On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:18:37 -0700, Howard W. Ashcraft wrote:
>Is the KDSP2 less effective for reducing unwanted noise on CW
No, the KDSP2 provides both a very effective variable bandwidth audio filter
(wonderful for both CW and SSB), and a very effective dynamic noise reducer
(also
very effe
I've used both the KAF2 and KDSP2 with my K2 and can offer these
comments:
For the noise reduction feature of DSP to work well requires a wide
bandwidth. That is why any DSP unit is less effective in the NR
department on CW than it is on SSB.
Personally, I like very narrow BWs when working CW be
In the CQ 160 CW contest this past winter we used my K2/100 (SN 850 A)with
the KDSP2.
No receive antenna (that's a whole story by itself!) and an Inverted-L with
a flock of radials.
Probably 80% of the time we ran with out any NR or DSP filters. If you
could put a dollar
amount on multipliers,
W1WF wrote:
>The question is, why would you want to have the KAF2 instead of the KDSP2?
Cost, and for some issues the KAF2 will work as well as its
more expensive brother. Many guys have KAF2's sitting in their
desks that have been replaced by KDSP2's, and these are typically
available f
operation
73
Johnny Siu VR2XMC
- Original Message -
From: "Howard W. Ashcraft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:18 AM
Subject: [Elecraft] KAF2 v. KDSP2
I am planning on purchasing a K2 for general use (SSB and CW) with a current
preference for CW.
I operate 99.99% CW (Haven't even fired up PSK in a year and it's been
longer than that since I plugged in the mic) and, not saying anything
negative about either the DSP or the audio filter, I don't have either and
don't feel motivated to add either to my K2/100.
I really like the "sound" of the
I bought my KAF2 before the KDSP2 was available. I have not upgraded to the
KDSP2 for the following reasons:
- it costs more
- it uses more current
- the KAF2 does a great job on CW
If you are a SSB op, and are going with a KPA100... then it would be a natural
progression to have a KDSP2 so that
Howard,
I can't speak for anyone else, but I just don't like the sound of any audio
DSP processor, particularly for CW use. They are good for digging signals
out very close to the noise level, but my ears find the KAF2 far less
irritating for extended operating periods.
It is more a matter of pe
Howard W. Ashcraft wrote:
Is the KDSP2 less effective for reducing unwanted noise on
CW, or is it equally effective but more costly. I assume that
Elecraft continues to sell the KAF2 because it either has a
performance advantage in some niche or is less costly and works for
certain uses (such
3:19 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] KAF2 v. KDSP2
I am planning on purchasing a K2 for general use (SSB and CW) with a current
preference for CW. (I enjoy working on CW although I'm not very good.) My
preferences may change as my experience grows, so flexibility is important.
I am planning on purchasing a K2 for general use (SSB and CW) with a current
preference for CW. (I enjoy working on CW although I'm not very good.) My
preferences may change as my experience grows, so flexibility is important.
The question is, why would you want to have the KAF2 instead of th
11 matches
Mail list logo
