Bill W4ZV wrote:
>
>
>
> AD6XY - Mike wrote:
>>
>>
>> So... to your figures. The 500Hz filter is 8 dB worse than the 2.7 kHz
>> filter out of band but at close spacings. According to the review it
>> suffers non-linearites not noted in the 2.7kHz stock filter nor the 8
>> pole INRAD the 400Hz filter.
>>
>
> NOT SO...G3SJX only tested the 2.7k, 1.8k and a 500...NOT a 400. He was
> speculating about the 400 because Sherwood and ARRL had good measurements
> with one (Sherwood had nearly identical IMD measurements with the 500
> which I posted previously - below).
>
The wonders of English. It depends how you read "according to the review".
In any case we now know it was a flawed filter or (if you are right about
the 1.8k) perhaps a problem in the IF of that particular K3. The faulty
500Hz filter at 40kHz spacing has a 3rd order intercept of +27 dBm !!!! Just
what we need over here in Europe to counter the broadcast signals just above
7.1 MHz.
I take Eric's point about the power measurements but I speculate most
operators (but obviously excluding all elecraft owners and QRPers who would
never dream of doing such a thing) tune their transmitters for maximum power
in attempting to crack a pile-up or for a contest. It is a fair assessment
of what it could sound like on air, in the worst hands and it is still very
good.
Mike
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/RSGB-RadCom-K3-review-posted-on-RSGB-Members-web-page-tp17988333p17990867.html
Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.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
