Elecraft

K3 Programmable Split?

Classic

List

Threaded

22 messages Options

Jim AB3CV

K3 Programmable Split?

As long as UI changes are in the wind I wonder if the current SPLIT button
could optionally be made programmable? If so I would implement the single
button version of the UP 1 A>>B Split toggle that someone had published
here so as to free up my PF1 and PF2 buttons.

Actually I'm planning to program the PF1 button to the toggle version
anyway but it would be nice to put it on the SPLIT button.

Perhaps a Config option?

73

jim ab3cv
______________________________________________________________
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: K3 Programmable Split?

Administrator

You can't change the behavior of the SPLIT switch itself (that would bring our support department to its collective knees), but you can create a custom SPLIT macro of arbitrary complexity and assign it any of the K3's 10 programmable function switches. See examples in the K3 & KX3 Programmer's Reference.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Jim Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As long as UI changes are in the wind I wonder if the current SPLIT button
> could optionally be made programmable? If so I would implement the single
> button version of the UP 1 A>>B Split toggle that someone had published
> here so as to free up my PF1 and PF2 buttons.
>
> Actually I'm planning to program the PF1 button to the toggle version
> anyway but it would be nice to put it on the SPLIT button.
>
> Perhaps a Config option?
>
> 73
>
> jim ab3cv
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

gm3sek

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

Wayne wrote:
>You can't change the behavior of the SPLIT switch itself (that would
bring
>our support department to its collective knees), but you can create a
custom
>SPLIT macro of arbitrary complexity and assign it any of the K3's 10
>programmable function switches.

We have to accept Wayne's first point: wildcat macro programmers cannot
be allowed to change the behaviour of the [SPLIT] switch itself.

But let's not pretend that custom Split macros are an elegant solution
either. The problem isn't writing the macro, but in having to assign tat
macro to something *other* than the [SPLIT] button itself... and then
having to share the macro-modified K3 with guest operators or other club
members. The bedrock point of principle is this: users should *never* be
forced to resort to macros for simple industry-standard features that
ought to be part of the firmware.

So the solution is for *Elecraft* to change the behaviour of the [SPLIT]
button instead - by providing a firmware option for a very simple,
industry standard, plain vanilla "Quick Split" function (aka "Smart
Split"). That would satisfy the huge majority of K3 owners without any
need to use macros... and 95% of this unending discussion would melt
away.

For the remaining 5% who don't care for plain vanilla, the existing
macro option is still there.

It really is astonishing that we're still talking about this - as if a
Quick Split option for a [SPLIT] button were something new with no track
record. Almost all competing transceivers have had Quick Split for over
20 years! Quick Split also fills an increasingly important role in
avoiding human error in pileups... currently an area where the K3 offers
no help at all.

Here is a first draft of what a Split Mode configuration option could
look like (borrowing heavily from other user manuals because there is
absolutely no need to reinvent any of this):

"SPLT MD

Normal (NOR): the [SPLIT] button makes VFOB the transmit VFO (if
permitted by other previously selected options - see pages xx and yy).

Quick Split (QIK): the [SPLIT] button sets VFOB to the same mode as VFOA
(overriding all previous band/mode settings for VFOB) and offsets the
VFOB (transmit) frequency away from the existing frequency of VFOA. If
the subreceiver is installed, Quick Split also matches the sub's filter
bandwidth to the main, and turns on the sub using the selected
headphones/speaker mode for dual receive.

To activate Quick Split and pre-select the VFOB offset, rotate the VFOA
knob either clockwise or anticlockwise away from NOR. (Range -20 to
+20kHz in 1kHz steps, default +3kHz. Returning to 0kHz re-selects the
NORmal Split mode.) "

Achievable? It might need less new code than we imagine, because the
method for initializing Quick Split looks an awful lot like the existing
method for initializing Diversity, the main difference (obviously) being
the frequency setting for VFOB.

73 from Ian GM3SEK

______________________________________________________________
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]

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

> The bedrock point of principle is this: users should *never* be
> forced to resort to macros for simple industry-standard features that
> ought to be part of the firmware.

Since *when* is a programmable split an "industry standard feature"?
In 40 years, I have *never* owned a transceiver that included a
programmable split feature. Admittedly some of the newer rigs may
offer that function - but it was not not present in any transceiver I
owned or used from the TS-520/FT-101B in the 70's through the FT-1000MP
MKV including transceivers by all major manufacturers.

What you are really asking for - based on the "hold split" behavior
in other recent rigs is getting back to a *THIRD STATE* on a switch.
It would need to be a two second hold of A-> B, one second for normal
split, two for "quick split" ... another UI cluster.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2015-02-18 2:38 PM, Ian White wrote:

> Wayne wrote:
>> You can't change the behavior of the SPLIT switch itself (that would
> bring
>> our support department to its collective knees), but you can create a
> custom
>> SPLIT macro of arbitrary complexity and assign it any of the K3's 10
>> programmable function switches.
>
>
> We have to accept Wayne's first point: wildcat macro programmers cannot
> be allowed to change the behaviour of the [SPLIT] switch itself.
>
> But let's not pretend that custom Split macros are an elegant solution
> either. The problem isn't writing the macro, but in having to assign tat
> macro to something *other* than the [SPLIT] button itself... and then
> having to share the macro-modified K3 with guest operators or other club
> members. The bedrock point of principle is this: users should *never* be
> forced to resort to macros for simple industry-standard features that
> ought to be part of the firmware.
>
> So the solution is for *Elecraft* to change the behaviour of the [SPLIT]
> button instead - by providing a firmware option for a very simple,
> industry standard, plain vanilla "Quick Split" function (aka "Smart
> Split"). That would satisfy the huge majority of K3 owners without any
> need to use macros... and 95% of this unending discussion would melt
> away.
>
> For the remaining 5% who don't care for plain vanilla, the existing
> macro option is still there.
>
> It really is astonishing that we're still talking about this - as if a
> Quick Split option for a [SPLIT] button were something new with no track
> record. Almost all competing transceivers have had Quick Split for over
> 20 years! Quick Split also fills an increasingly important role in
> avoiding human error in pileups... currently an area where the K3 offers
> no help at all.
>
> Here is a first draft of what a Split Mode configuration option could
> look like (borrowing heavily from other user manuals because there is
> absolutely no need to reinvent any of this):
>
> "SPLT MD
>
> Normal (NOR): the [SPLIT] button makes VFOB the transmit VFO (if
> permitted by other previously selected options - see pages xx and yy).
>
> Quick Split (QIK): the [SPLIT] button sets VFOB to the same mode as VFOA
> (overriding all previous band/mode settings for VFOB) and offsets the
> VFOB (transmit) frequency away from the existing frequency of VFOA. If
> the subreceiver is installed, Quick Split also matches the sub's filter
> bandwidth to the main, and turns on the sub using the selected
> headphones/speaker mode for dual receive.
>
> To activate Quick Split and pre-select the VFOB offset, rotate the VFOA
> knob either clockwise or anticlockwise away from NOR. (Range -20 to
> +20kHz in 1kHz steps, default +3kHz. Returning to 0kHz re-selects the
> NORmal Split mode.) "
>
> Achievable? It might need less new code than we imagine, because the
> method for initializing Quick Split looks an awful lot like the existing
> method for initializing Diversity, the main difference (obviously) being
> the frequency setting for VFOB.
>
>
> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>

gm3sek

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

We lost power for a few hours. Looks like I missed a load of fun...

W4TV wrote:

>
>> The bedrock point of principle is this: users should *never* be
>> forced to resort to macros for simple industry-standard features that
>> ought to be part of the firmware.
>
>Since *when* is a programmable split an "industry standard feature"?
>In 40 years, I have *never* owned a transceiver that included a
>programmable split feature. Admittedly some of the newer rigs may
>offer that function - but it was not not present in any transceiver I
>owned or used from the TS-520/FT-101B in the 70's through the FT-1000MP
>MKV including transceivers by all major manufacturers.
>

RTFM!

My 1000MP MK1 had programmable Quick Split from 1995, so your later MkV
had it too (I'm looking at a downloaded manual right now). Turning to
Icom, the IC-746 had Quick Split in 1997 and their top-of-the-line
models probably had it even earlier.

Proof enough, if proof were needed, that the two largest transceiver
manufacturers have had Quick Split as part of their feature-set for at
least 20 years. From their early top-of-the-line models, Quick Split has
trickled down to become an expected feature in any modern CPU-controlled
HF transceiver that is targeted at DX operators.

Why? Because Quick Split is helpful to users - it *guarantees* to shift
the TX VFO away from the frequency of the DX station in a pileup - and
also because it isn't a difficult feature for manufacturers to include.

(But radios like the TS-520/FT-101B from the 1970s have no part in this
discussion. You can't have programmed Split in a radio that has a
hand-cranked VFO... and no CPU!)

>What you are really asking for - based on the "hold split" behavior
>in other recent rigs is getting back to a *THIRD STATE* on a switch.
>It would need to be a two second hold of A-> B, one second for normal
>split, two for "quick split" ... another UI cluster.

No... what I am "really asking for" is WHAT I REALLY WROTE.

If you had read the whole posting before jumping to the wrong
conclusions, it was completely clear that my suggestion was to offer
Quick Split as an option that could only be selected through a new item
in the Configuration menu, as an alternative behavior for the existing
[SPLIT] button.

That proposal does NOT require a third switch state, so I wasn't asking
for one. That and everything else you wrote about "other recent rigs",
"a third state" and "a two second hold" was the product of your own
incorrectly imagined scenario. You made it up and you got it wrong.

This is by no means an isolated case. Please try much harder to read
what people ACTUALLY DID WRITE.

73 from Ian GM3SEK

______________________________________________________________
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]

alsopb

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

Ian,

Except for your posting, most guys really missed half the need. Getting
it into split if the first half; knowing it is in split is the other
part. It's too darn easy to not get into split because it takes three
correct taps/press combos to get you there. For me the success rate is
under 50%. Fortunately, I've gotten around this (why should I have
to) via external means.

A single button SPLIT is absolutely a solution to many of the
transmitting on the DX frequency occurrences.. Putting it as an option
as you suggest is a good compromise between the way it is now (why??)
and something really needed by the majority.

Why should there be any resistance to this common sense suggestion?

73 de Brian/K3KO

On 2/19/2015 4:33 AM, Ian White wrote:

> We lost power for a few hours. Looks like I missed a load of fun...
>
>
> W4TV wrote:
>>> The bedrock point of principle is this: users should *never* be
>>> forced to resort to macros for simple industry-standard features that
>>> ought to be part of the firmware.
>> Since *when* is a programmable split an "industry standard feature"?
>> In 40 years, I have *never* owned a transceiver that included a
>> programmable split feature. Admittedly some of the newer rigs may
>> offer that function - but it was not not present in any transceiver I
>> owned or used from the TS-520/FT-101B in the 70's through the FT-1000MP
>> MKV including transceivers by all major manufacturers.
>>
> RTFM!
>
> My 1000MP MK1 had programmable Quick Split from 1995, so your later MkV
> had it too (I'm looking at a downloaded manual right now). Turning to
> Icom, the IC-746 had Quick Split in 1997 and their top-of-the-line
> models probably had it even earlier.
>
> Proof enough, if proof were needed, that the two largest transceiver
> manufacturers have had Quick Split as part of their feature-set for at
> least 20 years. From their early top-of-the-line models, Quick Split has
> trickled down to become an expected feature in any modern CPU-controlled
> HF transceiver that is targeted at DX operators.
>
> Why? Because Quick Split is helpful to users - it *guarantees* to shift
> the TX VFO away from the frequency of the DX station in a pileup - and
> also because it isn't a difficult feature for manufacturers to include.
>
> (But radios like the TS-520/FT-101B from the 1970s have no part in this
> discussion. You can't have programmed Split in a radio that has a
> hand-cranked VFO... and no CPU!)
>
>
>> What you are really asking for - based on the "hold split" behavior
>> in other recent rigs is getting back to a *THIRD STATE* on a switch.
>> It would need to be a two second hold of A-> B, one second for normal
>> split, two for "quick split" ... another UI cluster.
>
> No... what I am "really asking for" is WHAT I REALLY WROTE.
>
> If you had read the whole posting before jumping to the wrong
> conclusions, it was completely clear that my suggestion was to offer
> Quick Split as an option that could only be selected through a new item
> in the Configuration menu, as an alternative behavior for the existing
> [SPLIT] button.
>
> That proposal does NOT require a third switch state, so I wasn't asking
> for one. That and everything else you wrote about "other recent rigs",
> "a third state" and "a two second hold" was the product of your own
> incorrectly imagined scenario. You made it up and you got it wrong.
>
> This is by no means an isolated case. Please try much harder to read
> what people ACTUALLY DID WRITE.
>
>
> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5736 / Virus Database: 4284/9138 - Release Date: 02/18/15
>
>

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

In reply to this post by gm3sek

On 2015-02-18 11:33 PM, Ian White wrote:
> my suggestion was to offer Quick Split as an option that could only
> be selected through a new item in the Configuration menu, as an
> alternative behavior for the existing [SPLIT] button.

That is *wrong* on so many levels and not even the "big boys" pervert
the basic split function with an automatic offset. As you point out
the MK V did have the capability but I never used it one time in the
ten years or so I used the rig on a regular basis (it's still in the
closet unused since getting the K3s). BTW, I can't find "quick split"
in either the TS-590 or TS-990 manuals so it's still far from universal
(or obvious).

To force a choice between simply enabling VFO B where I have already
set it and enable VFO B at a fixed offset from VFO A is wrong. It
sets up for the very thing you complain about - a user who knows the
operation of the rig in its normal state walks into a K3 that has
been perverted with Quick Split instead of split sets down and can
never get split right because quick split constantly wipes out the
user's own VFO settings.

> No... what I am "really asking for" is WHAT I REALLY WROTE.

What you WROTE was an "industry standard feature" - The "big boys" use
a second function key or a *hold* of the split button for quick split.
Since the "second key" version has always been available by using one
of the PF keys, you *must* be advocating the hold option. However,
since split is already a hold of A>B, as a practical matter a hold of
a hold function is a long hold.

Whatever is done should *never* cause the basic definition of split -
"select transmit on VFO B where I have it set" to be lost or only
available by resetting a menu. Such an option is equivalent to "tune
VFO B with the big knob and tune VFO A with the little knob" - it
turns the user interface on its head.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

______________________________________________________________
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]

alsopb

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

Joe,

This is a bunch of baloney. What you are really saying is that you
don't like what most do. So be it. Ian's proposal won't gore your ox.
73 de Brian/K3KO
On 2/19/2015 14:13 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

>
> On 2015-02-18 11:33 PM, Ian White wrote:
>> my suggestion was to offer Quick Split as an option that could only
>> be selected through a new item in the Configuration menu, as an
>> alternative behavior for the existing [SPLIT] button.
>
> That is *wrong* on so many levels and not even the "big boys" pervert
> the basic split function with an automatic offset. As you point out
> the MK V did have the capability but I never used it one time in the
> ten years or so I used the rig on a regular basis (it's still in the
> closet unused since getting the K3s). BTW, I can't find "quick split"
> in either the TS-590 or TS-990 manuals so it's still far from universal
> (or obvious).
>
> To force a choice between simply enabling VFO B where I have already
> set it and enable VFO B at a fixed offset from VFO A is wrong. It
> sets up for the very thing you complain about - a user who knows the
> operation of the rig in its normal state walks into a K3 that has
> been perverted with Quick Split instead of split sets down and can
> never get split right because quick split constantly wipes out the
> user's own VFO settings.
>
> > No... what I am "really asking for" is WHAT I REALLY WROTE.
>
> What you WROTE was an "industry standard feature" - The "big boys" use
> a second function key or a *hold* of the split button for quick split.
> Since the "second key" version has always been available by using one
> of the PF keys, you *must* be advocating the hold option. However,
> since split is already a hold of A>B, as a practical matter a hold of
> a hold function is a long hold.
>
> Whatever is done should *never* cause the basic definition of split -
> "select transmit on VFO B where I have it set" to be lost or only
> available by resetting a menu. Such an option is equivalent to "tune
> VFO B with the big knob and tune VFO A with the little knob" - it
> turns the user interface on its head.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5736 / Virus Database: 4284/9144 - Release Date: 02/19/15
>
>

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

On 2015-02-19 9:49 AM, brian wrote:
> Ian's proposal won't gore your ox.

BS. It sure will if I set down to another K3 that has been set up
so the normal Split function is "Quick Split" that forces VFO B to
some predetermined offset from VFO A.

I *don't have a problem with quick split* as long as it does not
involve any change to the current split operation or reprogram the
operation of the current "Hold A>B". A long hold or [programmable]
fixed offset of the current split function fundamentally changes the
current UI.

A fixed offset violates the "establish transmit on the current VFO B
frequency" principle. A long hold is fraught with timing sensitivity
as proven by all the problems with LINK vs. DIVERSITY.

This hooey over Quick Split is just like the periodic BS about wanting
direct access band buttons with frequency stacking or the debate about
XFIL vs. APF v.s. Dual PB. Creating a separate button for Split with
a hold for Quick Split is a feature that is not practical unless you
want Wayne to design a larger front panel with more buttons ... sure
it might be nice but otherwise it is a distraction as something that
does not fit in the current UI.

Could one come up with a better use of the current buttons? Probably.
How about removing B Set - simply use A/B set up B and use A/B again.
That would free up a hold of A/B for A>B then Split could move to A>B
and Split Hold be used for Quick Split. However, I'm sure someone
would have a problem with that solution as well. This is just one
more manifestation of the user interface limitations of a small format
transceiver.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

______________________________________________________________
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]

Don Butler

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

I haven't really been following this thread because switching in and out of
split operation with a K3 has never really been a problem for me. So I have
probably missed something along the way and may not even be addressing the
main thrust of the thread. I quickly learned how to operate split with my
K3s when I first got them and I've never had a problem since. I agree with
Joe that Quick Split is not and never was practical. I never used it on my
1000MP either and would never use it if it were available on the K3. I
consider myself a seasoned DXer and over the years have operated split with
pretty much every type of configuration except for a separate transmitter
and receiver, but have used everything from transceiver with remote vfo all
the way up to transceiver with dual receivers and panadapter. I learned how
to use them all and they all worked great in my hands. The more bells and
whistles one has at his disposal the easier it gets of course.

As an aside, I have two K3s, one with subreceiver and panadapter and the
other without subreceiver but with panadapter. From my point of view, while
it is nice to have the subreceiver while operating split, it's certainly not
necessary, and I've never had a problem busting big split pileups with
either rig. To me, it's not a big deal to quickly switch the main tuning
dial from VFO A to VFO B to quickly monitor the pileup.

What I'm saying here is that I don't think anything is broken here, so I
don't really think it needs fixing. As long as any new so-called
enhancement is menu selected and the choice to use the old system is still
available I'll be a happy camper.

Don, N5LZ

-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joe
Subich, W4TV
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 8:30 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 Programmable Split?

On 2015-02-19 9:49 AM, brian wrote:
> Ian's proposal won't gore your ox.

BS. It sure will if I set down to another K3 that has been set up so the
normal Split function is "Quick Split" that forces VFO B to some
predetermined offset from VFO A.

I *don't have a problem with quick split* as long as it does not involve any
change to the current split operation or reprogram the operation of the
current "Hold A>B". A long hold or [programmable] fixed offset of the
current split function fundamentally changes the current UI.

A fixed offset violates the "establish transmit on the current VFO B
frequency" principle. A long hold is fraught with timing sensitivity as
proven by all the problems with LINK vs. DIVERSITY.

This hooey over Quick Split is just like the periodic BS about wanting
direct access band buttons with frequency stacking or the debate about XFIL
vs. APF v.s. Dual PB. Creating a separate button for Split with a hold for
Quick Split is a feature that is not practical unless you want Wayne to
design a larger front panel with more buttons ... sure it might be nice but
otherwise it is a distraction as something that does not fit in the current
UI.

Could one come up with a better use of the current buttons? Probably.
How about removing B Set - simply use A/B set up B and use A/B again.
That would free up a hold of A/B for A>B then Split could move to A>B and
Split Hold be used for Quick Split. However, I'm sure someone would have a
problem with that solution as well. This is just one more manifestation of
the user interface limitations of a small format transceiver.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

______________________________________________________________
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]

w0mu

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

In reply to this post by gm3sek

Not sure where this thread has wandered but I program M3 and M4 as
"quick splits" M3 will split up 1 on cw and M4 will split up 5. You
can insert filter combinations and other options if you wish. This is
easily done with the programming.

I am not sure if this helps.

Mike W0MU

On 2/18/2015 9:33 PM, Ian White wrote:

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

Administrator

In reply to this post by alsopb

Guys - Please do not make personal attacks on this list. Phrases like "bunch of
baloney" "B.S." etc are outside of list guidelines.

Eric
List moderator
elecraft.com

On 2/19/2015 6:49 AM, brian wrote:

> Joe,
>
> This is a bunch of baloney. What you are really saying is that you don't
> like what most do. So be it. Ian's proposal won't gore your ox.
> 73 de Brian/K3KO
> On 2/19/2015 14:13 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-02-18 11:33 PM, Ian White wrote:
>>> my suggestion was to offer Quick Split as an option that could only
>>> be selected through a new item in the Configuration menu, as an
>>> alternative behavior for the existing [SPLIT] button.
>>
>> That is *wrong* on so many levels and not even the "big boys" pervert
>> the basic split function with an automatic offset. As you point out
>> the MK V did have the capability but I never used it one time in the
>> ten years or so I used the rig on a regular basis (it's still in the
>> closet unused since getting the K3s). BTW, I can't find "quick split"
>> in either the TS-590 or TS-990 manuals so it's still far from universal
>> (or obvious).
>>
>> To force a choice between simply enabling VFO B where I have already
>> set it and enable VFO B at a fixed offset from VFO A is wrong. It
>> sets up for the very thing you complain about - a user who knows the
>> operation of the rig in its normal state walks into a K3 that has
>> been perverted with Quick Split instead of split sets down and can
>> never get split right because quick split constantly wipes out the
>> user's own VFO settings.
>>
>> > No... what I am "really asking for" is WHAT I REALLY WROTE.
>>
>> What you WROTE was an "industry standard feature" - The "big boys" use
>> a second function key or a *hold* of the split button for quick split.
>> Since the "second key" version has always been available by using one
>> of the PF keys, you *must* be advocating the hold option. However,
>> since split is already a hold of A>B, as a practical matter a hold of
>> a hold function is a long hold.
>>
>> Whatever is done should *never* cause the basic definition of split -
>> "select transmit on VFO B where I have it set" to be lost or only
>> available by resetting a menu. Such an option is equivalent to "tune
>> VFO B with the big knob and tune VFO A with the little knob" - it
>> turns the user interface on its head.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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]
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2015.0.5736 / Virus Database: 4284/9144 - Release Date: 02/19/15
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Ian,

> Joe, your personal dislike for alternative behaviours for the Split
> button does not change the facts. Yaesu and Icom, the two largest
> transceiver manufacturers, *have* been providing Programmable Split
> Offset as a selectable configuration option for up to 20 years. It's
> right there in the user manuals.

I said before that I'm not opposed to a programmable Quick Split as
long as it does not change the default behavior of the Split button
(A>B Hold). No new operating feature or option should cause a user
familiar with the K3 to have difficulty operating any other K3.

> We already know that it works for the K3 as well, in the form of
> custom macros.

That's very true and you are welcome to your custom macros, button box
or whatever method you choose to implement Quick Split. However,
unless the general user interface (and front panel) is changed to make
Split the primary function on its own button, any change to the current
UI should be off limits as it can and will cause more problems than it
"solves."

Both Icom and Yaesu make Quick Split an *optional* HOLD of the split
button - it's right there in their manuals. Further, Icom is almost
forced to equalize VFOs (and moving the controls to the "back" VFO)
when turning on split because they are dealing with *single receiver*
transceivers with no separate controls for the transmit frequency.
As far as I know neither of the other "major" transceiver manufacturers
- Kenwood or TenTec - offer Quick Split (at least it does not show up
in a search of their current top of the line product manuals). That
two of five major transceiver manufacturers offer a feature (and one
does so because their UI is so screwed up) hardly makes it an "industry
standard." Playing "monkey see, monkey do" with transceiver makers
with some of the worst phase noise in the industry (IC-7600: -121
dBc/Hz @ 10 KHz, IC-7410: 121 dBc/Hz @ 10 KHz, Yaesu FTdx3000: -127
dBc/Hz @ 10 KHz per NC0B) in their single receiver transceivers is
hardly a virtue worthy of Elecraft's aspirations.

It is never wise for any equipment manufacturer to have versions of the
same model in which the primary controls (and Split is a "primary
control") behave differently from unit to unit. If you want to talk
about a new feature set for a new model with a different UI, that's
fine but don't mess with Split - even the current basic implementation
is obviously a problem. Overload the control or [optionally] change
the basic behavior of that control and you are going to cause real
confusion.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

______________________________________________________________
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]

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

Administrator

I think we've beat this topic to death at this point. Let's close the thread for
now to give everyone else some relief from quick split topic overload.

73,
Eric
List Modulator
elecraft.com
====
On 2/19/2015 2:29 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV 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]

gm3sek

Re: K3 Programmable Split?

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

W4TV wrote:

>If you want to talk
>about a new feature set for a new model with a different UI, that's
>fine but don't mess with Split

"Don't mess with Split" is not your call to make, Joe.

> even the current basic implementation
>is obviously a problem. Overload the control or [optionally] change
>the basic behavior of that control and you are going to cause real
>confusion.

At last, something we can agree about: "the current basic implementation
is obviously a problem".

The problem is that the current implementation of Split is *too* basic.
It cannot handle the routine task of preparing the K3 for pileup
operation without significant risk of human error. Hence the request for
a 'smarter' alternative that also includes the vital step of moving
VFOB away from the frequency of the DX station.

I am totally confident that Elecraft can handle the implications of
offering two alternative behaviors for the [SPLIT] button, given that
Yaesu and Icom have long been able to offer two alternatives or even
three. I am also confident that Elecraft users are at least as competent
as Yaesu and Icom users.

Let's keep this in perspective: this is a straightforward feature
request for an option that already has a proven 20-year track record.
Since it would only be an option, every K3 user would still be free to
make their own individual choice.

Given all that, I see no reason for just *one* individual to have
responded in such a wildly exaggerated manner. "A K3 that has been
perverted with Quick Split"... wherever is *that* coming from?

73 from Ian GM3SEK

______________________________________________________________
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]

Mike Cox

New KSYN3AUPG Installation

In reply to this post by wayne burdick

I installed the new K3 synthesizer boards last night into s/n 398 (with
sub Rx). The installation was very easy, requiring only the removal of
the top cover and the old synthesizer boards. I didn't even remove the
rig from the operating table, electing to sit my anti-static mat in
front of the radio and wearing the grounding strap. The radio remained
connected with +12 power turned off (it would have taken me more time to
rewire the radio into the station than was required for the actual board
swap). Total installation time was about a half hour.

The radio powered up without incident and is performing as it should.
Config: VCO MD is still present but only displays "--" as it is no
longer needed to align the synthesizers.

As one would expect, there is initially no obvious difference in the
before/after modification as far as the function of the radio. It
"sounds" the same as before. Since I only have one K3, I can't do a
quick-change A/B comparison of before and after. I'm not set up to
perform the types of measurements required to accurately measure the
changes regarding phase noise. I'll just have to take the word of others
that the radio is now able to perform at a better level than before. I
may be able to tell an improvement in CW keying timing at 35+ wpm but it
may be my imagination. It does sound good! Here's where performing a
before/after test would have real meaning to me.

But once again, I'm able to update my old K3 with the latest changes and
make it function as a new radio. I didn't have to buy a whole new radio!
That's pretty neat! I've saved so much money over the past years (not
having to buy a new radio) that I probably should go out and buy a
second K3. Maybe if Wayne would give me a hat...

I'm going to be operating for a while in the ARRL CW DX contest this
weekend so I'll give it a practical test. From my perspective there's
probably no compelling reason to make the synthesizer swap but in
theory, it should be an even quieter transmitter with regard to phase
noise and the cw keying may be a bit cleaner with reduced lock-up time
on the synthesizers. It's an easy board swap!

73,
Mike, AB9V

______________________________________________________________
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: New KSYN3AUPG Installation

Administrator

Hi Mike,

I'm glad this went well.

Another customer who just did the installation tested transmit close-in phase noise before/after and saw pretty dramatic results. At +/- 0.5 kHz from the carrier, the new synth was down about -133 dBc, while the old was down about -115 dBc. (This reduction in noise will provide a substantial benefit in both RX and TX, especially if the other radios you're tuned close to are also using K3s with the new synths.)

As you move farther from the carrier the results become less dramatic, with the old and new intersecting in their noise floors somewhere between 5 and 10 kHz. The original synth was no slouch, but the new one takes things to an entirely new level.

Two customers have now captured CW keying waveforms from the old and new synths, demonstrating a very significant reduction in timing jitter.

Finally, one of my techs called me this morning wondering if we had improved tuning accuracy. The answer is yes--we just forgot to tell them. The new synth has a lot less quantization error in its tuning, so even on the highest bands, VFO fine-tuning increments are very close to 1 Hz.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Feb 20, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Mike Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I installed the new K3 synthesizer boards last night into s/n 398 (with sub Rx). The installation was very easy, requiring only the removal of the top cover and the old synthesizer boards. I didn't even remove the rig from the operating table, electing to sit my anti-static mat in front of the radio and wearing the grounding strap. The radio remained connected with +12 power turned off (it would have taken me more time to rewire the radio into the station than was required for the actual board swap). Total installation time was about a half hour.
>
> The radio powered up without incident and is performing as it should. Config: VCO MD is still present but only displays "--" as it is no longer needed to align the synthesizers.
>
> As one would expect, there is initially no obvious difference in the before/after modification as far as the function of the radio. It "sounds" the same as before. Since I only have one K3, I can't do a quick-change A/B comparison of before and after. I'm not set up to perform the types of measurements required to accurately measure the changes regarding phase noise. I'll just have to take the word of others that the radio is now able to perform at a better level than before. I may be able to tell an improvement in CW keying timing at 35+ wpm but it may be my imagination. It does sound good! Here's where performing a before/after test would have real meaning to me.
>
> But once again, I'm able to update my old K3 with the latest changes and make it function as a new radio. I didn't have to buy a whole new radio! That's pretty neat! I've saved so much money over the past years (not having to buy a new radio) that I probably should go out and buy a second K3. Maybe if Wayne would give me a hat...
>
> I'm going to be operating for a while in the ARRL CW DX contest this weekend so I'll give it a practical test. From my perspective there's probably no compelling reason to make the synthesizer swap but in theory, it should be an even quieter transmitter with regard to phase noise and the cw keying may be a bit cleaner with reduced lock-up time on the synthesizers. It's an easy board swap!
>
> 73,
> Mike, AB9V
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Phil Wheeler-2

Re: New KSYN3AUPG Installation

In reply to this post by Mike Cox

Thanks, Mike. I was just about to disconnect all
the stuff in back from mine!

Phil W7OX

On 2/20/15 3:26 PM, Mike Cox wrote:

> I installed the new K3 synthesizer boards last
> night into s/n 398 (with sub Rx). The
> installation was very easy, requiring only the
> removal of the top cover and the old synthesizer
> boards. I didn't even remove the rig from the
> operating table, electing to sit my anti-static
> mat in front of the radio and wearing the
> grounding strap. The radio remained connected
> with +12 power turned off (it would have taken
> me more time to rewire the radio into the
> station than was required for the actual board
> swap). Total installation time was about a half
> hour.

Al Gulseth-2

Re: New KSYN3AUPG Installation

In reply to this post by wayne burdick

Wayne,

I'd say this would be worth a free hat HI HI!! 73, Al

On Fri February 20 2015 5:38:20 pm Wayne Burdick wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> I'm glad this went well....
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Mike Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I installed the new K3 synthesizer boards last night into s/n 398 (with
> > sub Rx). The installation was very easy...
>>
> > ...But once again, I'm able to update my old K3 with the latest changes
> > and make it function as a new radio. I didn't have to buy a whole new
> > radio! That's pretty neat! I've saved so much money over the past years
> > (not having to buy a new radio) that I probably should go out and buy a
> > second K3. ||Maybe if Wayne would give me a hat...|| (emphasis added)

G3XAQ

Re: New KSYN3AUPG Installation

In reply to this post by Mike Cox

> Another customer who just did the installation tested transmit close-in phase noise before/after
> and saw pretty dramatic results. At ± 0.5 kHz from the carrier, the new synth was down about -133 dBc,
> while the old was down about -115 dBc.

Does the new synth use the same chip as the KX3? It's not clear from the
datasheet but it is just conceivable the Si570 could meet this spec.

73, Alan G3XAQ
______________________________________________________________
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]