Elecraft

K3 eHam review after 2+ years

Classic

List

Threaded

57 messages Options

123

HowardZ

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

Well Dave,

I am not certain that a better radio will help me hear through the noise. A few weeks ago we had no noise at all for a few days - someone mentioned how quiet it was on one of the nets, but then a few days later the noise was back. Move 20Khz in either direction and the noise is gone, but we "stay on target" as they said near the end of Star Wars. It is rare for Mars to change freqs or switch to a digital mode. They presevere.

The MFJ 1026 takes two antennas - gain needs to be adjusted so that both antennas have the same S-units of signal strength. Then one rotates the phase 0 to 360 to try to eliminate the noise. Supposedly this works well on noise coming from your home, your neighborhood, or even DX noise. I do not think this is what people call "diversity receive". It is some kind of phase rotation to eliminate noise, though it does use two antennas. I don't know if the K3 or Flex has this function. The MFJ 1026 might be the lowest cost method for me to deal with the noise on this heavily used Mars frequency. Maybe I'll buy one soon?

Then there is the Icom 7600 - it supposedly represents a large improvement over my existing Icom. Interfaces are identical to my existing Icom. Don't need to rewire my pactor 3 TNC for example. It has downloadable firmware I think. But its too new. There might be important hardware revisions in its first year if the radios fail with the initial design. This has happened with other Icom radios in the past. It's also not considered in the Perseus, Flex, Elecraft class of performance.

I could get a Perseus, or some other receivers and use an Eldad T/R switch. This is lower cost than a new tranceiver since it's just a receiver - no transmitter. People rave about these and the Perseus is near the top of Sherwood's test list. I could rationalize that the K3's transmitter is no better than my existing transmitter, so why pay for a tranceiver? However this approach complicates interfaces to TNCs and sound card interfaces. But this choice does have merit.

I could get a loaded Flex 5000 - it costs less than the K3 loaded since the Flex doesn't use all those roofing filters. People who own the Flex them love them and they are rated well.

I have not used nor even seen in person any of these radios. However I prefer the K3 design approach over the Flex or Perseus. I don't want to ever have to say "Sorry for the silence, I had to reboot windows - everything locked up - or I got that blue screen" - I prefer a radio that has an embedded processor rather than a windows system. Turn it on - and it works - plain and simple. Yes, I'll hook a windows PC to the radio for digital modes, but at least voice works without a PC. And how many PCs can you hook up to a 12 volt battery during a power outage? Yes, there are ways to do it, but it isn't that simple.

Then there are those wonderful dynamic range figures. Supposedly the Perseus, Flex, and similar designs have the same dynamic range no matter how far away the strong signal is. So, when the strong signal is 2khz away - they are all similar in performance. (K3 has the top spec, but with it is something called "phase noise limited" which doesn't sound so great - though I don't know exactly what it is.) But what happens when the strong signal is 50KHz away? Well, I think the K3 will have much higher performance the further away the strong signal is. But the Flex, Perseus, and others will have the exact same performance. I think that also applies if the signal is 1Mhz away, 10 Mhz away, 100Mhz away - you get the idea. I suspect they need a low pass filter to protect from a strong VHF or UHF signal. Anyway, I may be wrong with this logic, but I suspect the K3 is better in this regard.

However, a strong nearby signal is not my current problem.
A better NR, NB, or something to quiet down the noise is what I need.

I currently have other options to try to solve the problem. The MFJ 1026 costs under $200. Maybe a beverage RX only antenna. I hear that an "on the ground" beverage antenna is very quiet. All it costs is 500 ft of wire to give it a try. Unfortunately I'll need to bend it to be a U shape as I don't have enough land to go 500 ft straight in one line. A better radio should also help - I think - not sure.

Anyway - to get to your question. I think (but not sure) the Perseus and the Flex are finished modding their hardware - just the software keeps changing. If I really needed to take the plunge right now, a Flex 5000A with internal tuner and second receiver might be a good choice. Still it costs alot more than the Perseus, but significantly less than a similar K3 loaded with filters.

I suspect the K3 is a better choice. I'd just hate to be sending a K3 back to the factory every year to pay for the latest hardware mods. Though I do agree it is great the K3 owners can do this without buying a K3MkII, etc..

None of these radios are "bad choices". They float to the top of Sherwood's list, and the vast majority of their owners love them. People just have preferences between them. I don't think there is definitive evidence that one is clearly superior to the other. I think my preference is for the K3 - I'll just wait until the h/w is done.

As I said before, it just doesn't look like the K3 hardware is finished. It is not 100% - not yet. It is still evolving. This makes me want to wait. Others enjoy the changes - it depends on what one likes.

I think the original author of this topic is incorrect to call the K3 100% done.

Howard.

<quote author="David Gilbert">

I'm honestly curious, Howard ... which rig (brand and model number) would you buy at this moment in time that you consider to be stable and perform better overall in its price range than the current version of the K3?

73,
Dave AB7E

P.B. Christensen

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

> "I could get a Perseus, or some other receivers and use an Eldad T/R
> switch.
> This is lower cost than a new tranceiver since it's just a receiver - no
> transmitter...But this choice does have merit."

Unless you are concerned about T/R switching time. CW QSK and operation in
the fast *TOR modes would be missing features with such a system.
Presently, severe latency issues with the Perseus and SDR-IQ preclude their
use as a serious transceiver building block.

Getting good basic performance from the receiver and transmitter in any
transceiver design is only half the battle. As rigs become more complicated
with extensive use of microprocessors and DSP, keeping the system fast,
frequency stable and under control without introducing noticeable artifacts
is the other half of the battle to be won.

Many individual designers have created receivers and transmitters with
stellar performance -- but I can only think of only a few transceiver
designs that have fully orchestrated the circuitry.

Paul, W9AC

______________________________________________________________
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

Rick Dettinger-3

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

In reply to this post by HowardZ

>

> I think the original author of this topic is incorrect to call the
> K3 100%
> done.
>

I think that this is a correct statement if we take "100% done" to
mean that the K3 meets all of its advertised specs. At least most if
not all of the mods have been enhancements, not steps to meet these
specs.

73,

Rick K7MW
______________________________________________________________
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: K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

In reply to this post by Eric Tichansky

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, E. Tichansky <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Unfortunately, there IS a problem w/ CW audio in the K3, at least with
> both here (see concurrently running thread: K3 Audio Low Pass Filter).
> The sidetones generated around the 12 kHz DAC leak-through (+/- sidetone
> frq., ie. 500Hz)are clearly audible for me and rather annoying, enough
> so that I had to insert inline low pass audio filters on each radio to
> knock it down to make CW operation tolerable. I was in correspondence
> about the issue back in Oct/Nov of last year w/ Elecraft.
>
> Regardless of the "60 db down" and other levels people have measured on
> those sidetones, I can hear it, even with as low a volume setting of
> around 9-10 o'clock. Apparently there are others that can as well. The
> majority of folks who own a K3, presumably yourself included, have a
> reduction or loss of hearing at high frequencies. From that
> perspective, the audio is great! However, not hearing it doesn't
> necessarily mean there isn't an underlying problem present, and those
> that wish to fix it aren't doing so out of "desire to tinker and change
> things."
>

Though I have the typical reduction in high frequency hearing at my current
age, I remember well being able to hear TV horizontal sweep frequency (15+
kHz) quite loudly walking into a room with a television on. I began to lose
that in my fifties. Due to some lab equipment at college, I know I could
hear 20 kHz, though not as well.

The DAC artifacts I see clearly on spectrum analysis down 60 would have been
20 db over my hearing floor, and annoying, as I had the typical reaction to
someone raking their fingernails down a chalkboard. Such a sound would
literally make my gums "vibrate".

However, I DO hear any intermod in 3-6 kHz over top of a 3 kHz bandwidth
signal, and it DOES make the audio seem harsh if there is anything there.

Does harshness make any difference in a contest? Not really. 40m has all
kinds of annoying crud that comes in. Less crud if it's a K3. 40m is an
annoying band.

From the CQWWCW 40m claimed 1728 QSOs, I lost only 15 busted/NIL, which I
credit to the clarity of the K3 listening to awful signals up close to
overpowering signals. Not that I wasn't trying hard to be accurate in the
contest, but this result simply stomps any prior personal best where I was
trying just as hard. The log also includes signals that pre-K3, I simply
would not have attempted.

We were all K3 at NY4A and the other bands/ops reflected like improvements.
It was no personal fluke.

Given that, I would have to say that the RX is an unqualified success in its
intended design. But if Elecraft was to offer an audiophile upgrade to the
K3 audio, I would put it in -- not for contesting, but just for listening
pleasure.

I still far prefer my old tube 75A3 for SSB listening, echoing an
old complaint from audiophiles about anything transistor vs. anything
tubes. But my K3 hears clearly and accurately much stuff that is inaudible
on the A3, and the skirts on the A3's mechanical filters are no match for
the K3 combined DSP and INRAD.

It would be really neat if somehow Elecraft could product audiophile audio
in the K3, but for the price spent, an admitted harshness is really
nit-picking. I'll take a board with an intended audiophile outcome, and
complain about that if it misses, but I bought my current K3 for the contest
results.

73, Guy.
K2AV
______________________________________________________________
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

Don Nesbitt

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

In reply to this post by David Gilbert

Thoughtful comments Howard. I too live in a very high noise area. No matter how carefully adjusted, the MFJ 1026 did absolutely nothing for my situation - too many different noise sources in too many different directions!

Howard - what is your amateur radio call sign? 73 -- Don N4HH
-------------- Original message from HowardZ <[hidden email]>: --------------

>
> Well Dave,
>
> I am not certain that a better radio will help me hear through the noise. A
> few weeks ago we had no noise at all for a few days - someone mentioned how
> quiet it was on one of the nets, but then a few days later the noise was
> back. Move 20Khz in either direction and the noise is gone, but we "stay on
> target" as they said near the end of Star Wars. It is rare for Mars to
> change freqs or switch to a digital mode. They presevere.
>
> The MFJ 1026 takes two antennas - gain needs to be adjusted so that both
> antennas have the same S-units of signal strength. Then one rotates the
> phase 0 to 360 to try to eliminate the noise. Supposedly this works well on
> noise coming from your home, your neighborhood, or even DX noise. I do not
> think this is what people call "diversity receive". It is some kind of
> phase rotation to eliminate noise, though it does use two antennas. I don't
> know if the K3 or Flex has this function. The MFJ 1026 might be the lowest
> cost method for me to deal with the noise on this heavily used Mars
> frequency. Maybe I'll buy one soon?
>
> Then there is the Icom 7600 - it supposedly represents a large improvement
> over my existing Icom. Interfaces are identical to my existing Icom. Don't
> need to rewire my pactor 3 TNC for example. It has downloadable firmware I
> think. But its too new. There might be important hardware revisions in its
> first year if the radios fail with the initial design. This has happened
> with other Icom radios in the past. It's also not considered in the
> Perseus, Flex, Elecraft class of performance.
>
> I could get a Perseus, or some other receivers and use an Eldad T/R switch.
> This is lower cost than a new tranceiver since it's just a receiver - no
> transmitter. People rave about these and the Perseus is near the top of
> Sherwood's test list. I could rationalize that the K3's transmitter is no
> better than my existing transmitter, so why pay for a tranceiver? However
> this approach complicates interfaces to TNCs and sound card interfaces. But
> this choice does have merit.
>
> I could get a loaded Flex 5000 - it costs less than the K3 loaded since the
> Flex doesn't use all those roofing filters. People who own the Flex them
> love them and they are rated well.
>
> I have not used nor even seen in person any of these radios. However I
> prefer the K3 design approach over the Flex or Perseus. I don't want to
> ever have to say "Sorry for the silence, I had to reboot windows -
> everything locked up - or I got that blue screen" - I prefer a radio that
> has an embedded processor rather than a windows system. Turn it on - and it
> works - plain and simple. Yes, I'll hook a windows PC to the radio for
> digital modes, but at least voice works without a PC. And how many PCs can
> you hook up to a 12 volt battery during a power outage? Yes, there are ways
> to do it, but it isn't that simple.
>
> Then there are those wonderful dynamic range figures. Supposedly the
> Perseus, Flex, and similar designs have the same dynamic range no matter how
> far away the strong signal is. So, when the strong signal is 2khz away -
> they are all similar in performance. (K3 has the top spec, but with it is
> something called "phase noise limited" which doesn't sound so great - though
> I don't know exactly what it is.) But what happens when the strong signal
> is 50KHz away? Well, I think the K3 will have much higher performance the
> further away the strong signal is. But the Flex, Perseus, and others will
> have the exact same performance. I think that also applies if the signal is
> 1Mhz away, 10 Mhz away, 100Mhz away - you get the idea. I suspect they need
> a low pass filter to protect from a strong VHF or UHF signal. Anyway, I may
> be wrong with this logic, but I suspect the K3 is better in this regard.
>
> However, a strong nearby signal is not my current problem.
> A better NR, NB, or something to quiet down the noise is what I need.
>
> I currently have other options to try to solve the problem. The MFJ 1026
> costs under $200. Maybe a beverage RX only antenna. I hear that an "on the
> ground" beverage antenna is very quiet. All it costs is 500 ft of wire to
> give it a try. Unfortunately I'll need to bend it to be a U shape as I
> don't have enough land to go 500 ft straight in one line. A better radio
> should also help - I think - not sure.
>
> Anyway - to get to your question. I think (but not sure) the Perseus and
> the Flex are finished modding their hardware - just the software keeps
> changing. If I really needed to take the plunge right now, a Flex 5000A
> with internal tuner and second receiver might be a good choice. Still it
> costs alot more than the Perseus, but significantly less than a similar K3
> loaded with filters.
>
> I suspect the K3 is a better choice. I'd just hate to be sending a K3 back
> to the factory every year to pay for the latest hardware mods. Though I do
> agree it is great the K3 owners can do this without buying a K3MkII, etc..
>
> None of these radios are "bad choices". They float to the top of Sherwood's
> list, and the vast majority of their owners love them. People just have
> preferences between them. I don't think there is definitive evidence that
> one is clearly superior to the other. I think my preference is for the K3 -
> I'll just wait until the h/w is done.
>
> As I said before, it just doesn't look like the K3 hardware is finished. It
> is not 100% - not yet. It is still evolving. This makes me want to wait.
> Others enjoy the changes - it depends on what one likes.
>
> I think the original author of this topic is incorrect to call the K3 100%
> done.
>
> Howard.
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm honestly curious, Howard ... which rig (brand and model number) would
> you buy at this moment in time that you consider to be stable and perform
> better overall in its price range than the current version of the K3?
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/K3-eHam-review-after-2%2B-years-tp3202931p3208568.html
> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

P.B. Christensen

K3 Receive Audio

In reply to this post by Guy, K2AV

> It would be really neat if somehow Elecraft could product audiophile audio
> in the K3...

The K3 audio chipsets already offer quasi audiophile-grade performance for a
single-supply rail device. Taking the performance to the next level almost
certainly requires the use of a bi-polar +/- 15 VDC supply to take advantage
of really low noise op-amps (or discrete transistors), the ability to use DC
servo control, and the use of a high-current temperature-compensated,
complimentary-symmetry transistor pair at the output. The result? Super
fast slew rates, ultra low noise & distortion, total elimination of audio
coupling caps, and low damping factor -- all the elements needed for a true
audiophile-grade amplifier.

In the alternative, one could simply purchase an audiophile-grade integrated
amp and tap the audio at the DAC. In the past, I've done this with '70s
vintage Marantz and McIntosh equipment and attained excellent results.

Regarding the low-pass filter solution: I would want to critically listen to
any active filter before permanently embedding it into a transceiver. With
yet another active stage of audio in the path, one problem may be cured
while another is introduced -- like phase distortion at the knee of a sharp
active filter.

Based on Jack Smith's data, I would be more inclined to try a simple
6dB/octave passive circuit, using one R and one C. At 12 kHz, the reduction
in grunge would be between 8-10 dB and that may be just enough for other
factors to mask the effect of the 12 kHz artifacts.

Paul, W9AC

______________________________________________________________
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

Julian, G4ILO

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

In reply to this post by HowardZ

Howard.

I recently had a problem with noise. I got an MFJ-1026. You can read my experiences of it and even listen to an audio sample here: http://www.g4ilo.com/mfj1026.html. It fits nicely between the RX in and out sockets of the KXV3 interface so you can easily switch it in and out of circuit. The K3 takes care of the TX/RX switching so your transmitted signal does not have to go through the appalling messy wiring inside the MFJ-1026. It does the job for me, but Dave G4AON has one and it sits on a shelf because it didn't work for him, so YMMV.

As for your comments on the K3, I think you got off amazingly lightly considering some of the vitriol that has been sent in my direction and even requests to have me banned from the reflector for making comments that were considered critical of Elecraft. I think Don was pretty well spot on with the review he posted on eHam. The K3 will probably never be "100% finished" but what he said was that all the modes and the subreceiver are working 100% which I believe is true (though I don't have the subreceiver, so as far as that goes it is not a personal observation.)

As for the hardware mods, well it is frustrating as an owner of an early model (S/N 222) to see it becoming "outdated" by improvements that are made as the product evolves, but that is something that happens with any electronic product. The difference with Elecraft is that they don't keep quiet about it, and even make the information available so those who are able can update their rigs to the latest specification. For those who can't, there is always the option of selling the rig and buying a new later model, which is no less than you'd have to do if you'd bought a Yaesu or Icom, or a computer come to that which is generally obsolete a couple of months after you bought it. If you can afford to wait a year or two for the improved model, you probably don't need it in the first place.

I agree with your thoughts about the 2m 10W module. Personally I would have preferred to have seen an updated range of KXV external transverters, styled to match the K3 and with uprated heat sinking to handle FM mode. I would have thought that was more in keeping with the K3's high end aspirations. Because that wasn't available I ended up getting a third party transverter of even higher spec (and greater cost.) But the 10W 2m module is only an option. You don't have to buy it if you don't need it. So if people buy it then I guess it filled a need, whatever you or I think about it.

I also think you have a fair point with regards to the transmitter. A radio with the K3's receive performance is going to be used very often to drive some high powered linears. It may be used in preference to some big desktop radios with high voltage PAs offering better linearity. But the K3 was also designed to be a portable radio that could run off a 13.8V supply. That I believe is the real limiting factor to the TX performance. It's all about compromise. If the K3 had been made with a PA that required a dedicated 40V or whatever supply that would have put off some people. You can't please everybody. The choice Elecraft made suits me personally.

The thing so many people forget is that there are so many different ways to take part in this hobby, that may require different emphases in the design of a radio. The great thing is that there is a choice available. If you make an intelligent buying decision, you can get the perfect radio for your needs, or as near perfect as you can expect.

I have certainly been critical of Elecraft in the past for taking longer than I expected to fulfil the expectations I had of the K3, but I believe, like Don, that they have finally made it. I'm glad I "hung in there" through the various issues. I'm sorry I upset some people by some of my criticisms, but I do believe that they - and the criticisms made by others - have helped make the K3 the radio it is today. And at this moment in time I'm very pleased to be a K3 owner.

Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com
* KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html
* KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html

AC7AC

Re: K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

In reply to this post by Guy, K2AV

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

KK7P

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

In reply to this post by Julian, G4ILO

Hello Julian!

> ...I'm sorry I upset some people by some of my criticisms,
> but I do believe that they - and the criticisms made by others - have helped
> make the K3 the radio it is today. And at this moment in time I'm very
> pleased to be a K3 owner.

If the only feedback we ever had was from satisfied customers telling us
what the liked about their radio, product improvement would be less
rapid and perhaps in directions that customer didn't want, but marketing
people thought they did.

All we ask is that we be given the opportunity to understand complaints
and problems along with a chance to correct things. It often takes
longer than we'd like, and frankly we've lost a few customers along the way.

But I think our products are better for having had the critical
complaints. And it has certainly made our journey more... interesting :-)

Thank you for helping us improve the K3.

73,

Lyle KK7P

PS - Naturally, we also like the positive comments! Sometimes they help
during the Dark Times.

______________________________________________________________
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

Paul - WW2PT

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

In reply to this post by Rick Dettinger-3

Wasn't Synchronous AM detection in the original advertised
specifications?

Still waiting patiently...

73,
Paul WW2PT

On Jul 5, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Rick Dettinger wrote:

>> I think the original author of this topic is incorrect to call the
>> K3 100%
>> done.
>>
>
> I think that this is a correct statement if we take "100% done" to
> mean that the K3 meets all of its advertised specs. At least most if
> not all of the mods have been enhancements, not steps to meet these
> specs.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick K7MW

Harris K9RJ

Re: K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

In reply to this post by Guy, K2AV

Given the likely expense of. Real audiophile audio chain, I would happily settle for a audiophile grade 'line out' which I would then run into a high quality stereo amp. So the question is even an audiophile line out feasible for a reasonable amount of $$ given we have to be limited to a 13 v power supply?
Harris K9RJ K3 1855

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Olinger <[hidden email]>

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 15:48:00
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, E. Tichansky <[hidden email]> wrote:

Harris K9RJ

Grant Youngman

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

In reply to this post by Paul - WW2PT

On Jul 5, 2009, at 5:15 PM, WW2PT wrote:

> Wasn't Synchronous AM detection in the original advertised
> specifications?
>
> Still waiting patiently...

So am I. But I don't get a warm and fuzzy that it's on anybody's
priority list. I might start holding my breath again .. IF there's
ever a positive hint about it.

Grant/NQ5T
______________________________________________________________
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

dj7mgq

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

In reply to this post by Julian, G4ILO

Hi Julian,

> I also think you have a fair point with regards to the transmitter. A
> radio with the K3's receive performance is going to be used very often
> to drive some high powered linears.

Full ack.

> But the K3 was also designed to be a portable radio that could run off
> a 13.8V supply.

And it does a wonderful job doing so.

> That I believe is the real limiting factor to the TX performance.
It's > all about compromise.

Again full ack.

But this got me wondering, especially as Elecraft apparently has not
fully abandoned QRO PAs, according to mail from Wayne shortly after
Dayton. Could the low power transverter output be usable (with minor
modifications) to excite a highly linear, higher supply voltage, low
noise, QRO TX amplifier chain and might this be a possible Elecraft
product for K3s being used in a "fixed" fashion?

Also one must not forget that the IMD at c. 20W generally speaking will
be markedly better than at c. 80W. So the decision process of which
external high power amplifier is to be used, should not only include how
much driving power it requires but, more importantly, imho, how well the
exciter behaves at the required drive level.

vy 73 de toby
--
DD5FZ
K2 #885, K2/100 #3248, K3/100 #67

______________________________________________________________
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: K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

In reply to this post by Eric Tichansky

Though I have the typical reduction in high frequency hearing at my current
age, I remember well being able to hear TV horizontal sweep frequency (15+
kHz) quite loudly walking into a room with a television on. I began to lose
that in my fifties. Due to some lab equipment at college, I know I could
hear 20 kHz, though not as well.

The DAC artifacts I see clearly on spectrum analysis down 60 would have been
20 db over my hearing floor, and annoying, as I had the typical reaction to
someone raking their fingernails down a chalkboard.

However, I still DO hear any intermod in 3-6 kHz over top of a 3 kHz
bandwidth signal, and it DOES make the audio seem harsh if there is anything
there.

Does harshness make any difference in a contest? Not that I can tell. 40m
has all kinds of annoying crud that comes in. Less crud if it's a K3. 40m
is an annoying band. But I didn't buy the K3 for audiophile audio.

In the CQWWCW 40m I lost only 15 busted/NIL out of a claimed 1728 QSOs. I
credit this to the clarity of the K3 listening to terribly weak signals up
close to overpowering signals. To boot, the log includes many signals that
pre-K3, I simply would not have attempted. Not that I wasn't trying
very hard to be accurate in the contest, but this result simply stomps any
prior personal best, where I was trying just as hard.

We were all K3 at NY4A and the other bands/ops reflected like improvements.
It was no personal fluke.

Given that, I would have to say that the RX is an unqualified success in its
intended design. But if Elecraft was to offer an audiophile upgrade to the
K3 audio, I would put it in -- not for contesting, but just for listening
pleasure.

I still far prefer my old tube 75A3 for SSB listening (not contesting),
echoing an old complaint from audiophiles about anything transistor vs.
anything tubes. Then again, my K3 hears clearly and accurately much stuff
that is inaudible on the A3, and the skirts on the A3's mechanical filters
are no match for the K3 combined DSP and INRAD.

It would be really neat if somehow Elecraft could produce audiophile audio
in the K3, but for the price spent and the central premise of the design, an
admitted harshness is just nit-picking. I'll take a K3 board that Elecraft
intends to be audiophile outcome, and complain about that if it misses, but
I bought my current K3 for the contest results.

73, Guy.
K2AV
______________________________________________________________
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

Don Wilhelm-4

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

In reply to this post by Grant Youngman

Grant, That has not been forgotten.
I believe I heard Lyle mention Synchronous AM on the Elecraft SSB net
today. Signals were weak, and I was not able to hear all of it, but I
got the idea that it was one of the items on his near-term work agenda.

73,
Don W3FPR

Grant Youngman wrote:

> On Jul 5, 2009, at 5:15 PM, WW2PT wrote:
>
>
>> Wasn't Synchronous AM detection in the original advertised
>> specifications?
>>
>> Still waiting patiently...
>>
>
>
> So am I. But I don't get a warm and fuzzy that it's on anybody's
> priority list. I might start holding my breath again .. IF there's
> ever a positive hint about it.
>
>
>

Rick Dettinger-3

Re: K3 eHam review after 2+ years

In reply to this post by Paul - WW2PT

Yes, of course you are right. I was referring to hardwear changes
that would require returning the rig to Aptos or going inside with a
hot soldering iron in hand. There is no point in waiting to buy a K3
until the firmwear is fully mature as there is not much involved in
dong a periodic upgrade online. It does help if you live near one of
the design engineers ):.

73,

Rick K7MW in Mount Vernon, Wa.

> Wasn't Synchronous AM detection in the original advertised
> specifications?
>
> Still waiting patiently...
>
> 73,
> Paul WW2PT
>
> On Jul 5, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Rick Dettinger wrote:
>
>>> I think the original author of this topic is incorrect to call the
>>> K3 100%
>>> done.
>>>
>>
>> I think that this is a correct statement if we take "100% done" to
>> mean that the K3 meets all of its advertised specs. At least most if
>> not all of the mods have been enhancements, not steps to meet these
>> specs.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Rick K7MW
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

pd0psb

Re: K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

In reply to this post by AC7AC

<<Given the likely expense of. Real audiophile audio chain, I would happily

settle for a audiophile grade 'line out'>>

If ever (but not very likely), the best way, I think, would be a
pre-DAC spdif output. Toslink (optical spdif) would provide galvanic
seperation.

(It would ofcourse be great to also output I/Q or 15kHz IF this way ;-)

73'

Paul

PD0PSB
______________________________________________________________
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

KM6XZ

Re: K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

In reply to this post by Harris K9RJ

Audiophile as a term means little in describing perceived sound quality, it
is usually only an indicator of cost and the degree with which buzz words
have overtaken logic, reason and physics. Among engineers who design the
stuff, audiophiles are held in low esteem....but catering to their excesses
and silly myths does pay the mortgage.

Rather than replacing the chain, the components already in place are
suitable for pleasant sonic experiences so long as there are reasonable
source signals, if the design goal is identified. Just saying you want a
"better" audio path does not help, a DC-Daylight bandwidth and 0.005%
THD/IMD will not provide the experience you are probably seeking and
imagining when you say "better". If you are specific in your request, it is
not hard to set it up so your needs are met. But as with anything moving in
one direction means compromises in another, what are you willing to give up
as not being so important to you? The root source of the objectionable
quality is probably far removed from the audio chain, in or before the
detector.

The best fidelity I have in a communications receiver is a little DC
receiver with a good balanced detector. Despite having no selectivity or
features, listening to QRM and noise on that one with headphones is quite
pleasant and the lack of IMD allows the brain to focus on one of the many
signals in its bandpass with ease and lack of fatigue. That is an
interesting experience and does show that noisy bands and raw signals are in
some manner a high enough quality signal source if the receiver does not
introduce too much IMD and artifacts. How to accomplish that with the added
requirement of selectivity is the question.

It is something I intend to play around a little with now that I have my
mini-lab set up in my kitchen in my small 18th century apartment in the
center of St Petersburg Russia. I keep bringing gear back in suitcases,
mostly the small items, each trip back "home" to California where I have a
suitable lab for both RF and primarily audio design/prototyping. I have been
able to bring about 300lbs of gear over the last 6 years including a Audio
Precision Dual Domain, a Motorola Service monitor, 2 Sound Technology
distortion analyzers and generators, HP spectrum analyzer, wave analyzer, a
vector voltmeter, and the usual stuff like scopes and meters.
There are lots of electronic hobbyists here and there are parts stores but
the selection of parts is limited. What surprises me most is the lack of
tubes. The largest transmitter tube company in Russia is here yet no one
stocks tubes. I was hoping for a good supply of the 3CX300A made by Svetlana
made here since several of my designs use that high power audio tube.
I have a K2 now but hope to get a K3 if I ever slow down on my other hobbies
such as going out partying several times a week until 6am or with acquiring
lenses for my camera. Good lenses make most Ham radio purchases look like a
bargain.

My background has primarily been the recording side of sound, that gave me
the money and time to pursue the design side as a semi-profitable hobby. A
few of my recordings are still heard on the radio every day years later and
2 of my power amps are still in production by high end "Audiophile"
manufacturers. First licensed at 10 in 1959, still fascinated by sending
things through the "ether".

By the way, just to start an argument....Ask an Italian or American who
invented radio and the answer will be the same. But wrong, that honor does
and should go to A.C. Popov who was a professor of electrical engineering
here in St Petersburg with practical applied systems being used by the
Imperial Navy for search and rescue predating Marconi's early spark
experiments. If you come to this fascinating, beautiful city be sure to
visit the world's largest communications museum, which houses the Popov
collection and the largest stamp collection in the world.

Stan
KM6XZ
St Petersburg

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 2:35 AM
To: Guy Olinger; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

Given the likely expense of. Real audiophile audio chain, I would happily
settle for a audiophile grade 'line out' which I would then run into a high
quality stereo amp. So the question is even an audiophile line out feasible
for a reasonable amount of $$ given we have to be limited to a 13 v power
supply?
Harris K9RJ K3 1855

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Olinger <[hidden email]>

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 15:48:00
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, E. Tichansky <[hidden email]> wrote:

Alexander Ponomarenko-5

Re: K3 Audio (WAS K3 eHam review after 2+ years)

In reply to this post by Guy, K2AV

Guy,

it is possible make the K3 audio more audiophile.
Good sound are always better, for contesting or for listening pleasure. :-)
If we has less audio distortions we can to hear the pule-up's more
comfortable.
Why K3 named CW-rigs? Because CW needed narrow passband, and as result
less noise and distortions in passband. For SSB or CW-wide-passband
effect ''harshness''
more is brightly expressed, if we have several stations inside.
Here is same mods from my friend and K3-owner RA3BA.
First mod included replacement two caps, and added one cap in AF-amp.
This mod allows to get much more audiophile sound.
Second mod are for ""IF buffer AMP"" capasitors.
This mod give more clear sound, bacause this mod allows to improve of
the K3-noise.

Same weeks ago we talk about this mods in "K3-Headphone"-thread:

"I has tried replacing the 10uF caps with 100uF in AF-amp, also in
data-sheet for LM4811MM we see for the pin 10 have to add for 1uF cap.
These caps - near Front Panel Phone Out. C9=C13=100uF 10V
also add 1uF: "+" to pin 10 U2; "-" to ground.
The result is excellent with my ProSet.
Sound clean and deep. Signals became more raised, proturberant, appeared
"body of the sound", clearly differ the most small details in signals.
Such sensation, that earlier the signals got through blanket,
but now here is they, straight before my eyes, and they proturberant and
volumetric.
As my ears as SpectroLab also "sees the difference". You can see my
plots "before" and "after" same mods."

before mods: http://forum.cqham.ru/download.php?id=43281
after mods: http://forum.cqham.ru/download.php?id=43282

before s9 level: http://forum.cqham.ru/download.php?id=43279
after s9 level: http://forum.cqham.ru/download.php?id=43280

"IF buffer amplifier also have to be modified. Using only
electrolytic caps C84 and C92 not is enough, they must be bypass
by ceramic caps."
Photo: http://forum.cqham.ru/files/thumbs/t_img_0009_928.jpg

Try these mods, and yours K3's will have excellent sound.
Good luck!

73! Alex

Guy Olinger K2AV:

> The DAC artifacts I see clearly on spectrum analysis down 60 would have been
> 20 db over my hearing floor, and annoying, as I had the typical reaction to
> someone raking their fingernails down a chalkboard.
>
> However, I still DO hear any intermod in 3-6 kHz over top of a 3 kHz
> bandwidth signal, and it DOES make the audio seem harsh if there is anything
> there.
>
> Does harshness make any difference in a contest? Not that I can tell. 40m
> has all kinds of annoying crud that comes in. Less crud if it's a K3. 40m
> is an annoying band. But I didn't buy the K3 for audiophile audio.
>
> Given that, I would have to say that the RX is an unqualified success in its
> intended design. But if Elecraft was to offer an audiophile upgrade to the
> K3 audio, I would put it in -- not for contesting, but just for listening
> pleasure.
>
> It would be really neat if somehow Elecraft could produce audiophile audio
> in the K3, but for the price spent and the central premise of the design, an
> admitted harshness is just nit-picking. I'll take a K3 board that Elecraft
> intends to be audiophile outcome, and complain about that if it misses, but
> I bought my current K3 for the contest results.
>
> 73, Guy.
> K2AV
>

AC7AC

Re: K3 Audio

In reply to this post by KM6XZ

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

123