In a message dated 8/8/06 8:41:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> but the reality of all of it is compromise. > For any given price target, some tradeoffs must be made. If I can interpret > the K2 design goals loosely, the dynamic range was considered uppermost, and > good sensitivity and IP3 performance running a close second. (snip of excellent discussion) I agree with all that, but would add a bit more: *All* rig designs are compromises/tradeoffs - just different ones. Besides the above criteria, Elecraft designs focus on low power requirement, low complexity, minimal use of custom parts, user constructability and serviceability, and small size/weight without going all surface mount. Many other designs, including some considered "portable", accept massive increases in complexity, power requirement, and use of special parts to achieve their design goals. User serviceability is usually minimal - beyond a certain very basic point, you either have to be a skilled technician with lots of test gear, or you send the rig to one. That's not to say either approach is "right" or "wrong", just that they accept very different tradeoffs. 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
