Elecraft › [K3]

K2 - K3 Comparison Question

Classic

List

Threaded

9 messages Options

Paul Clay-2

K2 - K3 Comparison Question

Could someone owning both the K2 and K3 comment on the respective tone quality of received CW signals. When using my K2, I often find myself marveling at the high quality of the received signals; the CW has a melodious quality that's a please to listen to for hours on end - the signals sound like someone's sitting at high quality piano tapping out code, very very pleasing to the ear. Does/can the SDR K3 sound as good? I can't tell from listening to Youtube videos I've checked out, where people are fixated on demonstrating the adjacent signal rejection qualities of the K3 (the feature most often, and justifiably according to all the articles and posts I've read, touted for the K3). Is the tonal quality I love in my K2 a function of it being an analog receiver, something I'll have to forgo to obtain the better selectivity of the K3, or is the difference I appear to notice just a function/artifact of the Youtube videos I've been watching?

Thanks,
Paul, N6LQ

Not trolling for a flame here; it's just I'm not a contester and am not really interested in giving up any of the listenability and other features that make my K2 so much fun to use just to get the ability to reject strong adjacent signals; I'd like to be able to have all of the superior selectivity and noise reduction features of the K3 without having to give up any of the great qualities of my K2, and need to get a warm and fuzzy on this point before making the considerable investment in a K3. Again, thanks in advance for any helpful observations you can offer!
______________________________________________________________
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

Nate Bargmann

Re: K2 - K3 Comparison Question

It may just be my perception, but the 4.51 firmware AGC changes have
made the K3 a very pleasant receiver even though I didn't have any real
issues to its personality prior to 4.51. I've not listened to a K2 even
though I'm that having one wouldn't be such a bad idea. ;-)

73, de Nate, N0NB >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
______________________________________________________________
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

Guy, K2AV

Re: K2 - K3 Comparison Question

I agree. Put up firmware 4.51 on your K3 and re-evaluate. 73, Guy.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nate Bargmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It may just be my perception, but the 4.51 firmware AGC changes have
> made the K3 a very pleasant receiver even though I didn't have any real
> issues to its personality prior to 4.51. I've not listened to a K2 even
> though I'm that having one wouldn't be such a bad idea. ;-)
>
> 73, de Nate, N0NB >>
>
> --
>
> "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
> possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
>
> Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

______________________________________________________________
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

Deni F5VJC

Re: K2 - K3 Comparison Question

I have both K2 and K3 and agree CW always sounds so 'sweet' on my K2.

However the K3 has indeed improved in this respect with 4.51firmware.

Difficult to describe, but it was immediately apparent to me.
I had no real problem with the K3 CW audio before, but now I would say
it sounds as sweet as my K2, I think!

73, Deni
F5VJC

K2 1188, K3 325

On 1 June 2012 20:02, Guy Olinger K2AV <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree. Put up firmware 4.51 on your K3 and re-evaluate. 73, Guy.
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nate Bargmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It may just be my perception, but the 4.51 firmware AGC changes have
>> made the K3 a very pleasant receiver even though I didn't have any real
>> issues to its personality prior to 4.51. I've not listened to a K2 even
>> though I'm that having one wouldn't be such a bad idea. ;-)
>>
>> 73, de Nate, N0NB >>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
>> possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
>>
>> Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

OE5CSP-Chris

Re: K2 - K3 Comparison Question

In reply to this post by Paul Clay-2

Paul,

I also did an A to B comparison. The K2( with KAF2) sounds very nice, but the K3 even a bit nicer!

73,Chris-OE5CSP

Gary D Krause

Re: K2 - K3 Comparison Question

In reply to this post by Paul Clay-2

Hi Paul,

I own the K2 and K3. Like you, I'm not a contester. I actually prefer the
sound of the K2 on CW. To me it sounds warmer and smoother. The tone of the
K3 isn't bad and if I didn't have a K2 to compare it to, I probably wouldn't
notice. The K3 sounds a little rough or raspy to me as compared with my K2.

Gary, N7HTS

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Clay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Could someone owning both the K2 and K3 comment on the respective tone
>quality of received CW signals. When using my K2, I often find myself
>marveling at the high quality of the received signals; the CW has a melodious
>quality that's a please to listen to for hours on end - the signals sound
>like someone's sitting at high quality piano tapping out code, very very
>pleasing to the ear. Does/can the SDR K3 sound as good? I can't tell from
>listening to Youtube videos I've checked out, where people are fixated on
>demonstrating the adjacent signal rejection qualities of the K3 (the feature
>most often, and justifiably according to all the articles and posts I've
>read, touted for the K3). Is the tonal quality I love in my K2 a function of
>it being an analog receiver, something I'll have to forgo to obtain the
>better selectivity of the K3, or is the difference I appear to notice just a
>function/artifact of the Youtube videos I've been watching?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul, N6LQ
>
> Not trolling for a flame here; it's just I'm not a contester and am not
>really interested in giving up any of the listenability and other features
>that make my K2 so much fun to use just to get the ability to reject strong
>adjacent signals; I'd like to be able to have all of the superior
>selectivity and noise reduction features of the K3 without having to give up
>any of the great qualities of my K2, and need to get a warm and fuzzy on this
>point before making the considerable investment in a K3. Again, thanks in
>advance for any helpful observations you can offer!
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

Thomas Horsten

Re: K2 - K3 Comparison Question

Hi Gary,

Those observations, are those with headset/built in speaker/external
speakers? And with the new K3 firmware?

73, Thomas M0TRN

On 4 June 2012 22:35, Gary D Krause <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> I own the K2 and K3. Like you, I'm not a contester. I actually prefer the
> sound of the K2 on CW. To me it sounds warmer and smoother. The tone of
> the
> K3 isn't bad and if I didn't have a K2 to compare it to, I probably
> wouldn't
> notice. The K3 sounds a little rough or raspy to me as compared with my
> K2.
>
> Gary, N7HTS
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
> Paul Clay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Could someone owning both the K2 and K3 comment on the respective tone
> >quality of received CW signals. When using my K2, I often find myself
> >marveling at the high quality of the received signals; the CW has a
> melodious
> >quality that's a please to listen to for hours on end - the signals sound
> >like someone's sitting at high quality piano tapping out code, very very
> >pleasing to the ear. Does/can the SDR K3 sound as good? I can't tell
> from
> >listening to Youtube videos I've checked out, where people are fixated on
> >demonstrating the adjacent signal rejection qualities of the K3 (the
> feature
> >most often, and justifiably according to all the articles and posts I've
> >read, touted for the K3). Is the tonal quality I love in my K2 a
> function of
> >it being an analog receiver, something I'll have to forgo to obtain the
> >better selectivity of the K3, or is the difference I appear to notice
> just a
> >function/artifact of the Youtube videos I've been watching?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul, N6LQ
> >
> > Not trolling for a flame here; it's just I'm not a contester and am not
> >really interested in giving up any of the listenability and other features
> >that make my K2 so much fun to use just to get the ability to reject
> strong
> >adjacent signals; I'd like to be able to have all of the superior
> >selectivity and noise reduction features of the K3 without having to give
> up
> >any of the great qualities of my K2, and need to get a warm and fuzzy on
> this
> >point before making the considerable investment in a K3. Again, thanks in
> >advance for any helpful observations you can offer!
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Guy, K2AV

Re: K2 - K3 Comparison Question

A K3 to K2 audio comparison changes a lot when 4.51 firmware is installed.
The change in the K3 was instantly noticeable.

So these days one must specify pre- or post-4.51.

73, Guy

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Thomas Horsten <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Gary,
>
> Those observations, are those with headset/built in speaker/external
> speakers? And with the new K3 firmware?
>
> 73, Thomas M0TRN
>
> On 4 June 2012 22:35, Gary D Krause <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I own the K2 and K3. Like you, I'm not a contester. I actually prefer
> the
> > sound of the K2 on CW. To me it sounds warmer and smoother. The tone of
> > the
> > K3 isn't bad and if I didn't have a K2 to compare it to, I probably
> > wouldn't
> > notice. The K3 sounds a little rough or raspy to me as compared with my
> > K2.
> >
> > Gary, N7HTS
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
> > Paul Clay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Could someone owning both the K2 and K3 comment on the respective tone
> > >quality of received CW signals. When using my K2, I often find myself
> > >marveling at the high quality of the received signals; the CW has a
> > melodious
> > >quality that's a please to listen to for hours on end - the signals
> sound
> > >like someone's sitting at high quality piano tapping out code, very very
> > >pleasing to the ear. Does/can the SDR K3 sound as good? I can't tell
> > from
> > >listening to Youtube videos I've checked out, where people are fixated
> on
> > >demonstrating the adjacent signal rejection qualities of the K3 (the
> > feature
> > >most often, and justifiably according to all the articles and posts I've
> > >read, touted for the K3). Is the tonal quality I love in my K2 a
> > function of
> > >it being an analog receiver, something I'll have to forgo to obtain the
> > >better selectivity of the K3, or is the difference I appear to notice
> > just a
> > >function/artifact of the Youtube videos I've been watching?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paul, N6LQ
> > >
> > > Not trolling for a flame here; it's just I'm not a contester and am not
> > >really interested in giving up any of the listenability and other
> features
> > >that make my K2 so much fun to use just to get the ability to reject
> > strong
> > >adjacent signals; I'd like to be able to have all of the superior
> > >selectivity and noise reduction features of the K3 without having to
> give
> > up
> > >any of the great qualities of my K2, and need to get a warm and fuzzy on
> > this
> > >point before making the considerable investment in a K3. Again, thanks
> in
> > >advance for any helpful observations you can offer!
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Thomas Horsten

Re: K2 - K3 Comparison Question

Yes, isn't it amazing that a 4-year-old rig continues to receive the full
attention of the manufacturers and substantial improvements like this. I
can't think of any other company with such a great track record of
supporting customers of existing products. Especially fine that this comes
out when everybody is busy with the KX3.

73, Thomas M0TRN

On 5 June 2012 19:03, Guy Olinger K2AV <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A K3 to K2 audio comparison changes a lot when 4.51 firmware is installed.
> The change in the K3 was instantly noticeable.
>
> So these days one must specify pre- or post-4.51.
>
> 73, Guy
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Thomas Horsten <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gary,
>>
>> Those observations, are those with headset/built in speaker/external
>> speakers? And with the new K3 firmware?
>>
>> 73, Thomas M0TRN
>>
>> On 4 June 2012 22:35, Gary D Krause <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Paul,
>> >
>> > I own the K2 and K3. Like you, I'm not a contester. I actually prefer
>> the
>> > sound of the K2 on CW. To me it sounds warmer and smoother. The tone
>> of
>> > the
>> > K3 isn't bad and if I didn't have a K2 to compare it to, I probably
>> > wouldn't
>> > notice. The K3 sounds a little rough or raspy to me as compared with my
>> > K2.
>> >
>> > Gary, N7HTS
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
>> > Paul Clay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > Could someone owning both the K2 and K3 comment on the respective tone
>> > >quality of received CW signals. When using my K2, I often find myself
>> > >marveling at the high quality of the received signals; the CW has a
>> > melodious
>> > >quality that's a please to listen to for hours on end - the signals
>> sound
>> > >like someone's sitting at high quality piano tapping out code, very
>> very
>> > >pleasing to the ear. Does/can the SDR K3 sound as good? I can't tell
>> > from
>> > >listening to Youtube videos I've checked out, where people are fixated
>> on
>> > >demonstrating the adjacent signal rejection qualities of the K3 (the
>> > feature
>> > >most often, and justifiably according to all the articles and posts
>> I've
>> > >read, touted for the K3). Is the tonal quality I love in my K2 a
>> > function of
>> > >it being an analog receiver, something I'll have to forgo to obtain the
>> > >better selectivity of the K3, or is the difference I appear to notice
>> > just a
>> > >function/artifact of the Youtube videos I've been watching?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Paul, N6LQ
>> > >
>> > > Not trolling for a flame here; it's just I'm not a contester and am
>> not
>> > >really interested in giving up any of the listenability and other
>> features
>> > >that make my K2 so much fun to use just to get the ability to reject
>> > strong
>> > >adjacent signals; I'd like to be able to have all of the superior
>> > >selectivity and noise reduction features of the K3 without having to
>> give
>> > up
>> > >any of the great qualities of my K2, and need to get a warm and fuzzy
>> on
>> > this
>> > >point before making the considerable investment in a K3. Again,
>> thanks in
>> > >advance for any helpful observations you can offer!
>> > > ______________________________________________________________
>> > > 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
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>