Adam,
?
You should read again some of the responses in this thread.
The consensus seems to be that the QMX receiver is quite good, but without some bells and whistles.
?
As Stan Dye says, the more expensive receivers might have:
"noise blankers, IF shift, built-in attenuator and pre-amp, automatic/manual notch filter, adjustable digital noise reduction, etc.? And the K3 has a fully independent sub-receiver for split operation or synchronous diversity receive from two antennas."
?
If your eyes glaze over when you read that, you probably wouldn't use them much.
The noise blanker and notch filter might be useful if there are other signals sitting on top of what you are trying to receive, and might be "just" a firmware upgrade if Hans has the time for it in the next 10 years or so.? Not something I normally need, especially if I have a sharp and narrow filter.
?
If curious, I suggest you stop by a store with demo units out, ask the salesman to demonstrate each of the above features.
Read the manual thoroughly, see if those features are easy enough to use that you would ever bother with them.
If interested in portable operation, compare size and weight.
?
Ask about the price too.?
For the price, there is nothing comparable to a QMX.
If you do spend the money on a better radio, the QMX would still be there for portable use or as a backup.
For many of us, building and improving the QMX *is* the hobby, not an option if we had an FT-891.
?
Jerry, KE7ER
?
?
?
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 07:07 PM, Adam wrote:
But what if we only compare their receivers? Like apples to apples.
There's a signal and an antenna -- same signal and same antenna. Is it
possible for QMX to completely miss the signal, but for Yaesu to receive
it well enough to be readable? Does it happen?
