Elecraft

[KX3] New Product: SPX3 External Speaker

Classic

List

Threaded

27 messages Options

Don Wilhelm

Re: [KX3] New Product: SPX3 External Speaker

Robert,

It is not the KX2/KX3 that decides which channel from the soundcard is
used, but the PC application software. In general the left channel is
used for digital work, but some can reverse it.
So it is best to buffer the PHONES output and send it off to a separate
jack.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 4/16/2018 12:48 AM, Robert Morris wrote:

>
> Hi Don,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. I'm hoping one volume knob will do the job
> for everyone else too. Plus, if the KX3 puts out enough signal for the
> PC, then you don't really want an amplifier in the signal path.
>
> I want to be sure about the channel which needs to go to the sound
> card. Are you saying the left channel from the KX3 is the one the
> computer needs, or are you saying the computer needs the signal to be
> present on the left channel of its input? If it's the latter, then
> that is already how the SPX3 is wired.
>
> For the first prototype, the stereo output of the KX3 goes into the
> SPX3 input port, then is split. The left channel goes to the
> amplifier, and the right goes to the left channel of the output port.
> Will that do the job, or does the computer really need the signal
> which originated from the left channel of the KX3? I don't see in the
> KX3 manual where it specifies which channel the digital mode signal is
> output. I had assumed it would be on both left and right channels.
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Robert (AG6ZZ)
>
>
> On 2018-04-15 21:24, Don Wilhelm wrote:
>
>> Robert,
>>
>> You will need to provide a means of connecting the KX2/KX3 PHONES
>> output to a soundcard for the use of digital modes.
>>
>> The KXSPA should connect to the left channel since that is the
>> channel that is normally used by soundcard digital.
>>
>> I think that means you would want to provide a knob controlled gain
>> control on your active speaker so the sound level to the speakers can
>> be controlled without disturbing the level to the soundcard being
>> used for digital modes.
>>
>> 73,
>> Don W3FPR
>>
>> On 4/15/2018 11:40 PM, Robert Morris wrote:
>>> First of all, I want to say thanks to everyone for all the great
>>> feedback I've been getting on the speaker. Here's are some requested
>>> features:
>>>
>>> 1. One stereo channel to speaker driver and another channel to
>>> output jack (already in first prototype)
>>>
>>> 2. 12V input (planned is 9-15V, like the KX3)
>>>
>>> 3. Separate powered (active) and unpowered (passive) speakers
>>> The reasons I've gotten for this is that it would save on the weight
>>> of and inconvenience of charging a second battery
>>>
>>> 4. Separate volume controls for the internal speaker driver and the
>>> output jack
>>> The reason I've gotten for this is that a computer will need the
>>> volume set separately from the speaker.
>>> Some have stated the computer's software can adjust the gain on the
>>> input, and that there only needs to be one volume control for the
>>> speaker driver. I'll need consensus on this from the digital mode folks.
>>>
>>> 5. USB power output
>>> This would be convenient for those who wish to use their speakers as
>>> phone chargers.
>>>
>>> Things to consider:
>>>
>>> A. Making two different speakers substantially increases
>>> manufacturing costs for the most expensive part; the enclosure.
>>> Since most folks will be fine with just one speaker, then the lower
>>> production numbers of the passive speaker would make its per unit
>>> cost much higher than the active one. However, folks would expect a
>>> lower price on the passive one. So, I'd have to sell them as pairs
>>> to justify manufacturing the passive ones, which would mean a higher
>>> cost to consumers who only want the active one. It would also
>>> increase the cost to those who want both because of the two
>>> different enclosures instead of just one enclosure twice.
>>>
>>> B. The one issue which would force making both an active and a
>>> passive speaker is the need stated by some respondents that the
>>> active one would require a second volume control for the output to
>>> the computer for digital modes. It would be expensive and time
>>> consuming for me to try every digital mode software on every
>>> operating system, so I need confirmation whether this is truly
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> C. If a second volume control is not truly necessary, then that
>>> simplifies things tremendously. I'll wait for consensus on this
>>> before going into why.
>>>
>>> D. A USB power output port is beyond the scope of the speaker's
>>> intended utility. Also, it would draw down the battery at the cost
>>> of significantly limiting how long the speaker could be used before
>>> needing a recharge. Furthermore, the extra hole and port would
>>> increase the cost while reducing ingress protection. Lastly, there's
>>> not much room in the small enclosure to accomodate nonessential items.
>>>
>>> Thanks and 73,
>>> Robert (AG6ZZ)
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email] <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]
>>> <mailto:[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]

Robert J. Morris

Re: [KX3] New Product: SPX3 External Speaker

Hi Don,

Thanks for clarifying that. This is an easy one. I'll just send both
channels to the output port, but reversed, so the right channel still
becomes the left for the second speaker. Since they're both carrying the
same signal, it doesn't make any difference to the computer. Only the
left channel goes to the amplifier. I'll put both input and output ports
on the second speaker as well, so both can be connected at the same time
as the computer. Since they'll both have on/off volume controls, either
can be muted by turning it off. The on/off volume controls don't affect
the signal passing through the input and output ports; just what goes to
the speaker driver.

So, this change means I'm back to amplifying each speaker individually.
To save weight and the inconvenience of charging two, both can be
powered externally without the internal battery installed. Also, if
folks would prefer it, I could put a power output port on the speaker,
and include a speaker-to-speaker power cord so that the battery in one
could power both for folks taking them portable. Or will folks taking
them portable be taking just one?

Thanks and 73,
Robert (AG6ZZ)

On 2018-04-16 04:50, Don Wilhelm wrote:

> Robert,
>
> It is not the KX2/KX3 that decides which channel from the soundcard is used, but the PC application software. In general the left channel is used for digital work, but some can reverse it.
> So it is best to buffer the PHONES output and send it off to a separate jack.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
> On 4/16/2018 12:48 AM, Robert Morris wrote:
>
>> Hi Don,
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I'm hoping one volume knob will do the job for everyone else too. Plus, if the KX3 puts out enough signal for the PC, then you don't really want an amplifier in the signal path.
>>
>> I want to be sure about the channel which needs to go to the sound card. Are you saying the left channel from the KX3 is the one the computer needs, or are you saying the computer needs the signal to be present on the left channel of its input? If it's the latter, then that is already how the SPX3 is wired.
>>
>> For the first prototype, the stereo output of the KX3 goes into the SPX3 input port, then is split. The left channel goes to the amplifier, and the right goes to the left channel of the output port. Will that do the job, or does the computer really need the signal which originated from the left channel of the KX3? I don't see in the KX3 manual where it specifies which channel the digital mode signal is output. I had assumed it would be on both left and right channels.
>>
>> Thanks and 73,
>> Robert (AG6ZZ)

Bill Frantz

Re: [KX3] New Product: SPX3 External Speaker

In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm

Some RTTY software supports the subreceiver with dual decode,
using both left and right channels on the K3/K3S. I haven't
experimented with dual watch on the KX3, but it is probably
useful to get both channels into the PC for digimodes.

73 Bill AE6JV

On 4/16/18 at 4:50 AM, [hidden email] (Don Wilhelm) wrote:

>It is not the KX2/KX3 that decides which channel from the
>soundcard is used, but the PC application software. In
>general the left channel is used for digital work, but some can
>reverse it.
>So it is best to buffer the PHONES output and send it off to a separate jack.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | I don't have high-speed | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506 | internet. I have DSL. | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | | 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]

Robert J. Morris

Re: [KX3] New Product: SPX3 External Speaker

Hi Bill,

My post from this morning says the speaker will be outputting both
channels, so this is good news for users of such software.

Thanks and 73,
Robert (AG6ZZ)

On 2018-04-16 10:15, Bill Frantz wrote:

> Some RTTY software supports the subreceiver with dual decode, using both left and right channels on the K3/K3S. I haven't experimented with dual watch on the KX3, but it is probably useful to get both channels into the PC for digimodes.
>
> 73 Bill AE6JV
>
> On 4/16/18 at 4:50 AM, [hidden email] (Don Wilhelm) wrote:
>
>> It is not the KX2/KX3 that decides which channel from the soundcard is used, but the PC application software. In general the left channel is used for digital work, but some can reverse it.
>> So it is best to buffer the PHONES output and send it off to a separate jack.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Frantz | I don't have high-speed | Periwinkle
> (408)356-8506 | internet. I have DSL. | 16345 Englewood Ave
> www.pwpconsult.com [1] | | Los Gatos, CA 95032

Links:
------
[1] http://www.pwpconsult.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]

Joan

Re: [KX3] New Product: SPX3 External Speaker

In reply to this post by Robert J. Morris

Hey, Robert, here’s a thought: Given the irony of a secondary model (a passive version of the speaker) actually having higher production cost (due to the more limited production run), you could simply produce one model: an active speaker—which has the added versatility of being able to be configured as a passive speaker. Cost-wise, it would be less expensive to add another ‘A’ model to serve as a second [passive] speaker (albeit with the amp turned off, with a bypass for the direct feed from an external source). This would only require the ‘A’ model to be switchable to either L or R input (a channel swap DPDT)—and be able to go into bypass [through] mode

Although it may seems wasteful to have a 2nd active speaker doing duty as a passive one, but it would be less expensive to implement (both for producer and user), and, hey, you’d have the utility of having a 2nd active speaker kicking around in your kit (for whatever:)

As an incentive [sweetener], Robert, you could offer a discount on ordering a second ‘A’ speaker at time of purchase

Addendum: if you only made one model, an SPX3A, to pair with the KX3, as a KX2 user I would be willing to lump it and purchase them anyway… ’cuz, Elecraft <3

FB es 73 de KX2CW Joan kn

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra, said Piglet.
Shaka, when the walls fell, said Pooh.

> On Apr 15, 2018, at 20:40, Robert Morris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> First of all, I want to say thanks to everyone for all the great feedback I've been getting on the speaker. Here's are some requested features:
>
> 1. One stereo channel to speaker driver and another channel to output jack (already in first prototype)
>
> 2. 12V input (planned is 9-15V, like the KX3)
>
> 3. Separate powered (active) and unpowered (passive) speakers
> The reasons I've gotten for this is that it would save on the weight of and inconvenience of charging a second battery
>
> 4. Separate volume controls for the internal speaker driver and the output jack
> The reason I've gotten for this is that a computer will need the volume set separately from the speaker.
> Some have stated the computer's software can adjust the gain on the input, and that there only needs to be one volume control for the speaker driver. I'll need consensus on this from the digital mode folks.
>
> 5. USB power output
> This would be convenient for those who wish to use their speakers as phone chargers.
>
> Things to consider:
>
> A. Making two different speakers substantially increases manufacturing costs for the most expensive part; the enclosure. Since most folks will be fine with just one speaker, then the lower production numbers of the passive speaker would make its per unit cost much higher than the active one. However, folks would expect a lower price on the passive one. So, I'd have to sell them as pairs to justify manufacturing the passive ones, which would mean a higher cost to consumers who only want the active one. It would also increase the cost to those who want both because of the two different enclosures instead of just one enclosure twice.
>
> B. The one issue which would force making both an active and a passive speaker is the need stated by some respondents that the active one would require a second volume control for the output to the computer for digital modes. It would be expensive and time consuming for me to try every digital mode software on every operating system, so I need confirmation whether this is truly necessary.
>
> C. If a second volume control is not truly necessary, then that simplifies things tremendously. I'll wait for consensus on this before going into why.
>
> D. A USB power output port is beyond the scope of the speaker's intended utility. Also, it would draw down the battery at the cost of significantly limiting how long the speaker could be used before needing a recharge. Furthermore, the extra hole and port would increase the cost while reducing ingress protection. Lastly, there's not much room in the small enclosure to accomodate nonessential items.
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Robert (AG6ZZ)
>

Robert J. Morris

Re: [KX3] New Product: SPX3 External Speaker

Hi Joan,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I don't want to seem to be
arbitrary in my decision making, which is why I wrote the cost-benefit
analysis. Also, I want folks to have a chance to let me know what's most
important to them and inform me of anything I may have overlooked or am
not as studied on as themselves. The bottom line is, what best serves
the users is the best product to produce.

At present, I'm leaning toward creating just the SPX3 with the following
features:

1. 12V (9-15V) DC input with same power input jack as the KX3.

2. Internal, removable, Lithium battery

3. Operable with or without battery when connected to external power

4. Power cable with input plug at one end, and no connector at the other

5. Optional power cable with input plug at one end, and PowerPole at the
other

6. 3.5mm (1/8") Stereo input

7. Left input channel to amplifier for speaker driver

8. Reversed Left and Right channels passed to 3.5mm (1/8") stereo
output, unamplified

9. 2W (3W max) to speaker driver

10. On/Off volume control. This only affects amplifier and speaker
driver; not pass through to output

11. 3.5mm (1/8") Stereo cable with two L male ends.

Items 1, 4, 5, and 10 are what will be new in comparison to the first
prototype.

Since the KX2 and KX3 have the same look and feel, the SPX3 would
certainly look natural next to either, even though it would be as tall
and deep as the KX3. I'll have to see whether there is demand for a
smaller SPX2 before embarking on it. It would have the same parts
stuffed into a smaller enclosure.

Adding a switch to make a speaker flip between active and passive would
require a second switch to determine whether the output would be
amplified, or a triple throw switch. After all, when connected to a PC,
the output would not be amplified, but it would be active in order to
power the internal speaker driver. Adding such a switch, which would be
an entirely new feature for a speaker, would add cost and complexity,
and likely cause confusion. It would be much simpler, cheaper, and
straightforward to power the second speaker with a separate cord. I
could put a power output port on it so that a power cord could pass from
one speaker to the other, allowing both to be run from the same battery.
However, if someone is really bent on saving weight and consolidating
the power source, then it seems to me that person would simply remove
both batteries and power both externally.

In all honesty, the battery doesn't really weigh that much more than a
power cord, is nicely tucked away inside the speaker, and doesn't need
to be connected up along with all the other cords when operating in the
field. The weight of extra switches would offset the weight savings of
removing a battery. Furthermore, this speaker will go all day on a
charge. I turned it on the other day, and fell asleep when it had been
on for over 15 hours connected to my portable music player. So, I don't
really know how long it went before the low battery protection circuit
turned it off. I just know it lasted longer than I did without sleep.
The battery recharges quickly, so you wouldn't have to wait long to go
another day using it nonstop, if you didn't charge it while you slept.

Thanks and 73,
Robert (AG6ZZ)

On 2018-04-16 19:14, Joan wrote:

> Hey, Robert, here's a thought: Given the irony of a secondary model (a passive version of the speaker) actually having higher production cost (due to the more limited production run), you could simply produce one model: an active speaker--which has the added versatility of being able to be configured as a passive speaker. Cost-wise, it would be less expensive to add another 'A' model to serve as a second [passive] speaker (albeit with the amp turned off, with a bypass for the direct feed from an external source). This would only require the 'A' model to be switchable to either L or R input (a channel swap DPDT)--and be able to go into bypass [through] mode
>
> Although it may seems wasteful to have a 2nd active speaker doing duty as a passive one, but it would be less expensive to implement (both for producer and user), and, hey, you'd have the utility of having a 2nd active speaker kicking around in your kit (for whatever:)
>
> As an incentive [sweetener], Robert, you could offer a discount on ordering a second 'A' speaker at time of purchase
>
> Addendum: if you only made one model, an SPX3A, to pair with the KX3, as a KX2 user I would be willing to lump it and purchase them anyway... 'cuz, Elecraft <3
>
> FB es 73 de KX2CW Joan kn
>
> Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra, said Piglet.
> Shaka, when the walls fell, said Pooh.

Robert J. Morris

Re: [KX3] New Product: SPX3 External Speaker

In reply to this post by Robert J. Morris

Here is my reply to another response which didn't make it to my Inbox. I
try to keep up with everyone's inquiries. The original response is at
the bottom:

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your feedback. I've been wondering the same thing about the
grille. A square or rectangular grille would mimic the look of the
Elecraft SP3, which is a plus. On the other hand, in order to have a
volume knob on the face, a square or rectangular grille would likely
force the enclosure to be wider to accommodate both the grille and knob.
The round grille allows a knob to be placed in the corner with ease.
Also, a round grille weighs less.

I used a round grille for the first prototype because I was able to
source one that fit the speaker driver I'm using. So, I could at least
have a complete speaker. Fortunately, it looks better than I had
anticipated. Of course, your question is, which would look better? For
many, it comes down to personal preference. I'm open to what you and
others prefer.

Thanks and 73,
Robert (AG6ZZ)

-------------------------

Robert,

I love the idea, I'm wondering about whether a square or rectangular
speaker grill would look better. 73,

Mark
KM6HFR
______________________________________________________________
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]