I¡¯m just a guy with another opinion. One that may be interesting to some.?
I went to school for audio engineering. I¡¯m a bit opinionated about what sounds good. I use an icom 7100 because it¡¯s a superheterodyne. I won¡¯t listen to a 7300 for five minutes. (My two cents you can sue me for). My qcx classic for 40m sounds amazing. Maybe I built a good one and my components all happened to gel. Maybe they all sound good I don¡¯t know. I was skeptical about the qmx. I built one. I¡¯m not anymore. It sounds amazing really impressed by what it does.?
real life example from previous life.?
i love the ssl 4000g into an mtr90. (7100)
?
?I¡¯ve used a 16bit digital all in one recording station. Or profools with low bit and sample rate. (7300)?
?
i was skeptical about digital after that but when i used a digital console with high end converters (dynamic range) high bit rate and everything running at high sample rate, the utility and the sound was great. Not the sames as analog but great, in many ways better (Qmx). Separation, dynamic range, etc. to much to talk about. Point is. Carol kings tapestry album sounds great. Green Day¡¯s American idiot album sounds great. There was some weird stuff in between.?
?
i think this same transition is happening in radio now. Exciting times. ?
?
the floating point and extra care Hans put into the RX. ?As well as the simplicity has resulted in a great circuit.?
bottom line. I am picky about how a receiver sounds. Even for cw note. I can listen to these kits all day, and not even be mad about it. ?Side tone too. (Try that with a kh1???) ?Buy three build them. Use them. If you don¡¯t like them give them to me. ?
?
?before the ele gang starts looking up my address to send me death threats, the k2 sounds good too alright? ?But to my ears trained with tens of thousands of dollars there isn¡¯t $5 difference between it and the qmx. Change my mind.?
