SGC 2020 v. QRP++

From        :PA0RBC@PI8SAT.#NH1.NLD.EU
To          :QRP   @EU
Date/time   :05-Jul 11:37
Message #   :27264
Title       :QRP++ Versus SG2020 report
Path: !GB7HUL!GB7EYM!GB7ZXN!GB7MSF!EA5RQ!KB4FEA!KP4IG!N4ZKF!XE3CRC!PP5BLU!
      !HA3PG!OH7RBA!PE0MAR!PI8VNW!PI8MBQ!
R:980705/1137Z @:PI8SAT.#NH1.NLD.EU #:57720 [Den Helder] FBB7.00g $:334-PA0RBC

From: PA0RBC@PI8SAT.#NH1.NLD.EU
To  : QRP@EU


Date:   Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:27:21 -0500
Reply-To: schiller@cherokee.nsuok.edu
From:	Bill Schiller 
To:	"Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" 
Subject: SG2020&QRP++ on FD

I used both my QRP++ and my SG2020 side by side during field day,mostly
on CW but a bit on SSB.On SSB the rig worked well about as VE3EQP
reported earlier on the reflector.The receiver did tend to overload on
crowded bands.The QRP++ actually seemed to do a better job of separating
SSB signals than the 2020. On CW there was a world of difference
especially on crowded bands like 40mtrs.about 10PM. The 2020 was
overwhelmed and had "hash" from nearby signals on top of the signals
that I was trying to pull out.The QRP++ did a very noticeably better job
of separating signals.With the 2020 I also got reports of the chirp that
others have mentioned.Most people said that the chirp wasn't bad but it
was noticeable.I got no such reports with the QRP++,and I tried both
rigs with Batteries and two different power supplies,with no change in
reports.During some prefield day QSO's I also received some reports of
"modulation" in the CW tone.Two reports said that the signal was not
"pure" or "clean".

Overall the QRP++ seemed to do a better job.I don't have alot of test
equipment to formally test out the QRP++,but based on these on-the-air
reports the QRP++ seems to be a better radio,especially for cw.I do like
low power [under 5 watts]SSB as much as CW and the QRP++ has served me
well on both.I guess the choice is between a semi-orphaned rig that
works well on both CW and SSB,or a well supported rig thas works well on
SSB and only marginally on CW.

I guess there isn't too much new here,but it is one more set of
operating test results that I hope will help others make decisions about
buying a rig.

Bill KJ5CI

Date:	Thu, 02 Jul 1998 13:15:04 -0400
Reply-To: n4xy@att.net
From:	Ed Tanton 
To:	"Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" 
Subject: Re: SG2020&QRP++ on FD

Thanks Bill!  I think you have done us all a service by providing the first
significant comparison between the new and the old-performed side by
side... and THAT's something I have been wanting to hear about. 

With the large difference in RCV current, there have obviously been
changes; and, while I was never certain, I didn't THINK my QRP+ ever
exhibited the overload that the '2020 does (it DID have some,
with-again-strong nearby signals. There are an Alpha 87 and 2 Alpha 77
3-holers all w/in 3-4 miles.) 

Similarly, I cannot be sure about the chirp-BUT I never, ever, got a 'C
report using the QRP+, and have (a few [2 out of perhaps 75 QSOs]) with the
'2020. You should arrange to listen to yourself (on a 2nd rcvr) while using
the '2020 and you can get an idea of how really slight the chirp is. It is
VERY slight... BUT again, ** ANY **  'C is not acceptable, and I hope that
SGC will fix it.

I hardly understand why there is an overload problem (except maybe their
planned non-ham broadband usages causing detuning of the front-end design.)
They certainly have plenty of crystal filter poles to work with (7-if I
remember correctly.) As I said earlier, the majority of mine can be cleared
up with judicious use of the RF Gain control, combined with the SCAF and PB
Tuning... but that isn't in an FD environment, and more importantly, the
QRP+ DIDN'T do it in the same environment. Once again, it is something I
hope they fix-since I feel it ALSO ought to be fixable with some effort by
SGC.

Overall, I really appreciate you efforts to provide THIS comparison. This
kind of OBJECTIVE report, with comparisons and not simply opinions, is what
it takes for us, and for SGC, to evaluate what they need to focus on-not
that the preceding reports didn't say almost the same things... but they
did not offer the quality of a comparison-supported evaluation yours
did-and it really helps.


TST HOST 1.43b, UTC diff:-1, Local time: Sun Jul 05 13:25:39 1998 ооо]
'73 Roeland, PA0RBC@PI8SAT.#NH1.NLD.EU