I think the reason for "including" a filter (2.7 or 2.8) is that it is REQUIRED for transmit. IF one was not included we would be forced to buy one and people would be bitching about that.
I believe the better solution would be to offer a choice of the 2.7 or 2.8 and give the credit closer to the $100 they charge for the other 5 pole filters. i.e.. substituting the 2.8 for the 2.7 would be $25 or so, not $95. If the 2.7 costs them $30 and they sell it for $100, good for them. BUT if the 2.8 costs them $25 more as reflected in their retail price of $125 vs. $100, then allow the substitution for $25 (or even 40 or maybe 50 but NOT $95). WHY? It just isn't right. IMHO, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Dettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Elecraft" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 2.7 vs 2.8 filter choice K3 > > On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig D. Smith wrote: > > > > In my opinion the difficulty in making the choice is because of the > > pricing > > structure adapted by Elecraft for this option. If the filters were > > sold > > "ala carte", and you needed to buy the 2.7 or 2.8 in addition to the > > K3 (or > > sub receiver), I'm guessing that most people, including me, would > > elect to > > pay $120 for the 2.8 rather than $100 for the 2.7. > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > I think that Elecraft wanted to sell a working radio for the base > > price. That is the way that I ordered my K3 and it has worked very > > well. I am a CW only operator and I would never have considered > > ordering any rig without a 500 hz filter, in years gone by. For my > > use, since I am not a contest operator and run from pileups, I found > > the 2.7 khz filter just fine with the bandwidth set at CW widths. I > > have since ordered the 6 khz, 1 khz and 500 hz filters, just > > because. Also, the general coverage filter board because I didn't > > have a good general coverage receiver. I have read discussions on > > other reflectors involving the concept that under heavy QRN > > conditions, filters characterized as having steep skirts, with the > > resulting sharp shoulders, cause mixing products with the desired > > signal, and that the result is unpleasant to listen to when QRM is > > not a problem. For the operating I do, especially on the lower > > frequencies, QRN is usually the problem. I seldom have to deal with > > QRM over S9 and have decided to go with the 5 pole filters where > > they are available. But I am also fine with the 8 pole, 1 khz > > filter to experiment with. This seems to be my go to filter on CW > > these days but I will be comparing both. With a strong interfering > > signal close by, I can use the 1 khz filter, with its steeper > > skirts, along with shift, to eliminate the QRM. The shift seems to > > change the center of the passband in 50 hz steps. I usually have to > > fine tune with VFO A after getting close with the shift control. > > Not a problem, as I am always working split, since I prefer that to > > RIT. > > > > 73 > > Rick Dettinger > > K7MW > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
