K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
Locked
12
12
K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
 
|
I have to agree that this change was not so smart (maybe clever, but not smart).
While I admit that I never thought about the guys who "do this commonly" (I think they are the VHF types), I do think that this mod was a case of being over-zealous in the "we can do it" mentality as compared to the "what will the VAST MAJORITY" of users want? I bet that this isn't even close to an 80/20 rule. IMHO, the VAST MAJORITY of K3 owners who use A>B are HF types who want EVERYTHING copied. And while "how much longer does it take to tap twice" may be true, it is "more" true that this change was made to benefit the few at the expense of the many - a violation of many business and operational principles. I am a strong advocate for letting the USER decide which method (one tap vs two) and that the selection should be implemented via a MENU item (if possible). Personally, I have not and will never use just "one tap" (allowing for the times that it worked "the right way" prior to the change). I relinquish the soapbox.... de Doug KR2Q _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
Administrator
|
Doug,
There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field testers.) The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and work your way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If it looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with one tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of two-tap (including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm easy :) Thanks for your input. Wayne N6KR --- http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
Put me down in favor of two-tap (the way it is now).
Al N1AL On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:32, wayne burdick wrote: > Doug, > > There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not > sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field > testers.) > > The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: > > Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main > RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a > clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). > With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and > work your way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp > settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. > > But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If > it looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with > one tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of two-tap > (including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm easy :) > > Thanks for your input. > > Wayne > N6KR > > --- > > http://www.elecraft.com > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL
DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote:
> I have to agree that this change was not so smart (maybe clever, but not smart). > > While I admit that I never thought about the guys who "do this > commonly" (I think they are the VHF types), I do think that this mod > was a case of being over-zealous in the "we can do it" mentality as > compared to the "what will the VAST MAJORITY" of users want? I bet > that this isn't even close to an 80/20 rule. I'm an HF CW type who *does* use it, because I often (not always) want to keep the sub-receiver set up differently from the main rx. Very often I have the main rx set for 100 Hz. bandwidth to hear a weak DX station while the sub rx is set to 1kHz. to find the station he is working more easily. On the other hand, sometimes I want them the same, and I can chose just by tapping the key once or twice. -- 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
How about making it a choice? I can see times I would like it one way or the
other. Make it a menu item to decide if you want to be a one-tapper or a two-tapper. 73, N2TK, Tony -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of wayne burdick Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 4:32 PM To: DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL Cc: Elecraft Reflector Subject: [Elecraft] Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding") Doug, There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field testers.) The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and work your way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If it looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with one tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of two-tap (including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm easy :) Thanks for your input. Wayne N6KR --- http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
In reply to this post by DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL
In the beginning I hated it then I was undecided for a while, now I like
it! at this stage I am used to it and the double tap is very quick to do. With the sub RX in use for Dx chasing / Split it's great the way it is. with no sub installed it makes less sense. Give us a menu item, perhaps implement a second layer to the config menu for all the UI things that people will rarely wish to change (but are going to ask elecraft for anyway!) to prevent the main config menu getting too cluttered. Icing on the cake would be the ability to edit these settings from the K3 utility which could then be used to manage 'user profiles' Ohh and scrap locking VFOB in linked mode please ! 73 Brendan EI6IZ On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 15:53 -0400, DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote: > I have to agree that this change was not so smart (maybe clever, but not smart). > > While I admit that I never thought about the guys who "do this > commonly" (I think they are the VHF types), I do think that this mod > was a case of being over-zealous in the "we can do it" mentality as > compared to the "what will the VAST MAJORITY" of users want? I bet > that this isn't even close to an 80/20 rule. > > IMHO, the VAST MAJORITY of K3 owners who use A>B are HF types who want > EVERYTHING copied. And while "how much longer does it take to tap > twice" may be true, it is "more" true that this change was made to > benefit the few at the expense of the many - a violation of many > business and operational principles. > > I am a strong advocate for letting the USER decide which method (one > tap vs two) and that the selection should be implemented via a MENU > item (if possible). Personally, I have not and will never use just > "one tap" (allowing for the times that it worked "the right way" prior > to the change). > > I relinquish the soapbox.... > > de Doug KR2Q > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com Don‘t complain. Nobody will understand. Or care. And certainly don‘t try to fix the situation yourself. It‘s dangerous. Leave it to a highly untrained, unqualified, expendable professional. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL
My vote is for the option to set the preferred use of the split single tap. Eventually. I prefer the split capability one button tap for HF transfer all. The cross mode capability for UHF even HF is a desirable option. I agree that I get in trouble on HF remembering the double tap need. John KH7T K3-100 #125 with KRX3 DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote: > I have to agree that this change was not so smart (maybe clever, but not smart). > > While I admit that I never thought about the guys who "do this > commonly" (I think they are the VHF types), I do think that this mod > was a case of being over-zealous in the "we can do it" mentality as > compared to the "what will the VAST MAJORITY" of users want? I bet > that this isn't even close to an 80/20 rule. > > IMHO, the VAST MAJORITY of K3 owners who use A>B are HF types who want > EVERYTHING copied. And while "how much longer does it take to tap > twice" may be true, it is "more" true that this change was made to > benefit the few at the expense of the many - a violation of many > business and operational principles. > > I am a strong advocate for letting the USER decide which method (one > tap vs two) and that the selection should be implemented via a MENU > item (if possible). Personally, I have not and will never use just > "one tap" (allowing for the times that it worked "the right way" prior > to the change). > > I relinquish the soapbox.... > > de Doug KR2Q > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
Wayne:
I cast my vote for the present 2-tap method. I'll primarily be using the subRx to listen to my xmit frequency while finding the best spot to transmit and will have a wider filter in use there than in the main RX. The way it is configured now suits me just fine. 73, Ken K3IU wayne burdick wrote: > Doug, > > There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not > sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field > testers.) > > The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: > > Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main > RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a > clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). > With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and > work your way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp > settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. > > But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If > it looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with > one tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of > two-tap (including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm > easy :) > > Thanks for your input. > > Wayne > N6KR Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
Wayne,
The two-tap operation makes a lot of sense for those who have the sub-receiver installed, because for other than diversity receive, one would not necessarily want to change the filter settings when doing an A>B copy. VHF ops would likely also not want to change the mode. So for the benefit of those with the KRX3, I would think it should be left as it is now. BUT, for those without the sub-rx installed, the single tap does everything operation is probably more appropriate. Is there any wisdom in making the operation dependent on the sub-rx? If not, a menu item would be in order to satisfy the tastes of different users. There are good reasons on each side. 73, Don W3FPR wayne burdick wrote: > Doug, > > There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not > sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field > testers.) > > The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: > > Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main > RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a > clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). > With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and > work your way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp > settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. > > But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If > it looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with > one tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of > two-tap (including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm > easy :) > > Thanks for your input. > > Wayne > N6KR > > --- > > http://www.elecraft.com > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1668 - Release Date: 9/12/2008 6:56 AM > > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken Wagner K3IU
After reading Wayne's explanation and Ken's remarks below I agree that
making an instant change unless it is simply to provide a config option is not desirable. I would like the option for the single tap eventually. My apology for cluttering the reflector by including a previous message in my last message. John KH7T #125 with KRX3 Ken K3IU wrote: > Wayne: > I cast my vote for the present 2-tap method. I'll primarily be using > the subRx to listen to my xmit frequency while finding the best spot > to transmit and will have a wider filter in use there than in the main > RX. The way it is configured now suits me just fine. > 73, > Ken K3IU > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
RE: Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Bloom
Wayne,
I have to agree...please continue to allow this mode of operation, either by leaving as is, or giving it to those who want/need it with a menu selection. Ken, NU4I -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Alan Bloom Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:51 PM To: Elecraft Reflector Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding") Put me down in favor of two-tap (the way it is now). Al N1AL On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:32, wayne burdick wrote: > Doug, > > There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not > sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field > testers.) > > The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: > > Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main > RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a > clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). > With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and > work your way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp > settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. > > But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If > it looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with > one tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of two-tap > (including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm easy :) > > Thanks for your input. > > Wayne > N6KR > > --- > > http://www.elecraft.com > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
RE: Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
Wayne, > Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on > the main RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while > tuning for a clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth > and preamp off). With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to > the starting point and work your way up again. If this also copied > VFO A's filter and preamp settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to > set them up all over again. I think the issue is specifically copying mode along with the frequency. To me, if KRX3 is not installed, copy everything since the receive parameters are not important on VFO B (no receive). I would find it distracting to have antenna/filter/etc. change as I pressed the A/B or REV buttons. If a KRX3 is installed but dual receive, or split operation is not selected copy everything (one can assume the tap means "configure everything") ... if dual receive or split is selected, copy only frequency/mode on the first tap and copy filter/preamp/attenuator/receive antenna/etc. on the second tap. In general, I think mode should be copied along with frequency. With the "CW in SSB" capability, I can't see a situation where the user would not want VFO B in the same mode as VFO A 73, ... Joe, W4TV > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of wayne burdick > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 4:32 PM > To: DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL > Cc: Elecraft Reflector > Subject: [Elecraft] Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding") > > > Doug, > > There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not > sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field > testers.) > > The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: > > Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on > the main > RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a > clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). > With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and > work your way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp > settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. > > But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If > it looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with > one tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor > of two-tap > (including the field testers), I could change it outright. > I'm easy :) > > Thanks for your input. > > Wayne > N6KR > > --- > > http://www.elecraft.com > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:32:06 -0700, wayne burdick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Doug, > >There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not >sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field >testers.) > >The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: > >Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main >RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a >clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). >With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and >work your way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp >settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. > >But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If >it looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with >one tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of two-tap >(including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm easy :) > >Thanks for your input. > >Wayne >N6KR > I vote for, the two step setting with a menu item for when one doesn't want it. Tom, N5GE _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-3
I agree with Joe, I prefer the one push to go to SPLIT. This is the
common way with all other brands.. Jim K4JAF ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <[hidden email]> To: "'wayne burdick'" <[hidden email]> Cc: "'Elecraft Reflector'" <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 8:28 PM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding") > > Wayne, > >> Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on >> the main RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while >> tuning for a clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth >> and preamp off). With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to >> the starting point and work your way up again. If this also copied >> VFO A's filter and preamp settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to >> set them up all over again. > > I think the issue is specifically copying mode along with the > frequency. > > To me, if KRX3 is not installed, copy everything since the receive > parameters are not important on VFO B (no receive). I would find > it distracting to have antenna/filter/etc. change as I pressed > the A/B or REV buttons. If a KRX3 is installed but dual receive, > or split operation is not selected copy everything (one can assume > the tap means "configure everything") ... if dual receive or split > is selected, copy only frequency/mode on the first tap and copy > filter/preamp/attenuator/receive antenna/etc. on the second tap. > > In general, I think mode should be copied along with frequency. > With the "CW in SSB" capability, I can't see a situation where > the user would not want VFO B in the same mode as VFO A > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of wayne burdick >> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 4:32 PM >> To: DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL >> Cc: Elecraft Reflector >> Subject: [Elecraft] Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding") >> >> >> Doug, >> >> There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not >> sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field >> testers.) >> >> The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: >> >> Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on >> the main >> RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a >> clear spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). >> With one tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and >> work your way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp >> settings (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. >> >> But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If >> it looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with >> one tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor >> of two-tap >> (including the field testers), I could change it outright. >> I'm easy :) >> >> Thanks for your input. >> >> Wayne >> N6KR >> >> --- >> >> http://www.elecraft.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Post to: [hidden email] >> You must be a subscriber to post to the list. >> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): >> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm >> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
In reply to this post by DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL
wayne burdick wrote: > Doug, > > There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not sense > for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field testers.) > > The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: > > Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main > RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a clear > spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). With one > tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and work your > way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp settings > (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. > > But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If it > looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with one > tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of two-tap > (including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm easy :) > > Thanks for your input. > > Wayne > N6KR > > --- > > http://www.elecraft.com > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > -- Lance Collister, W7GJ (ex: WN3GPL, WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8) P.O. Box 73 Frenchtown, MT 59834 USA QTH: DN27UB TEL: (406) 626-5728 URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj 2m DXCC #11, 6m DXCC #815 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
I'll add another vote for leaving it alone.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:21 PM, LANCE COLLISTER <[hidden email]> wrote: > > wayne burdick wrote: >> Doug, >> >> There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not sense >> for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field testers.) >> >> The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: >> >> Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main >> RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a clear >> spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). With one >> tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and work your >> way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp settings >> (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. >> >> But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If it >> looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with one >> tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of two-tap >> (including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm easy :) >> >> Thanks for your input. >> >> Wayne >> N6KR >> >> --- >> >> http://www.elecraft.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Post to: [hidden email] >> You must be a subscriber to post to the list. >> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): >> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm >> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com >> > My vote is for the noise gate first ;-) TNX and VY 73, Lance > > -- > Lance Collister, W7GJ (ex: WN3GPL, WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8) > P.O. Box 73 > Frenchtown, MT 59834 USA > QTH: DN27UB > TEL: (406) 626-5728 URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj > 2m DXCC #11, 6m DXCC #815 > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-3
Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> I think the issue is specifically copying mode along with the > frequency. > > To me, if KRX3 is not installed, copy everything since the receive > parameters are not important on VFO B (no receive). Not true. The two VFOs can be set with different bandwidths (etc.) and then when you hold REV or tap A/B, all the parameters change. This is how you work a pileup (at least, this is how I did it) when you do not have a subreceiver. -- 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
My vote is for a single tap however what you say below also makes sens.
However if it´s possible to have a choice it sounds like the best solution. In a situation when you have no 2:nd RX IMO one tap would be prefered however when you also have a 2:nd RX I can see the point with 2 taps. 73 Jim SM2EKM ------------------------------ wayne burdick wrote: > Doug, > > There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not sense > for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field testers.) > > The change was motivated by the sub receiver. Here's one example: > > Suppose you're using SPLIT, listening to a weak DX station on the main > RX (in a very narrow bandwidth with preamp on), while tuning for a clear > spot with the sub RX (using a wider bandwidth and preamp off). With one > tap of A>B you can move VFO B back to the starting point and work your > way up again. If this also copied VFO A's filter and preamp settings > (etc.) to VFO B, you'd have to set them up all over again. > > But I'll be happy to sit back and listen to arguments pro and con. If it > looks like a lot of operators would prefer to copy everything with one > tap, I could add a menu entry. If no one argues in favor of two-tap > (including the field testers), I could change it outright. I'm easy :) > > Thanks for your input. > > Wayne > N6KR > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
I think it is fine - I expect the reason most people thought it odd is because most of us didn't realise that was how it worked. I would not change it, I would make it an option -"Double Tap Extensions ON/OFF". Then we could have double taps for other things as and when the need arises. Mike |
Re: K3: A>B two-step (was "illogical coding")
|
|
I agree that its a great way of working things I feel the only real
issue is that many people don't understand that they have to press twice to get it to do what they want. The fact is that if they don't realize that they have to press the button twice they probably won't realize that there is a configuration item to help them either. What if when pressing it once it simply sent the frequency only and displayed a message quite quickly that said "agn = cpy all" or something like that. I'll admit that I was quite confused the first time I pressed it and things were different. However after reading about it I was kinda surprised and tap twice then poof as expected. I'm finding that I'm an anomaly... when things don't work I pull out the manual and read about the feature. However many do not do this... Maybe having the radio tell people would help. Maybe I'm wrong though... There have been plenty of people wondering why the radio tells them VFO IND isn't available yet. Maybe it should say "SEE ERRATA"...... :) On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM, AD6XY <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > wayne burdick wrote: >> >> Doug, >> >> There was plenty of logic behind it, but in hindsight it might not >> sense for all users. (It did meet with the approval of our 20 field >> testers.) >> >> > > I think it is fine - I expect the reason most people thought it odd is > because most of us didn't realise that was how it worked. I would not change > it, I would make it an option -"Double Tap Extensions ON/OFF". Then we could > have double taps for other things as and when the need arises. > > Mike > > -- > View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/K3%3A-A%3EB-two-step-%28was-%22illogical-coding%22%29-tp1086165p1087087.html > Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |