[KX2][KX3][KXIQ2] Best Base Station: KX2 vs KX3

[Joe Stone (KF5WBO)]

> For those who use a KX3 as their primary HF rig
> at the home QTH, which features (unique to the
> KX3 as compared to the KX2) are critical?

Hajo (DL1SDZ) wrote,

    The Px3, the rest is nice to have.

Ryan (AI6DO) wrote,

    I find the PX3 panadapter to be indispensible
    in both environments (both in the shack and in
    the field), so the lack of RX I/Q outputs is the
    KX2's biggest shortcoming to me.  

Thank you, Hajo and Ryan.  I think you're absolutely correct.

I attended David Shoaf’s "Shrinking the HF Transceiver" presentation at Ham-Com in Irving, Texas this year.  David is in charge of international distribution and customer support at Elecraft.  As part of his presentation, David shared that Elecraft was (unpleasantly) surprised by the high percentage of KX3's being used as base stations, in many cases, serving as the operator's one and only one HF rig.  In other words, operators were buying KX3's in lieu of, rather than in addition to, K3's.

David stated (repeatedly) that RX I/Q was suppressed on the KX2 ... not to reduce cost, size or weight, but rather to create "product differentiation" (his words) with the K3 and KX3.  In other words (my words), Elecraft didn't want to make the same "mistake" with the KX2 that it made with the KX3.

I was able to play with a KX2 at Ham-Com.  What a blast.  I'm anxious to purchase a KX2.  However, I’d feel cheated purchasing a KX2 knowing RX I/Q was unnecessarily suppressed (at least from an engineering perspective).  I’d like Elecraft to offer a KXIQ2 (an alternative to the KXIO2), replacing the AUX output of the KXIO2 with an RX I/Q output.

Please reply to this thread if you're interested in having Elecraft expose RX I/Q on the KX2.  This will enable the KX2 to be used with a PX3 for backyard / picnic table portable operation, travel, ... and, of course, in using the KX2 as a base station at the home QTH.  For hand-held, pedestrian mobile and ultralight backpacking, I'll leave the PX3 at home and disable the RX I/Q output in order to save the 10 - 15 mA receive-mode current drain.

Joe Stone
KF5WBO

[Elecraft mailing list]

>David stated (repeatedly) that RX I/Q was suppressed on the KX2 ... not to


reduce cost, size or weight, but rather to create "product differentiation"
(his words) with the K3 and KX3.  In other words (my words), Elecraft didn't
want to make the same "mistake" with the KX2 that it made with the KX3.

Forced product differentiation is rarely ever done well. Is the implication that if the KX3 were intentionally crippled so it were substantially less effective than a K3, many Elecraft customers would buy both? I know I certainly wouldn't have. I wouldn't have bought a K3 or any other similarly sized transceiver for home. My home station upstream of the coax is disassembled and packed/locked up after most operating sessions. Furthermore, if the KX3 were less effective, I may not have paid the premium for it (twice) for portable use either. I bought the KX3 precisely because its combination of features made it a superior choice for both my home and portable use. If Elecraft never existed, I'd probably have been happy enough--ignorance is bliss--with my FT-857D and its successors. 
>Please reply to this thread if you're interested in having Elecraft expose
RX I/Q on the KX2.  

I'm conflicted on this. With no RX I/Q, I'm not tempted to buy one. My wife already thinks I've bought too many expensive R2D2s... 

73, Ryan AI6DO  
______________________________________________________________
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]

[len]

+1 to this:

"Please reply to this thread if you're interested in having Elecraft expose RX I/Q on the KX2."

I've owned a KX1, currently own a KX3/PX3 and a KX2.  I don't have a lot of space for my radio gear and am a big fan of the small form factors.   I've had more fun with my KX3 than any other radio I have used.  I've become highly dependent on the PX3 and wish I had the same option to use one with my KX2.  For me, having the I/Q on the KX2 would not eliminate need for my KX3.  I still want the extra band coverage of 160 and 6 meters, I also use my KX3 on 2 meters.  Having I/Q on my KX2 would greatly expand the flexibility, and let me operate in a similar manner to my KX3.

73

Len


______________________________________________________________
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 Finan]

An 'unsuppressed' ‎KX2 would be a nice upgrade option...

Jim Finan
AB4AC ‎
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message  
From: Joe Stone (KF5WBO)
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 12:11 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Elecraft] [KX2][KX3][KXIQ2] Best Base Station: KX2 vs KX3

> For those who use a KX3 as their primary HF rig
> at the home QTH, which features (unique to the
> KX3 as compared to the KX2) are critical?

Hajo (DL1SDZ) wrote,

The Px3, the rest is nice to have.

Ryan (AI6DO) wrote,

I find the PX3 panadapter to be indispensible
in both environments (both in the shack and in
the field), so the lack of RX I/Q outputs is the
KX2's biggest shortcoming to me.

Thank you, Hajo and Ryan. I think you're absolutely correct.

I attended David Shoaf’s "Shrinking the HF Transceiver" presentation at
Ham-Com in Irving, Texas this year. David is in charge of international
distribution and customer support at Elecraft. As part of his presentation,
David shared that Elecraft was (unpleasantly) surprised by the high
percentage of KX3's being used as base stations, in many cases, serving as
the operator's one and only one HF rig. In other words, operators were
buying KX3's in lieu of, rather than in addition to, K3's.

David stated (repeatedly) that RX I/Q was suppressed on the KX2 ... not to
reduce cost, size or weight, but rather to create "product differentiation"
(his words) with the K3 and KX3. In other words (my words), Elecraft didn't
want to make the same "mistake" with the KX2 that it made with the KX3.

I was able to play with a KX2 at Ham-Com. What a blast. I'm anxious to
purchase a KX2. However, I’d feel cheated purchasing a KX2 knowing RX I/Q
was unnecessarily suppressed (at least from an engineering perspective).
I’d like Elecraft to offer a KXIQ2 (an alternative to the KXIO2), replacing
the AUX output of the KXIO2 with an RX I/Q output.

Please reply to this thread if you're interested in having Elecraft expose
RX I/Q on the KX2. This will enable the KX2 to be used with a PX3 for
backyard / picnic table portable operation, travel, ... and, of course, in
using the KX2 as a base station at the home QTH. For hand-held, pedestrian
mobile and ultralight backpacking, I'll leave the PX3 at home and disable
the RX I/Q output in order to save the 10 - 15 mA receive-mode current
drain.

Joe Stone
KF5WBO



--
View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/KX2-KX3-KXIQ2-Best-Base-Station-KX2-vs-KX3-tp7621965.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]

[Joe Stone (KF5WBO)]

> For me, having the I/Q on the KX2 would not eliminate need for my KX3.

I agree, Len.  In purchasing a KX2 with an RX I/Q output, I'd dedicate my KX3 to the shack.  I'd use the KX2 / PX3 combination in the backyard, on a picnic table at the park, for camping, day hikes, Field Day, mini DX-peditions, travel, RVing, ...

Elecraft already has the art work / silkscreen for the KX2 with RX I/Q left side panel,

    http://wickedstone.com/KF5WBO/KX2withRXIQ.jpg

We're halfway there.  Hi hi.

73's

Joe
KF5WBO

[MaverickNH]

>I'm conflicted on this. With no RX I/Q, I'm not tempted to buy one. My wife already thinks I've bought too >many expensive R2D2s...
>73, Ryan AI6DO

Q:  How many R2D2s does a man need?  

A:  One less than his wife will divorce him for buying.

[Raymond Sills]

Hi Len:

Perhaps this idea (I/Q output from the KX2) would be an area where someone would develop an after-market item that would permit tapping the I/Q data and porting it to the outside world.  I’m sure that the Elecraft people must have considered the idea of such a port on the KX2, but made the decision that most KX2 users would not take advantage of it.  I’d suppose that the though process was: if it adds another $50 to the price of the rig, how many people would decide against the KX2?  Would it be better to skip that feature and just make a compact multi-band rig?  I think that the new paddle design was something that appeals to more customers, especially since it can also be used with the KX3.  There’s always trade-offs in any design project, and you can’t please everyone.

In my case, my KX3 is my “main” rig, and I have a PX3 for it.  However, if I were to look for an ultra compact rig, it would be for very portable field use.  The KX2 might be a candidate, as would the MTR.  But, that’s a big “if”.   I already have a bunch of rigs, including a KX1, which is pretty compact in it’s own right.

So, my money would be on some 3rd party developer figuring out how to bring out the I/Q signal (hopefully doing so without mangling the KX2 and losing the factory warranty)… so that the feature can be provided for those who really want it.  Me?  I doubt I would ever use such a feature, so I’m not disappointed that it’s not already included.  After all, I can use it with the KX3.

73 de Ray
K2ULR
KX3 #211

 

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 12:03 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> +1 to this:
>
> "Please reply to this thread if you're interested in having Elecraft expose RX I/Q on the KX2."
>
> I've owned a KX1, currently own a KX3/PX3 and a KX2.  I don't have a lot of space for my radio gear and am a big fan of the small form factors.   I've had more fun with my KX3 than any other radio I have used.  I've become highly dependent on the PX3 and wish I had the same option to use one with my KX2.  For me, having the I/Q on the KX2 would not eliminate need for my KX3.  I still want the extra band coverage of 160 and 6 meters, I also use my KX3 on 2 meters.  Having I/Q on my KX2 would greatly expand the flexibility, and let me operate in a similar manner to my KX3.
>
> 73
>
> Len
>

______________________________________________________________
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]

[Bill Frantz]

What is the reality of using the new KX2 paddle (KXPD2) on a
KX3? I had someone from Elecraft tell me that it didn't work
although the KX3 paddle (KXPD3) does work on the KX2.

73 Bill AE6JV

On 8/29/16 at 1:41 PM, [hidden email] (Ray Sills) wrote:

>I think that the new paddle design was something that appeals
>to more customers, especially since it can also be used with
>the KX3.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | gets() remains as a monument | Periwinkle
[phone]      | to C's continuing support of | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | buffer overruns.             | Los Gatos,
CA 95032

______________________________________________________________
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]

Bill,

It should work fine. Just plug it in.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 8/29/2016 4:57 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:
> What is the reality of using the new KX2 paddle (KXPD2) on a KX3? I
> had someone from Elecraft tell me that it didn't work although the KX3
> paddle (KXPD3) does work on the KX2.

______________________________________________________________
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]

Should work fine. I'll have to try it!

Phil -- Sent from my iPhone 5S

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 13:57, Bill Frantz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What is the reality of using the new KX2 paddle (KXPD2) on a KX3? I had someone from Elecraft tell me that it didn't work although the KX3 paddle (KXPD3) does work on the KX2.
>
> 73 Bill AE6JV
>
>> On 8/29/16 at 1:41 PM, [hidden email] (Ray Sills) wrote:
>>
>> I think that the new paddle design was something that appeals to more customers, especially since it can also be used with the KX3.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Frantz        | gets() remains as a monument | Periwinkle
> [phone]      | to C's continuing support of | 16345 Englewood Ave
> www.pwpconsult.com | buffer overruns.             | Los Gatos, CA 95032
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

[Joe Stone (KF5WBO)]

Hi Ray,

That's exactly what I am proposing ... an RX I/Q *option* board (i.e., KXIQ2) for the KX2.  The KXIQ2 would serve as an alternative to the KXIO2 Real Time Clock option board, replacing the AUX output of the KXIO2 with an RX I/Q output.  As an *option* board, the KXIQ2 wouldn't add to the base cost of the KX2.

> I’m sure that the Elecraft people must have considered the
> idea of such a port on the KX2,

I strongly suspect the earliest KX2's (prior to the field test units) had an RX I/Q port.

> but made the decision that most KX2 users would not take
> advantage of it.

I don't think this was the reason.  

> So, my money would be on some 3rd party developer figuring
> out how to bring out the I/Q signal

I'd welcome a third-party KXIQ2 option board to expose RX I/Q (even if it does void the factory warranty).  I periodically ask for the KX2 schematics for this vary reason.

Joe
KF5WBO