because it's much more complex and much more expensive. The question (for me) isn't whether the Orion receiver outperforms the K2 receiver in some ways, but rather how the K2's receiver manages to compete in *any* way with rigs costing so much more and with so much more complexity. OTOH, try running the Orion from a 7 AH SLA battery for any length of time. That's a performance measure, too. IMHO, the K2 wasn't really meant to compete directly with most other HF ham rigs. Rather, it was meant to be an alternative to them, by focusing more on some things than the usual Yaecomwood. (CW performance, low power drain, ability of the owner to build and maintain, excellent receiver performance without too much complexity, ability to add options over time, etc.) IOW, the K2 offers a unique alternative. But I still wish the knobs and displays were bigger. 73 de Jim, N2EY _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [email protected] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
