Need help to justify desired purchase :=)
Locked
Need help to justify desired purchase :=)
 
|
Hi.
Been thinking about getting a K3. Have been an extremely pleased builder-ower of a K2-100 for several years now. Listening to it now, and it is a real pleasure! To be honest, for HF hamming, the K2-100 (w/DSP module) is just fine for me. The K3's addition of 6 meters, and more importantly for me, and ability to add 2 meters are a plus, but PROBABLY not enough alone to justify the hefty price of ownership. What's going to justify the purchase for me, nor not, is the ability to use the K3 as SWL tool. Knowing that a lots been written on the Reflector in the past on this subject, I'd really like to have some opinions from owners of the latest versions of the K3 on its performance receiving broadcast stations. Specifically, I'm interested in the current state of the K3's receive audio bandwidth, distortion, and other similar performance characteristics, and in the performance of its Synchronous AM detection. One way of getting at this would be for me to know how the K3 would compare performance-wise (especially audio performance-wise) to some of the more popular SW receivers, e.g. the Drake R8 series, the Icom R-75, etc., or to other transceivers lauded for their receive audio performance (e.g., the old Kenwood TS-870). Thanks! Paul N6LQ ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
On 2/24/2012 5:18 PM, Paul Clay wrote:
> > What's going to justify the purchase for me, nor not, is the ability to use the K3 as SWL tool You will need the KBPF option for general coverage. If SWBC is your goal, you'd also need the 6 KHz filter I'd imagine. I have the KBPF but not the filter, I use gen coverage for Weather FAX, and some other things, I don't listen to BC. That said, getting a K3 as a gen coverage receiver is probably not wise money. The advantages and features of the K3 are pretty much all aimed at the ham bands were we both receive and transmit, and often do so under very crowded and challenging conditions. YMMV 73, Fred K6DGW TDY Sparks NV ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Need help to justify desired purchase :=)
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Clay-2
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Paul Clay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > What's going to justify the purchase for me, nor not, is the ability to use the K3 as SWL tool.... ========== Well ya know, Paul, this may sound a bit outré, but for about 60 bucks you can build a Softrock Ensemble receiver that makes a really nice SWL radio. You can find out all about them at http://wb5rvz.com/sdr/ and the Yahoo Softrock group. Worth a look. Tony KT0NY -- http://www.isb.edu/faculty/facultydir.aspx?ddlFaculty=352 ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Need help to justify desired purchase :=)
|
|
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Jack Colson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ... it seems like the source of these may have dried up. On the KB9YIG.com > site it says check back later... ================ It always says to check back later. The kits become available every couple of weeks. Recently the number shipped has been about 100 - 150 kits per week. Over the life of the Softrock project, a total of about 30,000 kits have been shipped, according to an estimate posted a month or so ago on the Softrock group. The only way to get one is to keep checking KB9YIG's website until you hit the lucky day. Joining the Softrock group can help, because when kits are made available there is usually a posting on the group. Each time a batch is available, they sell out within about 24 hours. Tony KT0NY -- http://www.isb.edu/faculty/facultydir.aspx?ddlFaculty=352 ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Clay-2
Hi Paul,
As a new Ham I can not compare the K3 to the older radios as you requested. I have never owned any of them. I ordered the KBPF option and installed it during my K3 build. I can say with certainty that I have received Shortwave broadcasts from EVERYWHERE. Europe, Middle East, Australia, China, Taiwan, Japan and everywhere in between. Clean signals and all on an 80M dipole in my back yard and not nearly as high up as I'd like it. Hope that helps. Scott KF5MHS On 2/24/2012 11:18 AM, Paul Clay wrote: > Hi. > > Been thinking about getting a K3. Have been an extremely pleased builder-ower of a K2-100 for several years now. Listening to it now, and it is a real pleasure! > > To be honest, for HF hamming, the K2-100 (w/DSP module) is just fine for me. The K3's addition of 6 meters, and more importantly for me, and ability to add 2 meters are a plus, but PROBABLY not enough alone to justify the hefty price of ownership. > > What's going to justify the purchase for me, nor not, is the ability to use the K3 as SWL tool. Knowing that a lots been written on the Reflector in the past on this subject, I'd really like to have some opinions from owners of the latest versions of the K3 on its performance receiving broadcast stations. Specifically, I'm interested in the current state of the K3's receive audio bandwidth, distortion, and other similar performance characteristics, and in the performance of its Synchronous AM detection. > > One way of getting at this would be for me to know how the K3 would compare performance-wise (especially audio performance-wise) to some of the more popular SW receivers, e.g. the Drake R8 series, the Icom R-75, etc., or to other transceivers lauded for their receive audio performance (e.g., the old Kenwood TS-870). > > Thanks! > Paul > N6LQ > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: Need help to justify desired purchase :=)
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Clay-2
I don't do much shortwave listening, but I have had the opportunity to
directly compare receive performance between the K3 with general coverage receiver option, the K2 and the venerable Kenwood TS-930s. I am also solely into voice. My general point is the difference between hearing and not hearing a small increase in receiver quality can make a major difference. Comparing the K3 and K2, I have noticed the K3 hears dramatically better. This means I was able to hear transmissions on the K3 that I could not hear with the K2. The TS-930s had a wonderful receiver and great analog sound. It is an old school transceiver with no DSP filtering. The TS-930s hears better than the K2. I could find and tune in transmissions with the 930 that I could not find with the K2. I was able to put the TS-930s and K3 next to each other in the same shack with top quality antennas. The K3 could hear everything the TS-930s could hear and a little more. The difference was not dramatic but it was there. The K3 has features that allow digital filtering of noise and adjacent signals so you could do a lot more with the K3 to bring the signal up more cleanly. At the same time, the TS-930's natural sound is pleasant listening even if you can't completely eliminate the static with DSP. With a K3 you are pretty much at the state of the art in amateur receiver performance. -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul Clay Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 9:18 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: [Elecraft] Need help to justify desired purchase :=) Hi. Been thinking about getting a K3. Have been an extremely pleased builder-ower of a K2-100 for several years now. Listening to it now, and it is a real pleasure! To be honest, for HF hamming, the K2-100 (w/DSP module) is just fine for me. The K3's addition of 6 meters, and more importantly for me, and ability to add 2 meters are a plus, but PROBABLY not enough alone to justify the hefty price of ownership. What's going to justify the purchase for me, nor not, is the ability to use the K3 as SWL tool. Knowing that a lots been written on the Reflector in the past on this subject, I'd really like to have some opinions from owners of the latest versions of the K3 on its performance receiving broadcast stations. Specifically, I'm interested in the current state of the K3's receive audio bandwidth, distortion, and other similar performance characteristics, and in the performance of its Synchronous AM detection. One way of getting at this would be for me to know how the K3 would compare performance-wise (especially audio performance-wise) to some of the more popular SW receivers, e.g. the Drake R8 series, the Icom R-75, etc., or to other transceivers lauded for their receive audio performance (e.g., the old Kenwood TS-870). Thanks! Paul N6LQ ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Need help to justify desired purchase :=)
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Clay-2
Two other points.
For six meters, I currently don't have a separate six meter antenna. >From what I have heard what little is going on with six meters would not justify the additional expense. Plus you can add it to your K2 using a transverter. The two meter option will cost you $299 for the internal two meter unit plus $119 for the KXV3a option. That is considerably more expensive than vhf or even uhf/vhf FM radios. Unless you want to do weak signal or all mode work on two meters, you will not want to incur the extra expense. Standard FM transceivers are better set up for working FM repeaters because their menus and buttons make operation in this mode easier. -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul Clay Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 9:18 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: [Elecraft] Need help to justify desired purchase :=) Hi. Been thinking about getting a K3. Have been an extremely pleased builder-ower of a K2-100 for several years now. Listening to it now, and it is a real pleasure! To be honest, for HF hamming, the K2-100 (w/DSP module) is just fine for me. The K3's addition of 6 meters, and more importantly for me, and ability to add 2 meters are a plus, but PROBABLY not enough alone to justify the hefty price of ownership. What's going to justify the purchase for me, nor not, is the ability to use the K3 as SWL tool. Knowing that a lots been written on the Reflector in the past on this subject, I'd really like to have some opinions from owners of the latest versions of the K3 on its performance receiving broadcast stations. Specifically, I'm interested in the current state of the K3's receive audio bandwidth, distortion, and other similar performance characteristics, and in the performance of its Synchronous AM detection. One way of getting at this would be for me to know how the K3 would compare performance-wise (especially audio performance-wise) to some of the more popular SW receivers, e.g. the Drake R8 series, the Icom R-75, etc., or to other transceivers lauded for their receive audio performance (e.g., the old Kenwood TS-870). Thanks! Paul N6LQ ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Clay-2
I think you would be pretty happy with the sync AM. It works very
well, though under some conditions better reception can be obtained by using USB or LSB. The drawback for SWL listening is that the SWBC bands are not segregated from the ham bands as far as the K3 BAND switching is concerned: the 31m SW band is part of the 30m ham band, 19m is part of 20m, etc. That means that if you dial in 15.120 MHz the BAND switch will remember this frequency as your last used "20m" frequency. So if you are using the K3 for both SWLing and hamming you will find yourself having to restore your ham band freqs from time to time. This isn't a problem; just saying that SWBC and ham bands are not integrated as nicely in the K3 as you might like. General coverage was a major factor for me in purchasing a K3 and I'm quite happy with it. Too bad we don't have the variety of SWBC and maritime CW stations that were around years ago. Compared to those times HF is pretty dead now. Wish I had this rig when I was trying to hear BFBS SIngapore on 49m way back then... never did manage to get a QSL card from them before they went QRT. (I had a HQ-180AC receiver too, which was no slouch...) 73, Drew AF2Z On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:18:25 -0800 (PST), Paul wrote: >Hi. > >Been thinking about getting a K3. Have been an extremely pleased builder-ower of a K2-100 for several years now. Listening to it now, and it is a real pleasure! > >To be honest, for HF hamming, the K2-100 (w/DSP module) is just fine for me. The K3's addition of 6 meters, and more importantly for me, and ability to add 2 meters are a plus, but PROBABLY not enough alone to justify the hefty price of ownership. > >What's going to justify the purchase for me, nor not, is the ability to use the K3 as SWL tool. Knowing that a lots been written on the Reflector in the past on this subject, I'd really like to have some opinions from owners of the latest versions of the K3 on its performance receiving broadcast stations. Specifically, I'm interested in the current state of the K3's receive audio bandwidth, distortion, and other similar performance characteristics, and in the performance of its Synchronous AM detection. > >One way of getting at this would be for me to know how the K3 would compare performance-wise (especially audio performance-wise) to some of the more popular SW receivers, e.g. the Drake R8 series, the Icom R-75, etc., or to other transceivers lauded for their receive audio performance (e.g., the old Kenwood TS-870). > >Thanks! >Paul >N6LQ >______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Need help to justify desired purchase :=)
|
|
Paul: Another thing you may want to consider is to install and use the
13KHz FM filter for AM receive. It will provide twice the audio bandwidth. 73, Doug VE3MV > > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:18:25 -0800 (PST), Paul wrote: > >>Hi. >> >>Been thinking about getting a K3. Have been an extremely pleased >>builder-ower of a K2-100 for several years now. Listening to it now, and >>it is a real pleasure! >> >>To be honest, for HF hamming, the K2-100 (w/DSP module) is just fine for >>me. The K3's addition of 6 meters, and more importantly for me, and >>ability to add 2 meters are a plus, but PROBABLY not enough alone to >>justify the hefty price of ownership. >> >>What's going to justify the purchase for me, nor not, is the ability to >>use the K3 as SWL tool. Knowing that a lots been written on the Reflector >>in the past on this subject, I'd really like to have some opinions from >>owners of the latest versions of the K3 on its performance receiving >>broadcast stations. Specifically, I'm interested in the current state of >>the K3's receive audio bandwidth, distortion, and other similar >>performance characteristics, and in the performance of its Synchronous AM >>detection. >> >>One way of getting at this would be for me to know how the K3 would >>compare performance-wise (especially audio performance-wise) to some of >>the more popular SW receivers, e.g. the Drake R8 series, the Icom R-75, >>etc., or to other transceivers lauded for their receive audio performance >>(e.g., the old Kenwood TS-870). >> >>Thanks! >>Paul >>N6LQ >>______________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: Need help to justify desired purchase :=)
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Clay-2
Actually, using the 13 KHz (FM) filter for AM rx does improve the overall RX bandwidth, but not by a factor of 2. It allows up to the maximum of about 4.2 KHz that is the limit of the audio stages. 73, Bruce, N1RX > Paul: Another thing you may want to consider is to install and use the > 13KHz FM filter for AM receive. It will provide twice the audio > bandwidth. > 73, Doug VE3MV ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |