Elecraft

Firmware development

Classic

List

Threaded

35 messages Options

Tim Neu

Firmware development

Hello, all,

I'm a brand new and generally satisfied Elecraft KX2 user.

I'm just wondering what sorts of features are in the oven for future
versions of firmware. SDR code is neat because it can add new features;
but that really only is a benefit if cooks are in the kitchen. How long
will new features be developed?

Also wondering if there are any ways for the programming community to help
contribute to new features.

It would be interesting to see more digital modes supported with the
integrated digital interface. JS8? I'm not sure what is possible on such
a small radio. What are the physical hardware limitations?
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Tim Tucker

Re: Firmware development

Tim,

I'm an owner of 3 Elecraft radios and am a huge fan of the products. But
one thing that the last few years has shown is that Elecraft does not have
a great track record of developing new features or technologies into their
existing transceiver products. They release updates and patches for
various issues, and certainly did release new features early on for the K3,
but a lot of the ideas the community suggested went unanswered. I
understand why this is, and hope that it will change with the K4, but
ultimately the K3, KX3, and KX2 are largely the same product that they have
been for the last several years.

Tim
AE6LX

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:35 PM Tim Neu <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello, all,
>
> I'm a brand new and generally satisfied Elecraft KX2 user.
>
> I'm just wondering what sorts of features are in the oven for future
> versions of firmware. SDR code is neat because it can add new features;
> but that really only is a benefit if cooks are in the kitchen. How long
> will new features be developed?
>
> Also wondering if there are any ways for the programming community to help
> contribute to new features.
>
> It would be interesting to see more digital modes supported with the
> integrated digital interface. JS8? I'm not sure what is possible on such
> a small radio. What are the physical hardware limitations?
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

--
Owner, worldwidedx.com
AE6LX, Amateur Radio
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Firmware development

Tim,

It's important to realize the the basic K3 was designed in 2007 with
2007 parts. It should be obvious that technology has advanced by several
orders of magnitude since then (remember Moore's Law?. That fundamental
limitation is a major reason why features that are on lots of wish lists
aren't implemented, and it's a major reason why there's a K4.

Elecraft is a small company, so they can't afford to build new models as
often as the bigger companies, but the K3 was a very innovative product
that upped the ante for what a great radio should be. For example, it
took ten years for Flex to incorporate the keying waveshaping that the
K3 introduced in 2008, and, as far as I know, they're the only mfr to
have done so (maybe ANAN?). All the other mfrs are using very primitive
(and very clicky) simple RC time constants dating back 70 years!
Elecraft also did some very slick stuff to make their phase noise much
lower than most radios, again, back in that 2007 design.

And they may be the only mfr to make their radios modular, so we can buy
as much radio as we need, and so that some features can be upgraded by
buying upgraded modules. If you want a new feature or performance
improvement on a JA radio, you have to buy a new radio.It took Yaesu
three generations of their then flagship FT1000-series rigs to fix their
really awful clicks, and their current flagship, the FTDX5000 debuted
with the worst clicks of any of its competitors. They didn't provide a
firmware fix to make the clicks half as bad until I embarrassed them
with my report summarizing ARRL Lab tests; by then the radio was 4-5
years old!

73, Jim K9YC

On 11/23/2020 10:13 PM, Tim Tucker wrote:
> But
> one thing that the last few years has shown is that Elecraft does not have
> a great track record of developing new features or technologies into their
> existing transceiver products. They release updates and patches for
> various issues, and certainly did release new features early on for the K3,
> but a lot of the ideas the community suggested went unanswered. I
> understand why this is, and hope that it will change with the K4, but
> ultimately the K3, KX3, and KX2 are largely the same product that they have
> been for the last several years.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

wayne burdick

Re: Firmware development

Administrator

In reply to this post by Tim Tucker

Hi Tim,

Like any product development company, we have to strike a balance between creating new products and enhancing old ones. That said, we've provided literally hundreds of new K3/K3S/P3/KX2/KX3/PX3/KPA500/KPA1500 firmware revisions over the past 10 years, for both MCU and DSP code. Many of those releases stemmed directly from customer input.

The K4 is a different beast entirely. It has essentially unlimited code space, and a high degree of modularity to facilitate future hardware.

The team is still small, but we now have a much bigger playground :)

73,
Wayne
N6KR

> Hello, all,
>
> I'm a brand new and generally satisfied Elecraft KX2 user.
>
> I'm just wondering what sorts of features are in the oven for future
> versions of firmware. ....

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

k6dgw

Re: Firmware development

In reply to this post by Tim Neu

Welcome Tim,

There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you
commit to a physical design in year XXXX, it will be a design that uses
the parts of year XXXX forever. I think XXXX about 2006 or so for the
K3 [mine is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it]. Yes, the
firmware can be upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of
2006 components [like memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that
eventually, you will run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates.
The K3 hit that point some time back. Elecraft had fixed all or nearly
all of the bugs, they'd supported all of the add-on accessories, and I'm
fairly sure the MCU is approaching it's limits.

The K4 is a 2018-ish design. The first rule above still applies. It has
a vastly improved computer and massive amounts of memory however, and
that will undoubtedly be filled slowly with "features." In 2028-2030,
it will likely be where the K3 is today.

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 11/23/2020 9:35 PM, Tim Neu wrote:

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Bill Frantz

Re: Firmware development

While I agree with Skip here, my agreement is based on
practicality, not physical ability. The internal K3 hardware
design is quite modular, and replacing the DSP boards for the
main and sub receivers should be straight forward. We have seen
how the K3 can be improved by replacing boards. Upgrading the
DSP is just another kind of new board.

BUT, designing, coding, and manufacture engineering these boards
is a big project. The boards will be quite expensive. How many
people are likely to upgrade? And, we already have the K4, built
to remain competitive in the market. The K4 is probably a better
radio than the mythical upgraded K3. The upgrades to the K3 are
also likely to cost more than a K4. All these considerations
make this project a non-starter. As I said, practical considerations.

73 Bill AE6JV

On 11/24/20 at 6:03 PM, [hidden email] (Fred Jensen) wrote:

>There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development:
>Once you commit to a physical design in year XXXX, it will be a
>design that uses the parts of year XXXX forever. I think XXXX
>about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine is S/N 642 and that's about
>when I bought it]. Yes, the firmware can be upgraded over
>time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components [like
>memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that eventually, you
>will run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates. The
>K3 hit that point some time back. Elecraft had fixed all or
>nearly all of the bugs, they'd supported all of the add-on
>accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is approaching it's limits.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | Security is like Government | Periwinkle
(408)348-7900 | services. The market doesn't | 150
Rivermead Rd #235
www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them. |
Peterborough, NH 03458

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Elecraft mailing list

Re: Firmware development

I would venture to say that most hams (especially those recently licensed) don’t and can’t utilize all the features of even an older K3, let alone one with all the enhancements. The K4 is so far beyond the “average” ham in its ability that unless you are an electronics guru with an EE you won’t need, much less understand, all the neat things it can do.

I am not disparaging the K3, K3S, or the K4 but whatever version you might have or want it will do the job 95% of the time. I love my upgraded K3s but still haven’t scratched the surface of what it will do. I could spend the rest of my life exploring all the features of my fine radio (I have all of Fred Cady’s books) but there are other avenues of enjoyment in ham radio that I am pursuing. This IS a hobby and it has been my go to in times of good and bad since 1960. Cheaper than a psychiatrist and less trouble than a mistress.

What I have said above may not apply to the top of the list contester as that is a field all to itself. Those guys and gals may notice the difference in some of the enhancements to the K line in a pileup, but that’s another rabbit hole.

Dave K8WPE since 1960.

David J. Wilcox’s iPad

> On Nov 24, 2020, at 11:03 PM, Bill Frantz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> While I agree with Skip here, my agreement is based on practicality, not physical ability. The internal K3 hardware design is quite modular, and replacing the DSP boards for the main and sub receivers should be straight forward. We have seen how the K3 can be improved by replacing boards. Upgrading the DSP is just another kind of new board.
>
> BUT, designing, coding, and manufacture engineering these boards is a big project. The boards will be quite expensive. How many people are likely to upgrade? And, we already have the K4, built to remain competitive in the market. The K4 is probably a better radio than the mythical upgraded K3. The upgrades to the K3 are also likely to cost more than a K4. All these considerations make this project a non-starter. As I said, practical considerations.
>
> 73 Bill AE6JV
>
>> On 11/24/20 at 6:03 PM, [hidden email] (Fred Jensen) wrote:
>>
>> There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you commit to a physical design in year XXXX, it will be a design that uses the parts of year XXXX forever. I think XXXX about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it]. Yes, the firmware can be upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components [like memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that eventually, you will run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates. The K3 hit that point some time back. Elecraft had fixed all or nearly all of the bugs, they'd supported all of the add-on accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is approaching it's limits.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Frantz | Security is like Government | Periwinkle
> (408)348-7900 | services. The market doesn't | 150 Rivermead Rd #235
> www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them. | Peterborough, NH 03458
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Rick Bates, NK7I

Re: Firmware development

Well that IS rather condescending.

I would take a different view, that MOST of the hams using Elecraft use
MOST of the features on a regular basis but because the features are
designed well, the user doesn't NEED to fiddle about (or understand the
precise ways they work). One of the benchmarks of a good UI is that
most of it is set and forget. Elecraft: PASS

With the support group, the manual and the Cady book; there is ample
opportunity to learn some of the nuts and bolts for those who want to
know. Once set to operate in the fashion that the user prefers; the
radio (with all the features) is simply used. If one doesn't understand
a function or wishes to learn a better use of a feature, they can read
or just ask (or watch a video if that is how they best learn).

No one is born with all knowledge and I won't be disparaging to new
hams; some of them blow right through all the exams in one sitting going
from nothing to the highest license. They may not have experience yet,
but clearly they're not idiots as you imply. (Sadly, some are, even
after decades of opportunity to learn better.) It is the job of every
ham, to teach them how to be better, to pass knowledge along.

Some people LIKE making adjustments and learning the deep secrets of any
device; others adjust according to their needs and a few just leave most
of the settings as stock and yet none of them are wrong.

Elecraft radios are no more complex than other radios but the simpler
front panel UI (based on USING the radio, not fiddling with it) hides it
a lot more than many other brands. Then add that Elecraft designers
actually USE the radios in all things ham radio; they understand what is
needed for the 'average' ham, the DXer and the contester no matter what
mode they choose. Kencomsu may, we never know and hear only crickets
from them.

The K4 won't be much different; simple up front with the bulk of the
used (but no need to be in your face) features accessible with the menu
UI. Certainly it's a better platform for future growth with refinements
unavailable when the earlier models were designed; but that's splitting
hairs that only an extreme user (contesting, DXing) would require. It
will be a solid, dependable radio, no matter how the ham chooses to use
it; with growth potential unavailable from almost any other brand.

Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time
(not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues
are resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously
unavailable. Or offer hardware updates or refinements, in part because
the radios are designed to be modular and upgradeable as new devices are
available. Or board level support. <crickets>

No, I won't disparage or belittle any of the Elecraft line; the UI makes
it all available (mostly set and forget); you get to talk directly with
the designers and owners of the company and they do more than any other
company to make things 'right' in the eyes of the customer/user; not
just give cookie cutter designs and answers then move on with no help
provided.

And the product line just works better, hearing ability is among the
very elite and transmitters are cleaner on the air than most of the
other brands.

If a user is constantly fiddling about with the controls; it's because
they either want to or don't understand their proper use and should ask
questions. Set and forget is an asset. Once set, the complexity hidden
within the UI is one of the strong points, because it doesn't require an
EE and operation becomes simple allowing the user to simply use and
enjoy the radio.

If the user has not looked into all the settings, perhaps it's because
they haven't needed to do so. That's a telltale mark of a good product
(although the ham SHOULD learn more about what tool/s they're using, in
my opinion).

Maybe you haven't dived into the depths, because you haven't needed to
or other reasons; but I wouldn't group all users in that category. Each
user has an level of understanding and ability; no two are exactly the
same; no two stations are precisely alike.

When I first get any piece of gear, I go through every setting, making
sure I understand it's use (adjust if needed); then I stop being
concerned about the vast array of choices and just use the radio. I may
go back for refined adjustments, but that's not very often. I suspect
most hams are similar to that method. If it's been a while, the manual,
Cady book and group can be used (in that order) to find the proper control.

By design, Elecraft radios can be used by a wide range of hams from
basic noob to EE+ education; from ragchewers to <fill in the blank
extreme use>; they've hit the mark.

They allow the hams to rise to higher level of understanding, competence
and ability because of the quality; with some help from the manual, user
groups, Cady book and DIRECT contact. VERY few companies are at that
level, other than Elecraft.

73,
Rick NK7I

"I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it."

On 11/25/2020 2:04 AM, David Wilcox via Elecraft wrote:

> I would venture to say that most hams (especially those recently licensed) don’t and can’t utilize all the features of even an older K3, let alone one with all the enhancements. The K4 is so far beyond the “average” ham in its ability that unless you are an electronics guru with an EE you won’t need, much less understand, all the neat things it can do.
>
> I am not disparaging the K3, K3S, or the K4 but whatever version you might have or want it will do the job 95% of the time. I love my upgraded K3s but still haven’t scratched the surface of what it will do. I could spend the rest of my life exploring all the features of my fine radio (I have all of Fred Cady’s books) but there are other avenues of enjoyment in ham radio that I am pursuing. This IS a hobby and it has been my go to in times of good and bad since 1960. Cheaper than a psychiatrist and less trouble than a mistress.
>
> What I have said above may not apply to the top of the list contester as that is a field all to itself. Those guys and gals may notice the difference in some of the enhancements to the K line in a pileup, but that’s another rabbit hole.
>
> Dave K8WPE since 1960.
>
> David J. Wilcox’s iPad
>
>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 11:03 PM, Bill Frantz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> While I agree with Skip here, my agreement is based on practicality, not physical ability. The internal K3 hardware design is quite modular, and replacing the DSP boards for the main and sub receivers should be straight forward. We have seen how the K3 can be improved by replacing boards. Upgrading the DSP is just another kind of new board.
>>
>> BUT, designing, coding, and manufacture engineering these boards is a big project. The boards will be quite expensive. How many people are likely to upgrade? And, we already have the K4, built to remain competitive in the market. The K4 is probably a better radio than the mythical upgraded K3. The upgrades to the K3 are also likely to cost more than a K4. All these considerations make this project a non-starter. As I said, practical considerations.
>>
>> 73 Bill AE6JV
>>
>>> On 11/24/20 at 6:03 PM, [hidden email] (Fred Jensen) wrote:
>>>
>>> There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you commit to a physical design in year XXXX, it will be a design that uses the parts of year XXXX forever. I think XXXX about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it]. Yes, the firmware can be upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components [like memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that eventually, you will run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates. The K3 hit that point some time back. Elecraft had fixed all or nearly all of the bugs, they'd supported all of the add-on accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is approaching it's limits.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Bill Frantz | Security is like Government | Periwinkle
>> (408)348-7900 | services. The market doesn't | 150 Rivermead Rd #235
>> www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them. | Peterborough, NH 03458
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Rick Tavan-2

Re: Firmware development

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

The point of a new radio is not the full feature list but *what it does for
you* in your current and desired-future operating conditions. Very few of
us take full advantage of every bell and whistle, but newer radios do tend
to enhance whatever experiences most amateurs seek. This applies not only
to Elecraft but also to the other manufacturers.

It would be commercial suicide for a company to produce separate radios for
contesting, DXing, ragchewing, moonbounce, high-QRN environments, CW, SSB,
RTTY, PSK, WARC bands, point-and-shoot, search-and-pounce, SO2V, diversity
reception, pileup running, pileup busting, ... you name it. So almost all
radios attempt to do well at most or all applications within various price
constraints. Elecraft does distinguish itself with a small number of highly
modular offerings and long-term support and enhancement commitments so you
don't feel the urge to upgrade every three years. I enjoyed the K3 for
about 14 years (and still do!), installing most but not all available
upgrades, but the K4 is a new delight. There are features of K3 that I
never used (e.g. external reference oscillator) and features of K4 that I
may never use (e.g. multiple rx-only antennas) but others find them
essential or at least highly desirable. Some will decide to buy a given
radio based solely on some feature that others find extraneous.

Yes, radio architectures change over time. Many are now digital,
software-defined, direct conversion designs, quite different from the
analog superhets that most of us grew up with. Their controls and features
have changed. If their advantages don't outweigh (for you) the effort to
learn a few new tricks (or concepts or practices), don't upgrade. For me,
K4 represents the new generation of transceiver and I'm delighted with what
it does for me. I feel like a kid in a new sandbox. YMMV.

73,

/Rick N6XI

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:05 AM David Wilcox via Elecraft <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would venture to say that most hams (especially those recently licensed)
> don’t and can’t utilize all the features of even an older K3, let alone one
> with all the enhancements. The K4 is so far beyond the “average” ham in
> its ability that unless you are an electronics guru with an EE you won’t
> need, much less understand, all the neat things it can do.
>
> I am not disparaging the K3, K3S, or the K4 but whatever version you might
> have or want it will do the job 95% of the time. I love my upgraded K3s
> but still haven’t scratched the surface of what it will do. I could spend
> the rest of my life exploring all the features of my fine radio (I have all
> of Fred Cady’s books) but there are other avenues of enjoyment in ham radio
> that I am pursuing. This IS a hobby and it has been my go to in times of
> good and bad since 1960. Cheaper than a psychiatrist and less trouble than
> a mistress.
>
> What I have said above may not apply to the top of the list contester as
> that is a field all to itself. Those guys and gals may notice the
> difference in some of the enhancements to the K line in a pileup, but
> that’s another rabbit hole.
>
> Dave K8WPE since 1960.
>
> David J. Wilcox’s iPad
>
> > On Nov 24, 2020, at 11:03 PM, Bill Frantz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > While I agree with Skip here, my agreement is based on practicality,
> not physical ability. The internal K3 hardware design is quite modular, and
> replacing the DSP boards for the main and sub receivers should be straight
> forward. We have seen how the K3 can be improved by replacing boards.
> Upgrading the DSP is just another kind of new board.
> >
> > BUT, designing, coding, and manufacture engineering these boards is a
> big project. The boards will be quite expensive. How many people are likely
> to upgrade? And, we already have the K4, built to remain competitive in the
> market. The K4 is probably a better radio than the mythical upgraded K3.
> The upgrades to the K3 are also likely to cost more than a K4. All these
> considerations make this project a non-starter. As I said, practical
> considerations.
> >
> > 73 Bill AE6JV
> >
> >> On 11/24/20 at 6:03 PM, [hidden email] (Fred Jensen) wrote:
> >>
> >> There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you
> commit to a physical design in year XXXX, it will be a design that uses the
> parts of year XXXX forever. I think XXXX about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine
> is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it]. Yes, the firmware can be
> upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components
> [like memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that eventually, you will
> run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates. The K3 hit that point
> some time back. Elecraft had fixed all or nearly all of the bugs, they'd
> supported all of the add-on accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is
> approaching it's limits.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Bill Frantz | Security is like Government | Periwinkle
> > (408)348-7900 | services. The market doesn't | 150 Rivermead Rd #235
> > www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them. | Peterborough, NH
> 03458
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

--
--

Rick Tavan
Truckee and Saratoga, CA
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

ANDY DURBIN

Firmware development

In reply to this post by Tim Neu

"Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously unavailable."

Kenwood!

Kenwood has released firmware updates for TS-590S defects that I reported and made product improvements that I suggested. My experience is that Kenwood has fixed problems far more quickly than Elecraft.

73,
Andy, k3wyc
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Neil Zampella

Re: Firmware development

Of course, as mentioned previously in this thread, large companies have
funds that they can invest in personnel to do the development, so I
would expect that Kenwood would be able to assign personnel quickly to
handle such issues.

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 11/25/2020 10:25 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
> "Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously unavailable."
>
> Kenwood!
>
> Kenwood has released firmware updates for TS-590S defects that I reported and made product improvements that I suggested. My experience is that Kenwood has fixed problems far more quickly than Elecraft.
>
> 73,
> Andy, k3wyc
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

W2xj

Re: Firmware development

For large companies there is still the cost factor. Could that person otherwise be doing something more profitable. Remember who really runs those companies.

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 25, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Neil Zampella <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Of course, as mentioned previously in this thread, large companies have
> funds that they can invest in personnel to do the development, so I
> would expect that Kenwood would be able to assign personnel quickly to
> handle such issues.
>
> Neil, KN3ILZ
>
>> On 11/25/2020 10:25 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
>> "Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously unavailable."
>>
>> Kenwood!
>>
>> Kenwood has released firmware updates for TS-590S defects that I reported and made product improvements that I suggested. My experience is that Kenwood has fixed problems far more quickly than Elecraft.
>>
>> 73,
>> Andy, k3wyc
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Rick Bates, NK7I

Re: Firmware development

In reply to this post by ANDY DURBIN

And yet the TS-590 still has unfixed design flaws (overshoot being one
of the worst) without sending it to an authorized shop, taking weeks.

It was MONTHS before that firmware was updated (since originally
reported). I find the reaction time for updates with Elecraft to be
more responsive. Plus you can talk to a tech (except for COVID delays
now) the same day you initiate contact.

73,
Rick NK7I

On 11/25/2020 8:25 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:

> "Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously unavailable."
>
> Kenwood!
>
> Kenwood has released firmware updates for TS-590S defects that I reported and made product improvements that I suggested. My experience is that Kenwood has fixed problems far more quickly than Elecraft.
>
> 73,
> Andy, k3wyc
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Buddy Brannan

Re: Firmware development

In reply to this post by Neil Zampella

They also released a whole new radio, the ‘590SG not long after the original ‘590S. The K3 didn’t have a replacement upgrade like that, meaning the K3 to theK3s, for something like 10 years, and they even gave an upgrade path to make the K3 very close in performance to the K3s. No such for the ‘590S to ‘590SG.

Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
Email: [hidden email]
Mobile: (814) 431-0962

> On Nov 25, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Neil Zampella <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Of course, as mentioned previously in this thread, large companies have
> funds that they can invest in personnel to do the development, so I
> would expect that Kenwood would be able to assign personnel quickly to
> handle such issues.
>
> Neil, KN3ILZ
>
> On 11/25/2020 10:25 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
>> "Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously unavailable."
>>
>> Kenwood!
>>
>> Kenwood has released firmware updates for TS-590S defects that I reported and made product improvements that I suggested. My experience is that Kenwood has fixed problems far more quickly than Elecraft.
>>
>> 73,
>> Andy, k3wyc
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Tim Neu

Re: Firmware development

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

The point on Moore's law is taken.

But the options aren't just limited to Elecraft doing more work on older
radios or no updates at all (or supporting the old radios to the detriment
of the new)

Many software development projects now are community based and although
radio firmware may be more time-consuming and more complex than OpenWRT for
example, community based development may have more umph than Elecraft might
have as far as inclination to tweak old radios.

Just a thought.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:35 AM Jim Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Tim,
>
> It's important to realize the the basic K3 was designed in 2007 with
> 2007 parts. It should be obvious that technology has advanced by several
> orders of magnitude since then (remember Moore's Law?. That fundamental
> limitation is a major reason why features that are on lots of wish lists
> aren't implemented, and it's a major reason why there's a K4.
>
> Elecraft is a small company, so they can't afford to build new models as
> often as the bigger companies, but the K3 was a very innovative product
> that upped the ante for what a great radio should be. For example, it
> took ten years for Flex to incorporate the keying waveshaping that the
> K3 introduced in 2008, and, as far as I know, they're the only mfr to
> have done so (maybe ANAN?). All the other mfrs are using very primitive
> (and very clicky) simple RC time constants dating back 70 years!
> Elecraft also did some very slick stuff to make their phase noise much
> lower than most radios, again, back in that 2007 design.
>
> And they may be the only mfr to make their radios modular, so we can buy
> as much radio as we need, and so that some features can be upgraded by
> buying upgraded modules. If you want a new feature or performance
> improvement on a JA radio, you have to buy a new radio.It took Yaesu
> three generations of their then flagship FT1000-series rigs to fix their
> really awful clicks, and their current flagship, the FTDX5000 debuted
> with the worst clicks of any of its competitors. They didn't provide a
> firmware fix to make the clicks half as bad until I embarrassed them
> with my report summarizing ARRL Lab tests; by then the radio was 4-5
> years old!
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On 11/23/2020 10:13 PM, Tim Tucker wrote:
> > But
> > one thing that the last few years has shown is that Elecraft does not
> have
> > a great track record of developing new features or technologies into
> their
> > existing transceiver products. They release updates and patches for
> > various issues, and certainly did release new features early on for the
> K3,
> > but a lot of the ideas the community suggested went unanswered. I
> > understand why this is, and hope that it will change with the K4, but
> > ultimately the K3, KX3, and KX2 are largely the same product that they
> have
> > been for the last several years.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Rick Bates, NK7I

Re: Firmware development

Your point continues to be repeated (and it’s become a tiresome and annoying whine). However it remains that the Elecraft code is proprietary, just as most radio manufacturers code, name most any brand. Ditto car engine computer code (gas, diesel, hybrid or battery), computer program operating systems, networking products and more. It’s private and protected by laws.

Try walking into Tesla and demanding copies of their designs and coding. You might just hope to land on the lawn, it depends on how well they toss you.

While it’s possible to come close to duplicating the hardware (illegally), perhaps even take a good stab at the code; Elecraft gear still has their name on it, they stand behind it with both name and reputation on the line.

So their code won’t be released to the public risking someone makIng poor changes, potentially causing issues, that could besmirch the name and product reputation that they’ve built up. That would be ruinous to the product, the users and financial suicide for Elecraft.

Ditto Kenwood. Ditto Yaesu. Ditto Icom. And they’re not even in the same league as Elecraft.

If the coder is THAT good, apply to join the team. Expand that team to anyone/everyone and you end up with radio version of Windows; bloated, slow, resource hogging that demands new hardware with each update or evolution and can’t get out of its own way to operate in mediocrity.

If you want to roll your own, start at the very beginning, just as they did. No one stopped them, no one will stop you.

I think they’re doing an excellent job and push their designs to the limit (K3); then take the next step with newer hardware (K4) to build on their success.

You’re welcome to try and match all that; starting from scratch.

Let’s not (ever) bring this up monthly anymore; the answer in the foreseeable future, is no. For excellent reasons.

Most of the users buy in because of the well proven quality and won’t accept substitutes. Stop asking.

73,
Rick NK7I

Email spiel Czech corruptions happen

> On Nov 25, 2020, at 10:10 PM, Tim Neu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The point on Moore's law is taken.
>
> But the options aren't just limited to Elecraft doing more work on older
> radios or no updates at all (or supporting the old radios to the detriment
> of the new)
>
> Many software development projects now are community based and although
> radio firmware may be more time-consuming and more complex than OpenWRT for
> example, community based development may have more umph than Elecraft might
> have as far as inclination to tweak old radios.
>
> Just a thought.

Rich NE1EE-2

Re: Firmware development

In reply to this post by Tim Neu

I ran my own small engineering company for 25 years. Projects ranged from $1ooK to $10M USD. We had no warranty claims at all. It takes a lot to produce software and hardware to that level of reliability.

Recently, someone posted on a different professional forum I am on "As a programmer I am faced with incompetence at every level. No one wants to put the time into making things great, just getting something out the door is the norm." I think that applies to a broad spectrum of products these days, and has applied for some time.

A while back, I was participating in a cutting edge open source project. I commented on a design feature, supplying a schematic, simulation results, and references to various related technical specs. The reply from one of the "big" players was that he had not read those thousand pages of tech specs, but surely I was wrong. He even opined why, saying what he "thought" the tech specs must say. He got support from some of his pet squirrels. I dropped out of the project.

This is not necessarily the norm...I'd like to think that it is a worst case. I know from personal experience that it takes a lot of time to understand a specific piece of hardware and its associated software. My company never went open source. I eventually closed it because I could not replace retiring professional staff from the current workforce. Not and keep the same level of quality.

I don't have the Elecraft experience to speak knowledgeably about all these discussions, but I certainly understand the level of quality that I see, and understand the pressures of modern economics. I can't think of one open source, community-based product that I'd want to hang my hat on, even if I do see some that I'd support. I just don't see the professional depth in the general community.

I'd actually vote in favor of opening the older Elecraft stuff up to community support, IF Elecraft went out of business or decided that some piece of gear is so old that it doesn't matter. (I actually own 2 pieces of gear that I'd love to see open source, but I don't see that happening.) Folks have invested a lot of $$ in their gear, and don't want to hear that 10 years later they need to toss it and buy new gear.

~R~
72/73 de Rich NE1EE
The Dusty Key
On the banks of the Piscataqua

On 2020-11-26 00:08:-0600, Tim Neu wrote:

>The point on Moore's law is taken.
>
>But the options aren't just limited to Elecraft doing more work on older
>radios or no updates at all (or supporting the old radios to the detriment
>of the new)
>
>Many software development projects now are community based and although
>radio firmware may be more time-consuming and more complex than OpenWRT for
>example, community based development may have more umph than Elecraft might
>have as far as inclination to tweak old radios.
>
>Just a thought.

john@kk9a.com

Re: Firmware development

In reply to this post by Tim Neu

The Kenwood TS-590SG is ~$1300 new and you can get one in a week. Why are
you bashing it on the Elecraft list?

John KK9A

Rick NK7I rick.nk7i at gmail.com

And yet the TS-590 still has unfixed design flaws (overshoot being one of
the worst) without sending it to an authorized shop, taking weeks.

It was MONTHS before that firmware was updated (since originally reported).
I find the reaction time for updates with Elecraft to be more responsive.
Plus you can talk to a tech (except for COVID delays
now) the same day you initiate contact.

73,
Rick NK7I

Scanned by McAfee and confirmed virus-free.
Find out more here: https://bit.ly/2zCJMrO

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

wa6vab

Re: Firmware development

Seems like this is now the Kenwood page ?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 8:06 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development

T

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

SteveL

Re: Firmware development

In reply to this post by Tim Neu

> . I can't think of one open source, community-based product that I'd want to hang my hat on, even if I do see some that I'd support. I just don't see the professional depth in the general community.
>

I own a popular open-source based 3D printer. Finding the firmware to run the printer reliably is a challenge. Once found (or so I thought) then there’s the task of compiling and loading the firmware after customizing specifically for one of 4 different mother boards the vendor shipped with the same printer model, using vague and incomplete recommendations from the “community". Then there’s the matter of rounding up all the right libraries and versions used during the code ‘make’ when it fails. Oh and it may require re-flashing a boot loader as it is susceptible to corruption for reasons I cannot get a clear answer on. Once loaded to the printer, only then to discover it’s really worse than the version you hoped to repair, or dramatically changed in ways that demand relearning from the beginning.

I would have gladly paid $$ extra for non-open firmware that was supported by the vendor and just worked!! I wanted to print - not test and debug code!

There is real value in proprietary, closed source…. particularly if it reliably brings the features and functions I purchased and is well supported by a responsive vendor such as Elecraft.

Kudos to the Elecraft Team!
Steve
aa8af

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]