Elecraft › [KX3]

KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

Classic

List

Threaded

16 messages Options

DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL

KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs.

You show us what the 817 looks like here (in the big table...just
scroll down a little to see the table and then to near the bottom for
the 817): http://www.elecraft.com/K2_perf.htm

I know the KX3 isn't "finalized" but it must be pretty close...it's
almost November, right!

I know it won't be a "K3," but would love to see the "close in" specs
(5kc, 2kc) for with vs without the various "roofing filters."

Any rough numbers yet (plus/minus)?????

de Doug KR2Q
______________________________________________________________
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

Johnny Siu

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

Ft817 was past decade technology. I once used it but eventually replaced it with k2. Ft817 receives everything but difficult to select anything. There is also no built in atu and speech compressor in ft817.

Ft817 was a popular qrp rig but it is now the time for its glorious retirement. 73 Johnny

Sent from my iPhone 4

DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL <[hidden email]> 於 2011年10月22日下午6:55 寫道：

> No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs.
>
> You show us what the 817 looks like here (in the big table...just
> scroll down a little to see the table and then to near the bottom for
> the 817): http://www.elecraft.com/K2_perf.htm
>
> I know the KX3 isn't "finalized" but it must be pretty close...it's
> almost November, right!
>
> I know it won't be a "K3," but would love to see the "close in" specs
> (5kc, 2kc) for with vs without the various "roofing filters."
>
> Any rough numbers yet (plus/minus)?????
>
> de Doug KR2Q
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

Matthew Pitts

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

Johnny,

Maybe, but the FT-817 doesn't need anything except maybe the CW filter; if all you're interested in is CW on 80-10 and don't ever intend to hook a transverter to it, the out of box K2 is fine. I have both, so I have the option of using them for different purposes; the 817 is my go radio, and the K2 is my home station radio.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from my Wireless Device

-----Original Message-----
From: vr2xmc <[hidden email]>
Sender: [hidden email]
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:51:19
To: DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL<[hidden email]>
Cc: Elecraft Reflector<[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions"
compare?

Ft817 was past decade technology. I once used it but eventually replaced it with k2. Ft817 receives everything but difficult to select anything. There is also no built in atu and speech compressor in ft817.

Ft817 was a popular qrp rig but it is now the time for its glorious retirement. 73 Johnny

Sent from my iPhone 4

DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL <[hidden email]> 於 2011年10月22日下午6:55 寫道：

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

wayne burdick

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

Administrator

In reply to this post by DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL

DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote:

> No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs.

Hi Doug,

The KX3's RX performance numbers are exceptional, but only one unit
has been through the full test suite. After we've tested several,
we'll post more details. If the numbers hold, it should easily be in
the top five on Sherwood's chart with the roofing filter module
installed, and top ten without.

Since you asked: it's roughly 30-40 dB stronger than the FT817 in most
RX categories. OTOH, the '817 has some nice features, and I have one
myself that I use as a signal generator and monitor.

73,
Wayne
N6KR
______________________________________________________________
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

wreese

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

Wayne,

If you would be so kind, how does K1 K2 K3 KX1 compare to each other
and the "rig of the day" the '817 which seems so popular at the moment.

73, TR K6GC
K2/100 S/N 838
_______________

At 09:02 AM 10/22/2011 -0700, you wrote:

>DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote:
>
> > No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs.
>
>Hi Doug,
>
>The KX3's RX performance numbers are exceptional, but only one unit
>has been through the full test suite. After we've tested several,
>we'll post more details. If the numbers hold, it should easily be in
>the top five on Sherwood's chart with the roofing filter module
>installed, and top ten without.
>
>Since you asked: it's roughly 30-40 dB stronger than the FT817 in most
>RX categories. OTOH, the '817 has some nice features, and I have one
>myself that I use as a signal generator and monitor.
>
>73,
>Wayne
>N6KR

wayne burdick

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

Administrator

Hi TR,

Eventually we'll have detailed comparison charts for the KX3 vs. other
small radios. I wouldn't put the K3 in this chart, because it's an
entirely different radio (full-size enclosure and front panel,
internal 100 W amp and ATU, high-performance sub receiver, up to 10
roofing filters, complete I/O complement including P3/RX ANT/
transverter connectors, etc.).

Generally speaking, the KX3 best fills the need for an ultra-compact
all-band/all-mode radio. The K2 offers similar band/mode coverage in a
"full" kit (where you get to solder), but the KX3 is a lot smaller and
has an updated user interface as well as I.F. DSP.

If you only need CW mode and a few of the most popular bands, the K1
or KX1 would be good choices. Both are full kits.

The KX1 is our smallest radio, with TFR (trail-friendly) format and an
attached paddle, like the KX3. It also uses a DDS VFO and SSB/AM
receive, providing SWL coverage in addition to the ham bands.

The K1 is a traditional analog radio, with an LC VFO. It has higher
power output and a wider-range ATU option than the KX1.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Oct 22, 2011, at 9:42 AM, wreese wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> If you would be so kind, how does K1 K2 K3 KX1 compare to each other
> and the "rig of the day" the '817 which seems so popular at the
> moment.
>
> 73, TR K6GC
> K2/100 S/N 838
> _______________
>
> At 09:02 AM 10/22/2011 -0700, you wrote:
>> DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote:
>>
>> > No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs.
>>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> The KX3's RX performance numbers are exceptional, but only one unit
>> has been through the full test suite. After we've tested several,
>> we'll post more details. If the numbers hold, it should easily be in
>> the top five on Sherwood's chart with the roofing filter module
>> installed, and top ten without.
>>
>> Since you asked: it's roughly 30-40 dB stronger than the FT817 in
>> most
>> RX categories. OTOH, the '817 has some nice features, and I have one
>> myself that I use as a signal generator and monitor.
>>
>> 73,
>> Wayne
>> N6KR

Pierfrancesco Caci

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

Wayne Burdick <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi TR,
>
>Eventually we'll have detailed comparison charts for the KX3 vs. other
>
>small radios. I wouldn't put the K3 in this chart, because it's an
>entirely different radio (full-size enclosure and front panel,
>internal 100 W amp and ATU, high-performance sub receiver, up to 10
>roofing filters, complete I/O complement including P3/RX ANT/
>transverter connectors, etc.).
>

No, please Wayne, include it (maybe in the basic 10 W version), so we have a useful idea of the things you have to sacrifice when choosing an ultra portable.

Thanks, Pf
--
Pierfrancesco Caci

______________________________________________________________
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

Jim Low man

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

In reply to this post by wayne burdick

After almost 50 years of being a ham, I see that the conventional wisdom
of NOT including general coverage in a receiver has been refuted. It was
thought to be at the expense of performance on the ham bands.

How have modern design techniques overcome this limitation?

73 de Jim - AD6CW

On 10/22/2011 10:11 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote:

> Hi TR,
>
> The KX1 is our smallest radio, with TFR (trail-friendly) format and an
> attached paddle, like the KX3. It also uses a DDS VFO and SSB/AM
> receive, providing SWL coverage in addition to the ham bands.
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR
>
>
>

wayne burdick

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

Administrator

Hi Jim,

The K3 comes with very narrow ham-band filters, standard. These
provide the excellent SWL rejection that you're referring to, which is
especially important in a down-conversion superhet design. To obtain
full SWL coverage, the K3 user can install the KBPF3 option, which
adds wider filters that cover the entire range of 0.5-30 MHz. This has
no impact on ham-band performance, as the wider filters are only
switched in when you tune well outside the ham bands.

The KX3 has a different receiver architecture, similar to direct
conversion but with quadrature channels (I/Q) to allow for single-
signal reception. This architecture doesn't involve a large I.F., so
there are fewer images to deal with in both RX and TX mode. This
lightens the requirements for band-pass filtering. As a result, the
KX3's band-pass filters can include ham and nearby SWL bands without
any need for tuning.

The K1, KX1, and K2 have tuned ham-band filters that provide coverage
of most nearby SWL bands.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Oct 23, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Jim Lowman wrote:

> After almost 50 years of being a ham, I see that the conventional
> wisdom
> of NOT including general coverage in a receiver has been refuted.
> It was
> thought to be at the expense of performance on the ham bands.
>
> How have modern design techniques overcome this limitation?
>
> 73 de Jim - AD6CW
>
> On 10/22/2011 10:11 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
>> Hi TR,
>>
>> The KX1 is our smallest radio, with TFR (trail-friendly) format and
>> an
>> attached paddle, like the KX3. It also uses a DDS VFO and SSB/AM
>> receive, providing SWL coverage in addition to the ham bands.
>>
>> 73,
>> Wayne
>> N6KR
>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

P.B. Christensen

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "insidedimensions" compare?

In reply to this post by Jim Low man

> "I had the impression that the rise of the Ham-band-only transceiver in
> the
> 1950's and 60's was based on simple economics. It was cheaper to drop
> general coverage receive..."

Just the opposite, I think. Some of the poorest performing -- and least
expensive receivers provided general coverage. The most expensive receivers
of their respective eras were the Collins 75A, Collins 75S, Drake R-4, and
National HRO, all of which were at the top-end of the purchasing ladder in
their day.

I have several Hallicrafters receivers between the SX-9 and SX-100 and
others in between. The cheap and dirty way of providing GC was to find the
calibrating Main tuning cap points, activate the xtal calibrate marker, then
tune the bandspread cap to the nearest dial marker. The problem is that
mechanical variations in the GC main tuning greatly affect bandspread
tuning. For example, on my SX-100, the entire tuning mechanism functions on
the use of a highly tensioned steel piano string. The slightest vibration
on the table transfers from the chassis, into the gears, the dial string,
and ultimately, the tuning caps. Because of tuning instability, the SX-100
is one of the worst receivers I've owned and unfortunately, it was my first
receiver as a novice in '72.

OTOH, Collins and Drake receivers from the '50s and '60 suffer no such
problems. The PTOs are temperature compensated and highly linear from
end-to-end. It is possible to use a PTO and a crystal heterodyne scheme at
the first LO, but was very expensive. The Drake SPR-4 was such a GC SWBC
receiver that had a PTO and up to 23 pre-mixer crystals - and it still
didn't offer contiguous coverage to 30 MHz.

Going back even further in time, look at the National SW-3, FB-7, and HRO
frequency-determining topology. The SW-3 regen and HRO could certainly
accommodate GC, but the real performance attained in the 1930s was realized
when the bandspread clips were engaged, severely limiting tuning range to
only the ham bands. For a non-PTO tuning method, National's HRO gearbox,
coil boxes with taps, and elliptical tuning dial were a flash of genius.

So, I see the early "ham bands only" receivers as the more superior, and
expensive product. Apart from the mentioned Hallicrafters SX receivers, I
don't collect and restore any other type of GC receiver. And, how anyone
can elevate the SX-88 to "Delivered from God" status is well beyond my
comprehension!

Paul, W9AC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "insidedimensions"
compare?
It was cheaper to drop

> general coverage receive. It was also true that they were typically better
> performing than most general coverage receivers, mostly due to improved
> input filtering that protected the mixer from large off-frequency signals.
>
> As you may recall, most general coverage receivers up to that time used
> simple L/C tunable input filters that required multiple knob-twiddling or
> a
> big "ganged" multi-section tuning cap with the stages carefully adjusted
> so
> they "tracked" the across the tuning range.
>
> A well-designed fixed tuned input filter was better, especially important
> consdering the relatively easy-to-overload mixers in common use back then.
> That gave the ad writers a good explanation for the limited tuning ranges.
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> After almost 50 years of being a ham, I see that the conventional wisdom
> of NOT including general coverage in a receiver has been refuted. It was
> thought to be at the expense of performance on the ham bands.
>
> How have modern design techniques overcome this limitation?
>
> 73 de Jim - AD6CW
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Rick WA6NHC

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "insidedimensions" compare?

While we're OT, does someone have an accurate AND current list of general
coverage things to listen in on? I used to love to do that, until I got
licensed and could actually talk to those far away places. And my exchange
students were impressed and amused when I could hand them a current issue
the Kyodo daily news (via FAX) with their breakfast. ;-)

Rick WA6NHC

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Christensen

> "I had the impression that the rise of the Ham-band-only transceiver in
> the
> 1950's and 60's was based on simple economics. It was cheaper to drop
> general coverage receive..."

I have several Hallicrafters receivers <snipped>

______________________________________________________________
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

David Christ

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "insidedimensions" compare?

Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If it is to prove you
can pick up the signal direct through the air then SWL is the name of
the game. (DXing is two way SWL i guess). But if it is truly the
content you are interested in then Internet radio is the thing. Yes,
you can do it with the computer but I just bought an Internet radio
from C Crane.
<http://www.ccrane.com/radios/wifi-radios/cc-wifi-radio.aspx>
Best way of listening to foreign radio stations I have run into.
Great for listening to a lot of home town stations, too.

Now back to that two way SWL stuff on my K3

David K0LUM

At 1:44 PM -0700 10/23/11, Rick Bates wrote:
>While we're OT, does someone have an accurate AND current list of general
>coverage things to listen in on? I used to love to do that, until I got
>licensed and could actually talk to those far away places. And my exchange
>students were impressed and amused when I could hand them a current issue
>the Kyodo daily news (via FAX) with their breakfast. ;-)
>
>Rick WA6NHC
______________________________________________________________
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

k6dgw

Re: KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

In reply to this post by Jim Low man

On 10/23/2011 12:12 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> I had the impression that the rise of the Ham-band-only transceiver in the
> 1950's and 60's was based on simple economics.

I have the GC BPF for my K3, and it works very well. There is still
some press to be found on RTTY [usually 850 Hz shift], and sometimes I
find the BBC. They have a lot of exposure here in the US via NPR and
others, but it's fun to "hear it from the Mother Country occasionally."
Sometimes I start copying the "numbers stations" just wondering whose
spies I'm hearing :-))

I think the rise of the transceiver [vs separate tx and rx which had
ruled ham shacks since the beginning of time] was the result of the
KWM-2. Tuning SSB was hard on the receivers of that day, zero-beating
your TX was even harder. When a box appeared that absolutely guaranteed
you were transmitting on the same frequency as you were listening, hams
embraced the concept [and SSB] almost fully [there were some AM
holdouts, still are I guess].

Art's masterful scheme of a RX/TX covering 200 KHz around 3 MHz preceded
by a crystal controlled converter for any 200 KHz range in the HF
spectrum seems to have gotten everyone used to the idea of
ham-band-only, although the KWM-2A with it's switchable crystal decks
was by far and away the HF workhorse for the US Military in the 60's on
other than ham band frequencies. The S-line was just a KWM-2 split into
a RX and TX.

A data point I'd sure like to see is how my K3 stacks up against the S-3
line I wish I had held onto. I had the 2.1 KHz and 500 Hz mech filters,
I know there was a 250 Hz available, but I wonder how it would do with
the blocking tests we now spend so much time scrutinizing. Not that I'm
about to give up my K3 :-)

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012
- www.cqp.org

______________________________________________________________
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

Jim Low man

OT: General coverage

Is this table from Sherwood Engineering what you're looking for?

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

The K3 receiver specs are there, as well as those for the 75S-3B and 3C.

72/73 de Jim - AD6CW

On 10/23/2011 4:25 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:
> A data point I'd sure like to see is how my K3 stacks up against the
> S-3 line I wish I had held onto. I had the 2.1 KHz and 500 Hz mech
> filters, I know there was a 250 Hz available, but I wonder how it
> would do with the blocking tests we now spend so much time
> scrutinizing. Not that I'm about to give up my K3 :-) 73, Fred K6DGW -
> Northern California Contest Club - CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7
> Oct 2012 - www.cqp.org
______________________________________________________________
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

k6dgw

Re: OT: General coverage

On 10/23/2011 6:02 PM, Jim Lowman wrote:
> Is this table from Sherwood Engineering what you're looking for?

Wow!! Overwhelming data! Let me see what I can do with this after
getting rid of all the stuff that doesn't apply.

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012
- www.cqp.org
______________________________________________________________
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

Jim Low man

Re: OT: General coverage

I like that Rob has included the specs of vintage receivers. Among
other things,
I was pleased to see how well my Drake R-4C with Sherwood mods stacks up
against the best receivers of today.

The fact that I no longer have access to the bench of test equipment
that I did
years ago, other than a DVM that I bought, has kept me from acquiring
any more
vintage gear.

73 de Jim - AD6CW

On 10/23/2011 7:35 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Interesting stuff, but I really don't want to know the specs on my WWII
> vintage HRO-5. Everything's relative. My HRO was a huge step up from my
> previous regen and S-38. And, over the years, it went through several
> evolutions with the addition of a beam-deflection mixer, second 2.5 kHz xtal
> filter in the I.F. and, by the time I donated it to a new Ham for his first
> rx about 1970, it was all solid state!
>
> The most disappointing thing about modern Ham gear with every cubic inch
> filled with I.C.s and digital controllers is that it's not nearly so easy to
> tinker with and adapt.
>
> Ron AC7AC
>