New: K3 tops the list
Locked
 
|
Guys
It's not rocket science to measure the performance of a receiver... All you need are a few items of relatively common test gear, calibrated to national standards if possible. The test procedure is given in some detail on the ARRL web site. No "review" will be representative of all K3s, I've measured similar 3rd order dynamic range as do our German colleagues... That covers measurements on four different samples of a K3 - all can't be wrong. To put the K3 in perspective, in the March 2008 RSGB RadCom there is a review of the FT2000D by Peter Hart (G3SJX) which gives a 3rd order dynamic range of 67 dB at 2 KHz spacing... at least 30 dB worse than most K3 measurements. 73 Dave, G4AON K3/100 #80 ------------------ Charlie, I am sorry to hear that Rob Sherwood's K3 test was performed on a rig that may or may not be representative off all K3's. It would have been best if Elecraft had not done any work on it or made any adjustments to it once it was built by you. Chances are what they did to it did not have any affect on its performance but we will never know. I hope you will like your #149 as much as I like my #148. John [K7SVV] _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
> No "review" will be representative of all K3s.
I think Dave's line above says it all. No one review will ever capture the true performance of all transceivers. This is a significant "hang-up" area with many operators. Often, we'll read a QST or RadCom product review and make the quantum-leap assumption that one parameter will remain the same across an entire production run of transceivers. TX IMD specs come to mind here. For example, depending on a bias setting, the real IMD performance can very substantially with most SSB transceivers. If Elecraft's final alignment procedure is identical to that used by the casual end-user, does it matter whether or not the unit has been to Elecraft or Sherwood? I think the whole point of Elecraft's design team was to take the influential alignment variable out of the equation. I suspect if Wayne & Eric were even the least bit concerned in this area that the kit version would not have been offered. Or, in the alternative, all kits would go back to Elecraft for final alignment. Paul, W9AC (K3 just days away from shipment) _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Paul -
Actually, Wayne and Eric care quite a bit, as evidenced by their wanting the rig to be sent to them for checkout *AFTER* being told it was going to Rob for review. Also, recall that very nice Bavarian Contest Club review ( http://www.bavarian-contest-club.de/projects/K3_english.pdf ) wherein they mention "Wayne, N6KR and chief designer of the K3, knew that we were working on this report, and asked me to give him a chance to see the report at an early stage, so that he could point out errors, fix anything which might be broken and make comments" Lastly, I seem to recall something about Elecraft wanting the ARRL to measure a pre-production K3, to compare the League's measurements versus Elecraft's. (Am I making that up? It sure *seems* familiar.) It's not unreasonable for them to care, and I don't especially believe that they did anything above and beyond the published alignment procedure to especially enhance the performance...but we'll all feel more comfortable after we see a broader sampling of measurements from unrelated sources. How's that expression go? "Trust, but verify" Also not too many days away from my K3 being shipped... Steve NN4X On 2/19/08, Paul Christensen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > No "review" will be representative of all K3s. > > I think Dave's line above says it all. No one review will ever capture the > true performance of all transceivers. This is a significant "hang-up" area > with many operators. Often, we'll read a QST or RadCom product review and > make the quantum-leap assumption that one parameter will remain the same > across an entire production run of transceivers. TX IMD specs come to mind > here. For example, depending on a bias setting, the real IMD performance > can very substantially with most SSB transceivers. > > If Elecraft's final alignment procedure is identical to that used by the > casual end-user, does it matter whether or not the unit has been to Elecraft > or Sherwood? I think the whole point of Elecraft's design team was to take > the influential alignment variable out of the equation. I suspect if Wayne > & Eric were even the least bit concerned in this area that the kit version > would not have been offered. Or, in the alternative, all kits would go back > to Elecraft for final alignment. > > Paul, W9AC (K3 just days away from shipment) > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
> Also, recall that very nice Bavarian Contest Club review (
> http://www.bavarian-contest-club.de/projects/K3_english.pdf ) wherein > they mention "Wayne, N6KR and chief designer of the K3, knew that we > were working on this report, and asked me to give him a chance to see > the report at an early stage, so that he could point out errors, fix > anything which might be broken and make comments" I'd like to point out that Elecraft did not know we were going to be testing my kit when they sent it to Germany. I first mentioned our test once my K3 had arrived. vy 73 de toby -- DD5FZ (ex 4n6fz, dj7mgq, dg5mgq, dd5fz) K2/10 #885 K2/100 #3248 K3/100 #67 DOK C12, BCC, DL-QRP-AG, JN58td _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Dave, G4AON
It will be interesting to see if Peter reviews the K3. The K2 has
never been reviewed by him, despite a number of offers of loan rigs. 73 Stewart G3RXQ On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:35:53 +0000, Dave G4AON wrote: > Guys > > It's not rocket science to measure the performance of a receiver... All > you need are a few items of relatively common test gear, calibrated to > national standards if possible. The test procedure is given in some > detail on the ARRL web site. > > No "review" will be representative of all K3s, I've measured similar 3rd > order dynamic range as do our German colleagues... That covers > measurements on four different samples of a K3 - all can't be wrong. To > put the K3 in perspective, in the March 2008 RSGB RadCom there is a > review of the FT2000D by Peter Hart (G3SJX) which gives a 3rd order > dynamic range of 67 dB at 2 KHz spacing... at least 30 dB worse than > most K3 measurements. > > 73 Dave, G4AON > K3/100 #80 > ------------------ > Charlie, > I am sorry to hear that Rob Sherwood's K3 test was performed on a > rig that may or may not be representative off all K3's. It would have been > best if Elecraft had not done any work on it or made any adjustments to it > once it was built by you. Chances are what they did to it did not have any > affect on its performance but we will never know. I hope you will like your > #149 as much as I like my #148. > > John [K7SVV] > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
He said he would if he could get his paws on one - just contact him.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV -------------------------------------------------- From: "Stewart Baker" <[hidden email]> > It will be interesting to see if Peter reviews the K3. The K2 has > never been reviewed by him, despite a number of offers of loan > rigs. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |