Elecraft

[K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

Classic

List

Threaded

30 messages Options

k6dgw

Re: [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

Why not adopt the grammar of the Lao [and Thai] languages which have no
plural forms. It would be K3S, two K3S, three K3S, one hundred K3S
... I've always thought K3S was a misteak, K3.1 would have been better
... or not.

73,

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

On 6/27/2018 3:00 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote:

> Would not K3S' be the plural of K3S?
>
> Bob, K4TAX
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 27, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Ian White <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
>> both
>>> transmit and receive phase noise.
>> That is far too simplistic. Anyone's personal definition of "the
>> better synthesizer" will depend on what range of frequency offsets
>> is more important for their particular type of operating.
>>
>> For HF CW in particular, phase noise at small frequency offsets is
>> of paramount importance and I wouldn't argue with Don's report of "a
>> huge improvement in both transmit and receive phase noise" - but
>> *only* in that specific context. There are also several other
>> advantages that are relevant to high-performance HF CW that could
>> also justify upgrading to the KSYN3A.
>>
>> At close frequency offsets from the carrier, the KSYN3A does indeed
>> offer a large reduction in phase noise compared with the KSYN3
>> (which itself was already good). But at wider frequency offsets,
>> that situation reverses. According to the ARRL review [1], at all
>> offsets beyond about 6kHz, the older KSYN3 continues to have a lower
>> noise floor than the newer KSYN3A "upgrade".
>>
>> Performance at wider frequency offsets, 10-100kHz and beyond, is of
>> much greater importance in VHF-UHF contesting. This due to a
>> combination of factors. The strongest signals at VHF-UHF are often
>> much stronger than on HF, due to the use of high-gain beam antennas;
>> and also the weakest signals are *always* much, much weaker due to
>> the lower levels of natural background noise. These two features
>> stretch the requirement for dynamic range on VHF-UHF far beyond
>> those for which most HF transceivers are designed.
>>
>> Anyone transmitting wideband phase noise has a much greater risk of
>> raising the noise floor of many other stations across the whole
>> contesting segment of the VHF or UHF band. Running the numbers
>> reveals that anyone aiming to be a Big Gun in VHF contests has a
>> responsibility to keep their wideband transmitted noise floor below
>> about -130dBc/Hz at frequency offsets of 50kHz and more [2]. This
>> can be a major engineering challenge, and the performance of the
>> transceiver is almost always the most important building block.
>>
>> The KSYN3A just about meets the -130dBc/Hz noise floor target at
>> frequency offsets of 10kHz or more... but according to the ARRL
>> review [1] the older KSYN3 achieves it much more comfortably, with
>> 10-15dB to spare.
>>
>> I have both a K3S and a very early-model K3. The K3S (with the
>> KSYN3A, of course) is used for HF contesting where smaller frequency
>> offsets are important. Meanwhile the old K3 is now used as a
>> transverter driver for 144MHz and above - and for that particular
>> purpose there are very good reasons *not* to replace the original
>> KSYN3.
>>
>> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ProductReviewsForDeb/2015/pr112015.pd
>> f
>>
>> [2]
>> https://thersgb.org/members/publications/video_archive.php?id=5703
>> Sorry, this talk is accessible only to RSGB members, but in a few
>> words...
>>
>> G8DOH runs the numbers to demonstrate that the -130dBc/Hz target
>> for transmitted phase noise is necessary to avoid raising the noise
>> floor of other stations many kilometres away, and also many tens to
>> hundreds of kHz away across the band, whenever their high-gain beams
>> happen to be pointed at each other.
>>
>> That calculation assumes the UK transmitter power limit of 400W PEP
>> output. For the US power limit of 1500W output, keeping all other
>> assumptions the same, the target for transmitted noise floor would
>> need to be better than -135dBc/Hz. The older KSYN3 can still meet
>> that more stringent target but the KSYN3A probably cannot.
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:elecraft-
>>> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Don Wilhelm
>>> Sent: 27 June 2018 14:23
>>> To: hawley, charles j jr; Charlie T
>>> Cc: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)
>>>
>>> Chuck,
>>>
>>> A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
>> both
>>> transmit and receive phase noise. It is like getting a new
>> transceiver.
>>> If you are strictly a casual operator, those qualities may not be
>>> important to you, but if you are a DX'er or a contester, or
>> otherwise
>>> operate in crowded band condition, those things should be important
>>> to you.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Don W3FPR
>>>
>>>> On 6/27/2018 9:03 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
>>>> I decided to bypass the replacement of the synthesizers. Could
>> you
>>> describe the "huge" difference?
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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]
>

Don Wilhelm

Re: [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

Skip,

Maybe, but that is not within the Elecraft policy of not releasing a new
model with every upgrade mod like other manufacturers do.
The K3S is more than an upgraded K3 (for example, the RF Board cannot be
changed in the K3), but it is similar to the change in the K2 that
happened at SN 3000.

Hindsight says it should have been called the K4 or something similar.

Eric is likely to shut down this thread soon! Too many posts, and here
I am adding to the count.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 6/27/2018 7:12 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:

> Why not adopt the grammar of the Lao [and Thai] languages which have no
> plural forms. It would be K3S, two K3S, three K3S, one hundred K3S
> ... I've always thought K3S was a misteak, K3.1 would have been better
> ... or not.
>
> 73,
>
> Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
> Sparks NV DM09dn
> Washoe County
>
> On 6/27/2018 3:00 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote:
>> Would not K3S' be the plural of K3S?
>>
>> Bob, K4TAX
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Ian White <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>> A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
>>> both
>>>> transmit and receive phase noise.
>>> That is far too simplistic. Anyone's personal definition of "the
>>> better synthesizer" will depend on what range of frequency offsets
>>> is more important for their particular type of operating.
>>>
>>> For HF CW in particular, phase noise at small frequency offsets is
>>> of paramount importance and I wouldn't argue with Don's report of "a
>>> huge improvement in both transmit and receive phase noise" - but
>>> *only* in that specific context. There are also several other
>>> advantages that are relevant to high-performance HF CW that could
>>> also justify upgrading to the KSYN3A.
>>>
>>> At close frequency offsets from the carrier, the KSYN3A does indeed
>>> offer a large reduction in phase noise compared with the KSYN3
>>> (which itself was already good). But at wider frequency offsets,
>>> that situation reverses. According to the ARRL review [1], at all
>>> offsets beyond about 6kHz, the older KSYN3 continues to have a lower
>>> noise floor than the newer KSYN3A "upgrade".
>>>
>>> Performance at wider frequency offsets, 10-100kHz and beyond, is of
>>> much greater importance in VHF-UHF contesting. This due to a
>>> combination of factors. The strongest signals at VHF-UHF are often
>>> much stronger than on HF, due to the use of high-gain beam antennas;
>>> and also the weakest signals are *always* much, much weaker due to
>>> the lower levels of natural background noise. These two features
>>> stretch the requirement for dynamic range on VHF-UHF far beyond
>>> those for which most HF transceivers are designed.
>>>
>>> Anyone transmitting wideband phase noise has a much greater risk of
>>> raising the noise floor of many other stations across the whole
>>> contesting segment of the VHF or UHF band. Running the numbers
>>> reveals that anyone aiming to be a Big Gun in VHF contests has a
>>> responsibility to keep their wideband transmitted noise floor below
>>> about -130dBc/Hz at frequency offsets of 50kHz and more [2]. This
>>> can be a major engineering challenge, and the performance of the
>>> transceiver is almost always the most important building block.
>>>
>>> The KSYN3A just about meets the -130dBc/Hz noise floor target at
>>> frequency offsets of 10kHz or more... but according to the ARRL
>>> review [1] the older KSYN3 achieves it much more comfortably, with
>>> 10-15dB to spare.
>>>
>>> I have both a K3S and a very early-model K3. The K3S (with the
>>> KSYN3A, of course) is used for HF contesting where smaller frequency
>>> offsets are important. Meanwhile the old K3 is now used as a
>>> transverter driver for 144MHz and above - and for that particular
>>> purpose there are very good reasons *not* to replace the original
>>> KSYN3.
>>>
>>> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ProductReviewsForDeb/2015/pr112015.pd
>>> f
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> https://thersgb.org/members/publications/video_archive.php?id=5703
>>> Sorry, this talk is accessible only to RSGB members, but in a few
>>> words...
>>>
>>> G8DOH runs the numbers to demonstrate that the -130dBc/Hz target
>>> for transmitted phase noise is necessary to avoid raising the noise
>>> floor of other stations many kilometres away, and also many tens to
>>> hundreds of kHz away across the band, whenever their high-gain beams
>>> happen to be pointed at each other.
>>>
>>> That calculation assumes the UK transmitter power limit of 400W PEP
>>> output. For the US power limit of 1500W output, keeping all other
>>> assumptions the same, the target for transmitted noise floor would
>>> need to be better than -135dBc/Hz. The older KSYN3 can still meet
>>> that more stringent target but the KSYN3A probably cannot.
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:elecraft-
>>>> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Don Wilhelm
>>>> Sent: 27 June 2018 14:23
>>>> To: hawley, charles j jr; Charlie T
>>>> Cc: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)
>>>>
>>>> Chuck,
>>>>
>>>> A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
>>> both
>>>> transmit and receive phase noise. It is like getting a new
>>> transceiver.
>>>> If you are strictly a casual operator, those qualities may not be
>>>> important to you, but if you are a DX'er or a contester, or
>>> otherwise
>>>> operate in crowded band condition, those things should be important
>>>> to you.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Don W3FPR
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/27/2018 9:03 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
>>>>> I decided to bypass the replacement of the synthesizers. Could
>>> you
>>>> describe the "huge" difference?
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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]
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Jeff Griffin

Re: [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

In reply to this post by k6dgw

Or how about K3Pro with benefits :-)

73 Jeff kb2m

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fred Jensen
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 7:13 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

Why not adopt the grammar of the Lao [and Thai] languages which have no
plural forms. It would be K3S, two K3S, three K3S, one hundred K3S
... I've always thought K3S was a misteak, K3.1 would have been better
... or not.

73,

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

On 6/27/2018 3:00 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX 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]

______________________________________________________________
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] factory upgrade to K3(s)

Administrator

And with that, let's go ahead and close the thread. :-)

73,
Eric
/elecraft.com/

On 6/27/2018 5:31 PM, jeff griffin wrote:

> Or how about K3Pro with benefits :-)
>
> 73 Jeff kb2m
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fred Jensen
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 7:13 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)
>
> Why not adopt the grammar of the Lao [and Thai] languages which have no
> plural forms. It would be K3S, two K3S, three K3S, one hundred K3S
> ... I've always thought K3S was a misteak, K3.1 would have been better
> ... or not.
>

ab2tc

Re: [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

In reply to this post by Bob McGraw - K4TAX

Hi all,

There is a bit of misinformation in this thread. The new synthesizer does
not make any difference to the noise floor in the absence of strong nearby
signals. This is how noise floor is usually measured. What it does is
improving the reciprocal mixing of nearby signals and the phase noise on
transmit. This improvement is significant. But the basic sensitivity of the
receiver (noise floor) is not affected.

AB2TC - Knut

--
Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Buck

Re: [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

In reply to this post by k6dgw

Hey, at least it is not "K3 Pro" or "K3 Mark IIG"

k4ia, Buck
K3# 101
Honor Roll 8B DXCC
EasyWayHamBooks.com

On 6/27/2018 7:12 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:

alorona

Re: [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

In reply to this post by gm3sek

I'm not sure I agree with the exact numbers, Ian. I'm looking at the review from Nov 2015 QST (from the Product Review archive on www.arrl.org ) and it appears that the difference in phase noise between old and new synths is closer to about 3 dB (difficult to tell from the graph) beginning at offsets of *50 or 100 kHz*, not the 6 kHz you cited. At 6 kHz the new still beats the old by almost 20 dB!

So, while the old synthesizer certainly exhibits lower transmitted phase noise out beyond 50 kHz offset, the new one is within a few dB of it, and at 50 MHz both seem to meet the -130 dBc/Hz limit you cited.

Al W6LX

________________________________
From: Ian White <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

>A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
both
>transmit and receive phase noise.

That is far too simplistic. Anyone's personal definition of "the
better synthesizer" will depend on what range of frequency offsets
is more important for their particular type of operating.

For HF CW in particular, phase noise at small frequency offsets is
of paramount importance and I wouldn't argue with Don's report of "a
huge improvement in both transmit and receive phase noise" - but
*only* in that specific context. There are also several other
advantages that are relevant to high-performance HF CW that could
also justify upgrading to the KSYN3A.

At close frequency offsets from the carrier, the KSYN3A does indeed
offer a large reduction in phase noise compared with the KSYN3
(which itself was already good). But at wider frequency offsets,
that situation reverses. According to the ARRL review [1], at all
offsets beyond about 6kHz, the older KSYN3 continues to have a lower
noise floor than the newer KSYN3A "upgrade".

Performance at wider frequency offsets, 10-100kHz and beyond, is of
much greater importance in VHF-UHF contesting. This due to a
combination of factors. The strongest signals at VHF-UHF are often
much stronger than on HF, due to the use of high-gain beam antennas;
and also the weakest signals are *always* much, much weaker due to
the lower levels of natural background noise. These two features
stretch the requirement for dynamic range on VHF-UHF far beyond
those for which most HF transceivers are designed.

Anyone transmitting wideband phase noise has a much greater risk of
raising the noise floor of many other stations across the whole
contesting segment of the VHF or UHF band. Running the numbers
reveals that anyone aiming to be a Big Gun in VHF contests has a
responsibility to keep their wideband transmitted noise floor below
about -130dBc/Hz at frequency offsets of 50kHz and more [2]. This
can be a major engineering challenge, and the performance of the
transceiver is almost always the most important building block.

The KSYN3A just about meets the -130dBc/Hz noise floor target at
frequency offsets of 10kHz or more... but according to the ARRL
review [1] the older KSYN3 achieves it much more comfortably, with
10-15dB to spare.

I have both a K3S and a very early-model K3. The K3S (with the
KSYN3A, of course) is used for HF contesting where smaller frequency
offsets are important. Meanwhile the old K3 is now used as a
transverter driver for 144MHz and above - and for that particular
purpose there are very good reasons *not* to replace the original
KSYN3.

73 from Ian GM3SEK

[1]
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ProductReviewsForDeb/2015/pr112015.pd
f

[2]
https://thersgb.org/members/publications/video_archive.php?id=5703
Sorry, this talk is accessible only to RSGB members, but in a few
words...

G8DOH runs the numbers to demonstrate that the -130dBc/Hz target
for transmitted phase noise is necessary to avoid raising the noise
floor of other stations many kilometres away, and also many tens to
hundreds of kHz away across the band, whenever their high-gain beams
happen to be pointed at each other.

That calculation assumes the UK transmitter power limit of 400W PEP
output. For the US power limit of 1500W output, keeping all other
assumptions the same, the target for transmitted noise floor would
need to be better than -135dBc/Hz. The older KSYN3 can still meet
that more stringent target but the KSYN3A probably cannot.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [hidden email] [mailto:elecraft-
>[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Don Wilhelm
>Sent: 27 June 2018 14:23
>To: hawley, charles j jr; Charlie T
>Cc: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

>
>Chuck,
>
>A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
both
>transmit and receive phase noise. It is like getting a new
transceiver.
>
>If you are strictly a casual operator, those qualities may not be
>important to you, but if you are a DX'er or a contester, or
otherwise
>operate in crowded band condition, those things should be important
>to you.
>
>73,
>Don W3FPR
>
>On 6/27/2018 9:03 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
>> I decided to bypass the replacement of the synthesizers. Could
you
>describe the "huge" difference?
>>

______________________________________________________________
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] factory upgrade to K3(s)

Al, thank you for pointing this out.

To my surprise, the reason for the difference between Al's
interpretation and mine is that there are *two different versions*
of the ARRL review of the KSYN3A, both available on the arrl.org
website. The version retrieved appears to depend on the search route
taken.

My message posted on Wednesday 27th June was based on the weblink
referenced within the message. In that version, Figure 10 shows a
very distinct phase noise advantage for the older KSYN3 at wider
frequency offsets.

However, the version accessed by Al is *different*. In this second
version, Figures 10 and 11 both show much lower levels of phase
noise from the KSYN3A at wider frequency offsets. (That appears to
be the only change, that Figures 10 and 11 have been quietly
replaced.) Based on this second version, I would agree with Al that
there is no significant difference in phase noise between the KSYN3
and KSYN3A at wider offsets.

In view of the uncertainly between the two different sets of
published results for wider frequency offsets, it seems best to
withdraw my message posted on Wednesday 27th June.

Thanks once again to Al W6LX for pointing this out.

73 from Ian GM3SEK

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [hidden email] [mailto:elecraft-
>[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Al Lorona
>Sent: 29 June 2018 22:47
>To: Ian White; [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)
>
>I'm not sure I agree with the exact numbers, Ian. I'm looking at
the
>review from Nov 2015 QST (from the Product Review archive on
>www.arrl.org ) and it appears that the difference in phase noise
>between old and new synths is closer to about 3 dB (difficult to
tell from
>the graph) beginning at offsets of *50 or 100 kHz*, not the 6 kHz
you
>cited. At 6 kHz the new still beats the old by almost 20 dB!
>
>So, while the old synthesizer certainly exhibits lower transmitted
phase
>noise out beyond 50 kHz offset, the new one is within a few dB of
it,

>and at 50 MHz both seem to meet the -130 dBc/Hz limit you cited.
>
>Al W6LX
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Ian White <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 2:45 PM
>Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)
>
>
>
>>A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
>both
>>transmit and receive phase noise.
>
>That is far too simplistic. Anyone's personal definition of "the
>better synthesizer" will depend on what range of frequency offsets
>is more important for their particular type of operating.
>
>For HF CW in particular, phase noise at small frequency offsets is
>of paramount importance and I wouldn't argue with Don's report of

>huge improvement in both transmit and receive phase noise" - but
>*only* in that specific context. There are also several other
>advantages that are relevant to high-performance HF CW that could
>also justify upgrading to the KSYN3A.
>
>At close frequency offsets from the carrier, the KSYN3A does indeed
>offer a large reduction in phase noise compared with the KSYN3
>(which itself was already good). But at wider frequency offsets,
>that situation reverses. According to the ARRL review [1], at all
>offsets beyond about 6kHz, the older KSYN3 continues to have a

lower
>noise floor than the newer KSYN3A "upgrade".
>
>Performance at wider frequency offsets, 10-100kHz and beyond, is of
>much greater importance in VHF-UHF contesting. This due to a
>combination of factors. The strongest signals at VHF-UHF are often
>much stronger than on HF, due to the use of high-gain beam
antennas;

>and also the weakest signals are *always* much, much weaker due to
>the lower levels of natural background noise. These two features
>stretch the requirement for dynamic range on VHF-UHF far beyond
>those for which most HF transceivers are designed.
>
>Anyone transmitting wideband phase noise has a much greater risk of
>raising the noise floor of many other stations across the whole
>contesting segment of the VHF or UHF band. Running the numbers
>reveals that anyone aiming to be a Big Gun in VHF contests has a
>responsibility to keep their wideband transmitted noise floor below
>about -130dBc/Hz at frequency offsets of 50kHz and more [2]. This
>can be a major engineering challenge, and the performance of the
>transceiver is almost always the most important building block.
>
>The KSYN3A just about meets the -130dBc/Hz noise floor target at
>frequency offsets of 10kHz or more... but according to the ARRL
>review [1] the older KSYN3 achieves it much more comfortably, with
>10-15dB to spare.
>
>I have both a K3S and a very early-model K3. The K3S (with the
>KSYN3A, of course) is used for HF contesting where smaller

frequency

>offsets are important. Meanwhile the old K3 is now used as a
>transverter driver for 144MHz and above - and for that particular
>purpose there are very good reasons *not* to replace the original
>KSYN3.
>
>73 from Ian GM3SEK
>
>
>[1]
>http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ProductReviewsForDeb/2015/pr112015.p
>d
>f
>
>[2]
>https://thersgb.org/members/publications/video_archive.php?id=5703
>Sorry, this talk is accessible only to RSGB members, but in a few
>words...
>
>G8DOH runs the numbers to demonstrate that the -130dBc/Hz target
>for transmitted phase noise is necessary to avoid raising the noise
>floor of other stations many kilometres away, and also many tens to
>hundreds of kHz away across the band, whenever their high-gain

beams

>happen to be pointed at each other.
>
>That calculation assumes the UK transmitter power limit of 400W PEP
>output. For the US power limit of 1500W output, keeping all other
>assumptions the same, the target for transmitted noise floor would
>need to be better than -135dBc/Hz. The older KSYN3 can still meet
>that more stringent target but the KSYN3A probably cannot.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [hidden email] [mailto:elecraft-
>>[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Don Wilhelm
>>Sent: 27 June 2018 14:23
>>To: hawley, charles j jr; Charlie T
>>Cc: [hidden email]
>>Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)
>
>>
>>Chuck,
>>
>>A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
>both
>>transmit and receive phase noise. It is like getting a new
>transceiver.
>>
>>If you are strictly a casual operator, those qualities may not be
>>important to you, but if you are a DX'er or a contester, or
>otherwise
>>operate in crowded band condition, those things should be

important

>>to you.
>>
>>73,
>>Don W3FPR
>>
>>On 6/27/2018 9:03 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
>>> I decided to bypass the replacement of the synthesizers. Could
>you
>>describe the "huge" difference?
>>>
>
>__________________________________________________________
>____
>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]

alorona

Re: [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)

Ian, now that I think of it, wasn’t the first ARRL KSYN3A review in error and then an updated review came out, or something like that? Does anybody remember? I wonder if Ian and I are looking at two different reviews of the same product. .

Al. W6LX

______________________________________________________________
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] factory upgrade to K3(s)

Administrator

Yes, the original phase noise plot was way off reality. The ARRL corrected it in a subsequent issue.

The KSYN3A gives the K3 and K3S among the best RMDR and lowest TX phase noise of any transceiver.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

----
http://www.elecraft.com

> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:02 AM, a******@sbcglobal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Ian, now that I think of it, wasn’t the first ARRL KSYN3A review in error and then an updated review came out, or something like that? Does anybody remember? I wonder if Ian and I are looking at two different reviews of the same product. .
>
> Al. W6LX
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]