Elecraft

K3S vs. K3

Classic

List

Threaded

46 messages Options

123

iw1ayd

K3S vs. K3

Hi all.
Does anybody out there had made a comparison and contextualized paper in
between the two?
Not a short list of commercial point of views?

A deep table, going down to the technical and non technical aspects of
the circuitry and the related operations features.
That is a deep table with discussion about almost all the changes. A
loyal view of what's going on.

Too early? So we are reading just FAQ and surface only considerations.

It is in the make?
There is already one for each product? (as to make an apple to apple
comparison)

Thank in advance for any pointer to useful, not commercial, documents.

73 de iw1ayd Salvo

PS at least the 50 MHz section will be in favor of the K3S with no
retrofitting I think.
______________________________________________________________
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]

AD6XY

Re: K3S vs. K3

Too early I would say. To me it seems they have concentrated on improving the receiver phase noise, which is a very important figure, especially for SSB but the rest of the changes don't seem especially ground breaking. Maybe that's expected because there isn't so much wrong with the original K3. It means though that we won't all feel the need to upgrade our current K3 to S-class just yet.

The man made noise levels at HF now mean that further receiver improvements are diminishing benefits- i.e. above a certain level, receiver performance is no longer the constraint and there is not a lot more a receiver could do, even if perfected.

I would really like to see now is a K3v without all that unnecessary HF stuff in there. Something optimised VHF and up and only VHF and up.

What surprised me was the serial number - 10000 and up. I thought they must have sold more than 10000 units already.

Mike

Ignacy

Re: K3S vs. K3

The most appreciated feature for many could be improvement of AF amplifiers. Some of the biggest criticism of K3 by those preferring other radios was "harsh" and "fatiguing" SSB receive audio.
Ignacy

Mike Harris-9

Re: K3S vs. K3

It has so far been assumed that the KIO3B somehow has an analogue to
digital conversion function (sound card) feeding the USB interface.

Looking at the K3 block diagram shows a mysterious KDV3 (Dig. Audio)
within the DSB environment. KDV3 nomenclature would lead one to assume
it was a module of some sort. I've so far not been able to determine
from the alphabet soup on the DSP board schematics where a KDV3 might
interface with the DSP. This might offer a clue as to how the digital
audio presented on the USB interface is derived.

Sherwood has previously commented unfavourably on the audio quality of
the LINE OUT signal. This has lead to the general acceptance that the
LINE OUT level should be limited to 8-10.

When the KIO3B module manual becomes available questions might be
answered. Or maybe, someone in the know might offer enlightenment.
Enquiring minds and all that.

Regards,

Mike VP8NO
______________________________________________________________
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]

Joel Black-2

Re: K3S vs. K3

Mike,

I just went by the K3S FAQ where it states: “KIO3B… …Eliminates need for PC sound card and cables…”

Perhaps I just assumed there was an audio chip built onto the board. Right now, if you choose, you can take the audio in / out of the KIO3 and feed it to a sound card (I chose an external E-MU 0204 because of its specs), you still interface with a sound card *somewhere*. The way the FAQ is written, I thought the audio chip was built in on the new IO board.

73,
Joel - W4JBB

> On May 16, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Mike Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It has so far been assumed that the KIO3B somehow has an analogue to digital conversion function (sound card) feeding the USB interface.
>
>
> Mike VP8NO
______________________________________________________________
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]

NK7Z

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by AD6XY

Hi,
I bought mine a year ago, and it is in the 8000 range.
--
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
for MM-SSTV see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info

On Sat, 2015-05-16 at 03:09 -0700, AD6XY wrote:

> Too early I would say. To me it seems they have concentrated on improving the
> receiver phase noise, which is a very important figure, especially for SSB
> but the rest of the changes don't seem especially ground breaking. Maybe
> that's expected because there isn't so much wrong with the original K3. It
> means though that we won't all feel the need to upgrade our current K3 to
> S-class just yet.
>
> The man made noise levels at HF now mean that further receiver improvements
> are diminishing benefits- i.e. above a certain level, receiver performance
> is no longer the constraint and there is not a lot more a receiver could do,
> even if perfected.
>
> I would really like to see now is a K3v without all that unnecessary HF
> stuff in there. Something optimised VHF and up and only VHF and up.
>
> What surprised me was the serial number - 10000 and up. I thought they must
> have sold more than 10000 units already.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3S-vs-K3-tp7602970p7602971.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
> 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]

Phil Wheeler-2

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by iw1ayd

Seems too early, Salvo, given it was announced two
days ago on Thurs. However, it may be that Rob
Sherwood has, or soon will have, a K3S and will be
able to add it to his table here
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html If and when
that happens, I'm sure we'll read about it here :-)

Likely once the Elecraft crew has returned from
Dayton we'll learn more. I suspect the major
performance improvement is from the new
synthesizer, which many of us have already
retrofitted into our K3s (lower case S!): See line
2 vs. line 6 on Rob's table.

73, Phil W7OX

On 5/16/15 2:41 AM, iw1ayd - Salvatore Irato wrote:

> Hi all.
> Does anybody out there had made a comparison and
> contextualized paper in between the two?
> Not a short list of commercial point of views?
>
> A deep table, going down to the technical and
> non technical aspects of the circuitry and the
> related operations features.
> That is a deep table with discussion about
> almost all the changes. A loyal view of what's
> going on.
>
> Too early? So we are reading just FAQ and
> surface only considerations.
>
> It is in the make?
> There is already one for each product? (as to
> make an apple to apple comparison)
>
> Thank in advance for any pointer to useful,
> not commercial, documents.
>
> 73 de iw1ayd Salvo
>
> PS at least the 50 MHz section will be in favor
> of the K3S with no retrofitting I think.

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by Mike Harris-9

On 2015-05-16 9:33 AM, Mike Harris wrote:
> It has so far been assumed that the KIO3B somehow has an analogue to
> digital conversion function (sound card) feeding the USB interface.

Looking at the current K3 schematic, there is no *digital* connection
between the DSP board and the KIO3. Since the KIO3B is a *replacement*
for the current KIO3, I expect the USB sound function is nothing more
than an off the shelf USB Audio CODEC chip (e.g. TI PCM-2902) fed from
"Line Out" as is the case in the other rigs with USB Audio.

> Looking at the K3 block diagram shows a mysterious KDV3 (Dig. Audio)
> within the DSB environment. KDV3 nomenclature would lead one to
> assume it was a module of some sort.

I doubt that the DSP engine has the horsepower to provide a separate
isochronous USB audio stream (and identify as a USB CODEC) even if
there were a USB connection from the DSP board (via the RF board) to
a USB hub on the KIO3B.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2015-05-16 9:33 AM, Mike Harris wrote:

> It has so far been assumed that the KIO3B somehow has an analogue to
> digital conversion function (sound card) feeding the USB interface.
>
> Looking at the K3 block diagram shows a mysterious KDV3 (Dig. Audio)
> within the DSB environment. KDV3 nomenclature would lead one to assume
> it was a module of some sort. I've so far not been able to determine
> from the alphabet soup on the DSP board schematics where a KDV3 might
> interface with the DSP. This might offer a clue as to how the digital
> audio presented on the USB interface is derived.
>
> Sherwood has previously commented unfavourably on the audio quality of
> the LINE OUT signal. This has lead to the general acceptance that the
> LINE OUT level should be limited to 8-10.
>
> When the KIO3B module manual becomes available questions might be
> answered. Or maybe, someone in the know might offer enlightenment.
> Enquiring minds and all that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike VP8NO
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>

Jim Brown-10

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by Mike Harris-9

On Sat,5/16/2015 6:33 AM, Mike Harris wrote:
> Sherwood has previously commented unfavourably on the audio quality of
> the LINE OUT signal. This has lead to the general acceptance that the
> LINE OUT level should be limited to 8-10.

This is pretty ancient history, and is the result of a digital guy
trying to design an audio output stage. The error was in 1) using an
unshielded telecom transformer and 2) adding 600 ohms in series between
the output device and that transformer. In the world of audio, that's
well known to cause distortion. 3) 600 ohm inputs and outputs have not
been used in pro audio for more than 40 years, another goof.

I noticed the problem as soon as I got my first K3, measured it, and
showed it around. I don't know if that was before or after Rob found it.

If I'm not mistaken, the resistors were removed a LONG time ago, which,
when placed as they were, caused the distortion.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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

Re: K3S vs. K3

Do you think the K3 audio is as good as it can get or do you think that
there are some possible mods that might smooth it out a little? The K3
audio is good, but after spending a year on another top-end rig, I can
really hear a difference. Probably the only issue I have with the K3.

73, Doug -- K0DXV

On 05/16/2015 09:53 AM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Sat,5/16/2015 6:33 AM, Mike Harris wrote:
>> Sherwood has previously commented unfavourably on the audio quality
>> of the LINE OUT signal. This has lead to the general acceptance that
>> the LINE OUT level should be limited to 8-10.
>
> This is pretty ancient history, and is the result of a digital guy
> trying to design an audio output stage. The error was in 1) using an
> unshielded telecom transformer and 2) adding 600 ohms in series
> between the output device and that transformer. In the world of audio,
> that's well known to cause distortion. 3) 600 ohm inputs and outputs
> have not been used in pro audio for more than 40 years, another goof.
>
> I noticed the problem as soon as I got my first K3, measured it, and
> showed it around. I don't know if that was before or after Rob found it.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the resistors were removed a LONG time ago,
> which, when placed as they were, caused the distortion.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

> If I'm not mistaken, the resistors were removed a LONG time ago,
> which, when placed as they were, caused the distortion.

The resistors were changed to 51 Ohms very early on ... prior to
s/n 2000, IIRC. The transformers were changed somewhat later to a
better behaved Bourns LM-NP-1001B (same transformer used in the
microHAM interfaces).

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2015-05-16 11:53 AM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Sat,5/16/2015 6:33 AM, Mike Harris wrote:
>> Sherwood has previously commented unfavourably on the audio quality of
>> the LINE OUT signal. This has lead to the general acceptance that the
>> LINE OUT level should be limited to 8-10.
>
> This is pretty ancient history, and is the result of a digital guy
> trying to design an audio output stage. The error was in 1) using an
> unshielded telecom transformer and 2) adding 600 ohms in series between
> the output device and that transformer. In the world of audio, that's
> well known to cause distortion. 3) 600 ohm inputs and outputs have not
> been used in pro audio for more than 40 years, another goof.
>
> I noticed the problem as soon as I got my first K3, measured it, and
> showed it around. I don't know if that was before or after Rob found it.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the resistors were removed a LONG time ago, which,
> when placed as they were, caused the distortion.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

From the FAQ it appears that you will be able
"later this year" to replace the K3's Main DSP
Board with one for the K3S to achieve better audio:

http://www.elecraft.com/manual/K3S-FAQ%20rev%20C5%20customer.pdf

Phil W7OX

On 5/16/15 9:17 AM, Doug Person via Elecraft wrote:

> Do you think the K3 audio is as good as it can
> get or do you think that there are some possible
> mods that might smooth it out a little? The K3
> audio is good, but after spending a year on
> another top-end rig, I can really hear a
> difference. Probably the only issue I have with
> the K3.
>
> 73, Doug -- K0DXV
>
> On 05/16/2015 09:53 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On Sat,5/16/2015 6:33 AM, Mike Harris wrote:
>>> Sherwood has previously commented unfavourably
>>> on the audio quality of the LINE OUT signal.
>>> This has lead to the general acceptance that
>>> the LINE OUT level should be limited to 8-10.
>>
>> This is pretty ancient history, and is the
>> result of a digital guy trying to design an
>> audio output stage. The error was in 1) using
>> an unshielded telecom transformer and 2) adding
>> 600 ohms in series between the output device
>> and that transformer. In the world of audio,
>> that's well known to cause distortion. 3) 600
>> ohm inputs and outputs have not been used in
>> pro audio for more than 40 years, another goof.
>>
>> I noticed the problem as soon as I got my first
>> K3, measured it, and showed it around. I don't
>> know if that was before or after Rob found it.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, the resistors were removed
>> a LONG time ago, which, when placed as they
>> were, caused the distortion.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC

Phil Hystad-3

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

I had a debate a while back (about a year ago) with a friend of mine who got an Icom 7600 and he thought it was far superior to the K3. His evaluation though was listening to the audio of the K3 versus the audio of the Icom 7600. Since the 7600 sounded more like what he thought a good radio should sound like, he chose the 7600. I had been trying to “sell” him on getting a K3.

So, I am wondering — is audio quality and tone the big measure of the performance of a radio. I know that my K3 audio does not sound as deep as my old Icom Pro III audio (I sold the Pro III last year) but my K3 could pick up and hear stations that did not even register with the Pro III. And, I could narrow down and separate out close CW stations with ease on the K3 compared to the jumble on the Pro III. These features and many others are the hallmarks of a superior radio — audio quality to me is down the list past the top dozen other useful features found in the K3.

Will I buy the new audio/DSP board when it is available for the K3. Not sure, but so far I have no problems with my current K3 audio.

73, phil, K7PEH

> On May 16, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Doug Person via Elecraft <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Do you think the K3 audio is as good as it can get or do you think that there are some possible mods that might smooth it out a little? The K3 audio is good, but after spending a year on another top-end rig, I can really hear a difference. Probably the only issue I have with the K3.
>
> 73, Doug -- K0DXV
>
> On 05/16/2015 09:53 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On Sat,5/16/2015 6:33 AM, Mike Harris wrote:
>>> Sherwood has previously commented unfavourably on the audio quality of the LINE OUT signal. This has lead to the general acceptance that the LINE OUT level should be limited to 8-10.
>>
>> This is pretty ancient history, and is the result of a digital guy trying to design an audio output stage. The error was in 1) using an unshielded telecom transformer and 2) adding 600 ohms in series between the output device and that transformer. In the world of audio, that's well known to cause distortion. 3) 600 ohm inputs and outputs have not been used in pro audio for more than 40 years, another goof.
>>
>> I noticed the problem as soon as I got my first K3, measured it, and showed it around. I don't know if that was before or after Rob found it.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, the resistors were removed a LONG time ago, which, when placed as they were, caused the distortion.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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]

Phil Wheeler-2

Re: K3S vs. K3

Re "Will I buy the new audio/DSP board when it is
available for the K3. Not sure, but so far I have
no problems with my current K3 audio.: That's
where I am, too, Phil; one ear is deaf and lots of
ringing in both, so ... .

I guess it will depend on the price:-)

73, Phil W7OX

On 5/16/15 10:43 AM, Phil Hystad wrote:

> I had a debate a while back (about a year ago) with a friend of mine who got an Icom 7600 and he thought it was far superior to the K3. His evaluation though was listening to the audio of the K3 versus the audio of the Icom 7600. Since the 7600 sounded more like what he thought a good radio should sound like, he chose the 7600. I had been trying to “sell” him on getting a K3.
>
> So, I am wondering — is audio quality and tone the big measure of the performance of a radio. I know that my K3 audio does not sound as deep as my old Icom Pro III audio (I sold the Pro III last year) but my K3 could pick up and hear stations that did not even register with the Pro III. And, I could narrow down and separate out close CW stations with ease on the K3 compared to the jumble on the Pro III. These features and many others are the hallmarks of a superior radio — audio quality to me is down the list past the top dozen other useful features found in the K3.
>
> Will I buy the new audio/DSP board when it is available for the K3. Not sure, but so far I have no problems with my current K3 audio.
>
> 73, phil, K7PEH
>
>
>> On May 16, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Doug Person via Elecraft <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Do you think the K3 audio is as good as it can get or do you think that there are some possible mods that might smooth it out a little? The K3 audio is good, but after spending a year on another top-end rig, I can really hear a difference. Probably the only issue I have with the K3.
>>
>> 73, Doug -- K0DXV

alorona

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

I think it goes deeper than this. Long after those engineering changes were made, and even up to the present day, we continually hear complaints about 'bad K3 audio'. Every time the infamous "Bad K3 audio" thread starts up again, I try to understand the problem, but after asking lots of questions the only words I've ever heard used to describe the 'problem' are: 1/ 'bad'2/ 'noisy' or 'hissy'3/ 'fatiguing' Without a better description, preferably with hard measurements to back up the claims, it's almost impossible to help. At this time, I must assume that most reports of 'bad K3 audio' are due to sub-optimal settings of gain, passband, EQ, NR, AFX, etc., unless persuaded otherwise. About five or six years ago I made recordings of various receivers and held a sort of double-blind test to see if the folks on the reflector could identify the K3. (This was in the days before the 4 kHz audio filter fix when everyone was complaining about artifacts.) The results were about what you'd expect from random guessing. I also found it interesting that the ones who were the most vocal about 'bad K3 audio' declined to participate in that little exercise (which included a Kenwood in the set of receivers).
I also recall one source of 'bad K3 audio' was exacerbated by the (perplexing) modern trend of using headphones with extreme upper and lower frequency response.
"But my Kenwood sounds great compared to my K3." Yes? And it draws three or four times the current as your K3 -- and weighs two or three times as much. Do you really want to make your K3 into a Kenwood?
Like Jim, I've spent time both inside the recording booth and as one of the musicians in the studio. I've got fairly good ears. The K3 sounds just fine.
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]

Alan. G4GNX

Re: K3 Audio [was: K3S vs. K3]

In reply to this post by Phil Hystad-3

I tend to use my K3 with headphones and a boom mike and the audio quality is
excellent. From this I could deduce that it's possibly because the main
amplifier is not in use, neither is the K3 speaker. If a new audio module
becomes available, I may purchase one but for the time being, I'm happy to
use the low level output from the K3 into a better quality audio amplifier
and a decent sized speaker.

I also have an Icom IC7100 which temporarily gets more use than the K3, but
although the audio quality through its speaker seems to be better than the
K3, if it's increased to a medium to loud output, the speaker rattles and
the amplifier is being pushed too hard and doesn't have sufficient output. I
really need to connect a better quality outboard speaker to evaluate the
rig's internals.

Once my new shack is completed, I intend to have a small sound system that
can be connected to one or more rigs at a time, which will bypass the high
level outputs.

73,

Alan. G4GNX

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Hystad
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 6:43 PM
To: Doug Person
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3S vs. K3

I had a debate a while back (about a year ago) with a friend of mine who got
an Icom 7600 and he thought it was far superior to the K3. His evaluation
though was listening to the audio of the K3 versus the audio of the Icom
7600. Since the 7600 sounded more like what he thought a good radio should
sound like, he chose the 7600. I had been trying to “sell” him on getting a
K3.

So, I am wondering — is audio quality and tone the big measure of the
performance of a radio. I know that my K3 audio does not sound as deep as
my old Icom Pro III audio (I sold the Pro III last year) but my K3 could
pick up and hear stations that did not even register with the Pro III. And,
I could narrow down and separate out close CW stations with ease on the K3
compared to the jumble on the Pro III. These features and many others are
the hallmarks of a superior radio — audio quality to me is down the list
past the top dozen other useful features found in the K3.

Will I buy the new audio/DSP board when it is available for the K3. Not
sure, but so far I have no problems with my current K3 audio.

73, phil, K7PEH

______________________________________________________________
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]

Edward R Cole

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by iw1ayd

Salvo,

I attempted to make a contrasting list and those improvements that
one can make to the K3 to bring it up to K3S performance in my e-mail
titled: "K3S vs K3 - upgradability" (repeated, below):

1. Ultra-low noise synth. Boards obtainable for upgrading the K3 -
I'll do this (for both Rx).
2. Second Preamp - I have a 6m preamp so not sure I will get the
external PR6-10 - but maybe.
3. Multiple Atten Levels - not necessary for me.
4. USB/RS232 ports - I will not upgrade this. I am not fond of RJ45
connectors and current RS232 is fine.
Internal soundcard probably will not suit my use - I like having
the direct audio lines in/out.
5. KAT3 - not installed - no plan to do it now - I would like a two
antenna selectable system - but not end of world.
6. Redesigned speaker amp - probably not - cost factor of replacing
two DSP boards.
7. Fast T/R - I only do 15wpm - understand this is part of the synth upgrade.
8. Extended RX with modified KBPF3A - I understood a kit was
available for to DIY - I will get a kit
9. Enhanced Look/Feel - maybe the soft touch VFO knob - not an
important thing for me.

The improved SYNTH provides improved receiver noise and improvements
in fast CW speeds. This enabled extended use below 490-KHz to
include the 630m and 2200m bands. Receiver reception is limited to
above 250-Hz by the current KPBF3 so minor mods to it and the RF
boards extends this to 100-Hz.

The FAQ indicates addition of USB I/F and an internal soundcard. Not
known if this eliminates the audio line-in/out.

Improved receiver audio was done with a new version of the DSP
board/improved speaker amp.

I think this is the best one can discern without schematics and
detailed feedback from questions to Elecraft (They are still at Dayton).

For me this is not enough motivation to buy the K3S; I will
incorporate the mods into my K3 that I determine
desirable/cost-effective that fit my use. I like that they are
mostly available for upgrading the K3. The "promise" of a SDR is
non-obsolescence over time. But reality is eventually a total
re-design will be possible and a new radio will emerge.

K3S is a improved package of the K3 and not a K4 (whatever that would be).

73, Ed - KL7UW

-------------------------
From: iw1ayd - Salvatore Irato <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Elecraft] K3S vs. K3
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Hi all.
Does anybody out there had made a comparison and contextualized paper in
between the two?
Not a short list of commercial point of views?

A deep table, going down to the technical and non technical aspects of
the circuitry and the related operations features.
That is a deep table with discussion about almost all the changes. A
loyal view of what's going on.

Too early? So we are reading just FAQ and surface only considerations.

It is in the make?
There is already one for each product? (as to make an apple to apple
comparison)

Thank in advance for any pointer to useful, not commercial, documents.

73 de iw1ayd Salvo

PS at least the 50 MHz section will be in favor of the K3S with no
retrofitting I think.

73, Ed - KL7UW
http://www.kl7uw.com
"Kits made by KL7UW"
Dubus Mag business:
[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]

Bruce Beford-4

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by iw1ayd

> The improved SYNTH provides improved receiver noise and improvements
> in fast CW speeds. This enabled extended use below 490-KHz to
> include the 630m and 2200m bands. Receiver reception is limited to
> above 250-Hz by the current KPBF3 so minor mods to it and the RF
> boards extends this to 100-Hz.

250/100 KHz, not Hz. I _do_ have a radio that receives well down to 50Hz,
but the K3 isn't it...
Bruce N1RX

______________________________________________________________
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

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by alorona

I have done A/B testing between the K3 and the following radios: Icom
IC-746, IC-756 (Pro through ProIII) IC-7600, Yaesu FT-450, FTdx-1200,
FTdx-3000, FT-991, Kenwood TS-480 and an older Kenwood TS-140. In each
comparison I made sure to adjust all receive settings to flat (no
emphasis). For audio input I used a K2 set to minimum output into a
step-type attenuator. Signal level for each receiver was adjusted to S9
with no preamps on. In most cases the attenuator was set on. Input into
the K2 was through an studio quality dynamic microphone that I felt
confident could produce fairly flat output from 100 to 4000 Hz. The mic
was in another room in which I played a recording through my HiFi
system. Since the input to the transceivers was always exactly the
same, the playing field was level. I did not listen through headphones
or through any available line out. I used a variety of small, very
efficient HiFi speakers. The FT-450, TS-140, IC-746 all had inferior
audio quality. The FT-991 and TS-480 had similar audio quality. The
FTdx-1200, FTdx-3000 and IC-7600 all had notably superior audio. I
would characterize the FTdx-3000 and IC-7600 as having exceptionally
good audio. I also used nearly all of the transceivers as a signal
source for the others, noting a lot of variability in transmit audio
quality.

I did this just for my own ears - which are well trained. I do not
conclude that the K3 has "bad" audio. But, I do not think it is as good
as many of the top transceivers today. For me, good audio is low total
distortion, flat (but configurable) frequency response - especially
between 100 and 3000 Hz, even higher when dealing with real ESSB, and
enough power to push and pull the speaker cone so there is a minimum
amount of transient or mechanical distortion. (An under-powered
amplifier for a given speaker, even if not producing high levels of
distortion, can sound muddy because it lacks sufficient power to move
the cone "crisply" from one direction to the other "Transient Response").

So, my testing was entirely subjective. I did it to satisfy my own
curiosity and not to produce an engineering report for publication.
However, 55 years as a musician, several years designing loudspeakers
and HiFi receivers and a lifetime music enthusiast - I think I have good
ears. So, again, the K3 does not have "BAD" audio. But, it could be
much better than it is. It is clearly no match for the latest
generation of upper-end transceivers.

I'm sure someone with the right skills and equipment could do a very
thorough set of tests. My personal hope is that the new DSP/Audio board
will go into the K3 and produce a significant improvement as determined
by my own ears.

73, Doug -- K0DXV

On 05/16/2015 12:21 PM, Al Lorona wrote:
> I think it goes deeper than this. Long after those engineering changes were made, and even up to the present day, we continually hear complaints about 'bad K3 audio'. Every time the infamous "Bad K3 audio" thread starts up again, I try to understand the problem, but after asking lots of questions the only words I've ever heard used to describe the 'problem' are: 1/ 'bad'2/ 'noisy' or 'hissy'3/ 'fatiguing' Without a better description, preferably with hard measurements to back up the claims, it's almost impossible to help. At this time, I must assume that most reports of 'bad K3 audio' are due to sub-optimal settings of gain, passband, EQ, NR, AFX, etc., unless persuaded otherwise. About five or six years ago I made recordings of various receivers and held a sort of double-blind test to see if the folks on the reflector could identify the K3. (This was in the days before the 4 kHz audio filter fix when everyone was complaining about artifacts.) The results were about what yo
u'd expect from random guessing. I also found it interesting that the ones who were the most vocal about 'bad K3 audio' declined to participate in that little exercise (which included a Kenwood in the set of receivers).

> I also recall one source of 'bad K3 audio' was exacerbated by the (perplexing) modern trend of using headphones with extreme upper and lower frequency response.
> "But my Kenwood sounds great compared to my K3." Yes? And it draws three or four times the current as your K3 -- and weighs two or three times as much. Do you really want to make your K3 into a Kenwood?
> Like Jim, I've spent time both inside the recording booth and as one of the musicians in the studio. I've got fairly good ears. The K3 sounds just fine.
> 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]

Jim Brown-10

Re: K3S vs. K3

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

On Sat,5/16/2015 9:17 AM, Doug Person via Elecraft wrote:
> Do you think the K3 audio is as good as it can get or do you think
> that there are some possible mods that might smooth it out a little?

If Elecraft could have improved it with a mod or upgrade they would have
done so.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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]

123