Elecraft

Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

Mark Lunday

Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

I want to ask some questions to help me understand the thinking behind the
KX2 (and the KX3) because I am not fully understanding some things. I am a
current owner of an LNR MTR3B. 39 years in the hobby, but new to TRUE QRP.
Did I make a sub-optimal decision with the MTR3B? (Yes, I WANT a KX2. I
have drooled over the KX3 since it was first produced. And I used a
friend's K2, so I am a fan, but did I make the BEST choice?)

I see three use cases for the small QRP rig in this category:
* QRO home station, with an amplifier.
* QRP home station.
* QRP portable station (NOT FIELD DAY). This is where I get confused.
Why would someone purchase all those features in KX2/KX3?

I have the following REQUIREMENTS:
* Minimize the weight
* Simplify the operation
* Maximize the operating time
* Use efficient and easy-to-install antennas
* Maximize the possibility of a QSO, any QSO

I have the following OBJECTIVES:
* Have fun
* Improve my QRP skill
* Learn about station optimization
* See how far I can work
* See if I can get a few DX and as many states as possible
* Enrich my time outdoors by including my lifelong hobby of ham radio

Again, why buy a KX2 or KX3? Let's take PRICE out of the equation for this
thread. That's not a good metric for me in this QRP portable use case
analysis, because my SELECTION of FEATURES that fulfill the requirements
will dictate what I need to pay in order to MEET those requirements. (The
XYL sees it differently, but if the KX2 or KX3 meets the requirements best,
then that is what I want to purchase.) And let us call the weight, size and
battery consumption as even factors, none wins over the other for this
argument. So here goes the analysis:

* Why do I need all those bands with the KX2/KX3? I am not going to
erect an 80 meter end fed (too long) or a compromise 80 meter antenna for
QRP ops in the park, as that won't maximize my objectives. 40/30/20 should
do it. Anything higher than 20 will, in the coming sunspot lull (already
here?) render QRP operations quite difficult (not impossible, but a huge
investment of time for little return). Notwithstanding sporadic E, I don't
understand why those other bands would be of benefit now for QRP Portable
operation.

* Why do I need all those filters and awesome DSP capabilities with
the KX2/KX3? I plan to use CW only to maximize QSO possibility.and I am
going to only call the strongest stations that my rig will hear. Why would
I need to filter so I can hear weak signals that I won't be calling anyway?
And I don't see the benefit of chasing DX in a pileup, using an offset, when
I am QRP on an end-fed wire on a picnic bench in a park.

* Why do I need SSB with the KX2/KX3? See previous bullet item
regarding CW only.

* Who do I need digital modes with the KX2/KX3? (In fact, why does
Elecraft provide the two digital modes most susceptible to QSB, fading and
interference? (How many RTTY QRP operators do I know? None. The
old-timers I work on HF are all running high power. And many of the PSK QRP
guys have gone to JT65 or JT9. I get why Elecraft did this, because PSK and
RTTY have been around a long time, but why not add in some additional
digital modes that would increase my QSO chances with portable QRP?)

* Why do I need 10 watts with the KX2 or KX3, or SDR, or firmware
updates? It's no longer QRP at 10 watts, and QRP is why I am out on the
picnic bench with the end-fed and the rig in the first place. I won't have
a tablet with me. The rig is the rig, it is simple and no need for updates.

Use case #3 (and ONLY use case #3), QRP portable, I don't see why the KX2 or
KX3 is a better fit than the KX1 (or my MTR3B). Maybe KX2 or KX3 is better
BECAUSE IT COVERS more than one use case, but I already have a rig in my
shack with lots of nice features.

If we consider the Field Day use case, THAT is where the KX2 or KX3 is THE
RIG to have (filters, digital modes, antenna tuner). But that's not part of
my use case #3, it is a special one-off scenario that has its own set of
requirements and objectives that are DIFFERENT than the ones I listed above.

Comments/critiques welcome. Did I make a sub-optimal decision with my
MTR3B? Maybe I should get rid of all my other gear so I can get a KX2 or
KX3 so I can do it all with one rig?

Mark Lunday, WD4ELG
Greensboro, NC FM06be
[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]

Bill W4ZV

Re: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

The essence of what you stated is that the 2 rigs are apples and oranges. Having built several of KD1JV's QRP rigs (starting with the ATS-2 in 2004) they are for minimalists (weight, power, bands, modes and cost). I've used my ATS-3, Weber (i.e. KD1JV) Tri-Bander and K2 for SOTA activations, general field operating and QRP events like QRPTTF, FOBB, etc.

My favorite for lightweight field QRP is the Tri-Bander mainly because it has a KNOB VFO in addition to reasonable size and weight. I find tuning by the up/down push buttons in most KD1JV rigs to be very painful if you do much S&P (which is necessary since you will be W E A K).

Remember that many no-code licensees today who want to do field operations must use SSB out of necessity. Once they become enlightened that CW is a vastly better mode for QRP, then they may consider ultralite rigs like the MTR.

The KX2/KX3 are undoubtedly the top of the line for full-featured QRP operations, but I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep agonizing over your decision, based on your planned usage. I do hope you don't eventually regret the push button VFO tuning (as I did) but you can always opt for the Tri-Bander as a reasonable alternative.

73, Bill W4ZV

ae5ka

Re: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

In reply to this post by Mark Lunday

I have a KX3 and a KX1. I still use the KX1 sometimes for SOTA portable
even when weight is not a big consideration, simply because I enjoy using a
simpler rig. Still make plenty of QSO's and it is just a bit more
challenging and gratifying since it is a more primitive rig.

Really the KX3 offers much improved ease of use. Better built-in ATU, which
can make a difference when moving to different bands and using random wire
type antennas. NIce VFO. Informative display. etc. etc.

Use what you you enjoy using!

Chip
AE5KA

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Mark Lunday <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want to ask some questions to help me understand the thinking behind the
> KX2 (and the KX3) because I am not fully understanding some things. I am a
> current owner of an LNR MTR3B. 39 years in the hobby, but new to TRUE QRP.
> Did I make a sub-optimal decision with the MTR3B? (Yes, I WANT a KX2. I
> have drooled over the KX3 since it was first produced. And I used a
> friend's K2, so I am a fan, but did I make the BEST choice?)
>
> I see three use cases for the small QRP rig in this category:
> * QRO home station, with an amplifier.
> * QRP home station.
> * QRP portable station (NOT FIELD DAY). This is where I get
> confused.
> Why would someone purchase all those features in KX2/KX3?
>
> I have the following REQUIREMENTS:
> * Minimize the weight
> * Simplify the operation
> * Maximize the operating time
> * Use efficient and easy-to-install antennas
> * Maximize the possibility of a QSO, any QSO
>
> I have the following OBJECTIVES:
> * Have fun
> * Improve my QRP skill
> * Learn about station optimization
> * See how far I can work
> * See if I can get a few DX and as many states as possible
> * Enrich my time outdoors by including my lifelong hobby of ham radio
>
> Again, why buy a KX2 or KX3? Let's take PRICE out of the equation for this
> thread. That's not a good metric for me in this QRP portable use case
> analysis, because my SELECTION of FEATURES that fulfill the requirements
> will dictate what I need to pay in order to MEET those requirements. (The
> XYL sees it differently, but if the KX2 or KX3 meets the requirements best,
> then that is what I want to purchase.) And let us call the weight, size
> and
> battery consumption as even factors, none wins over the other for this
> argument. So here goes the analysis:
>
> * Why do I need all those bands with the KX2/KX3? I am not going to
> erect an 80 meter end fed (too long) or a compromise 80 meter antenna for
> QRP ops in the park, as that won't maximize my objectives. 40/30/20 should
> do it. Anything higher than 20 will, in the coming sunspot lull (already
> here?) render QRP operations quite difficult (not impossible, but a huge
> investment of time for little return). Notwithstanding sporadic E, I don't
> understand why those other bands would be of benefit now for QRP Portable
> operation.
>
> * Why do I need all those filters and awesome DSP capabilities with
> the KX2/KX3? I plan to use CW only to maximize QSO possibility.and I am
> going to only call the strongest stations that my rig will hear. Why would
> I need to filter so I can hear weak signals that I won't be calling anyway?
> And I don't see the benefit of chasing DX in a pileup, using an offset,
> when
> I am QRP on an end-fed wire on a picnic bench in a park.
>
> * Why do I need SSB with the KX2/KX3? See previous bullet item
> regarding CW only.
>
> * Who do I need digital modes with the KX2/KX3? (In fact, why does
> Elecraft provide the two digital modes most susceptible to QSB, fading and
> interference? (How many RTTY QRP operators do I know? None. The
> old-timers I work on HF are all running high power. And many of the PSK
> QRP
> guys have gone to JT65 or JT9. I get why Elecraft did this, because PSK
> and
> RTTY have been around a long time, but why not add in some additional
> digital modes that would increase my QSO chances with portable QRP?)
>
> * Why do I need 10 watts with the KX2 or KX3, or SDR, or firmware
> updates? It's no longer QRP at 10 watts, and QRP is why I am out on the
> picnic bench with the end-fed and the rig in the first place. I won't have
> a tablet with me. The rig is the rig, it is simple and no need for
> updates.
>
> Use case #3 (and ONLY use case #3), QRP portable, I don't see why the KX2
> or
> KX3 is a better fit than the KX1 (or my MTR3B). Maybe KX2 or KX3 is better
> BECAUSE IT COVERS more than one use case, but I already have a rig in my
> shack with lots of nice features.
>
> If we consider the Field Day use case, THAT is where the KX2 or KX3 is THE
> RIG to have (filters, digital modes, antenna tuner). But that's not part
> of
> my use case #3, it is a special one-off scenario that has its own set of
> requirements and objectives that are DIFFERENT than the ones I listed
> above.
>
> Comments/critiques welcome. Did I make a sub-optimal decision with my
> MTR3B? Maybe I should get rid of all my other gear so I can get a KX2 or
> KX3 so I can do it all with one rig?
>
> Mark Lunday, WD4ELG
> Greensboro, NC FM06be
> [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]
>

______________________________________________________________
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

Re: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

In reply to this post by Mark Lunday

Mark,

If you want one transceiver to fill all your use cases, then I believe
the full featured KX2 or KX3 would be your choice. It offers home
station features along with field portability (unplug the cables and
pick it up to go with you).

The receive sensitivity is more than adequate for home station use, and
that same sensitivity is useful when working in the field with
compromise antennas - if you can't hear them, you can't work them. The
internal ATU can handle a wide range of antennas.

The KX2 has an internal microphone, so you don't have to take a
microphone along to the field to operate SSB.

Want to work PSK or RTTY from the field? The KX2/KX3 can send PSK or
RTTY by keying with the paddle and can decode received signals and
display them in the VFO B display area.

I cannot answer whether you made a good or a bad choice, but if you want
a small transceiver that can "do it all" in one package, then I believe
the KX2 or the KX3 is the obvious choice.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 7/6/2016 10:56 PM, Mark Lunday wrote:

Barry K3NDM

Re: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

In reply to this post by Mark Lunday

Mark,
You ask some good questions and have a clear set of requirements.
First, I'm not familiar with the LNR MTR3B and I do own a KX3 and
matching amplifier. I do use my KX3 for Field Day in running QRP and
solar powered. To me it represents the do everything right radio.
However, I don't have the one requirement you and Wayne have of
operating a QRP rig out in the park or off a mountain top. And, I don't
know how many radios you want in your inventory so that you meet your
entire requirement set.

Let me also add that I have a KX1 and once had a K2. My thinking was
I needed a radio for home at the 100 Watt level and Field Day to me is
an imperative. I had been using a range of gear for FD and found the K2
the absolute best in the set of gear that was being used. A friend had a
K1 which we used for FD, and he actually chased DX with it. However, I
was thinking I might want to do PSK31 QRP away from my shack. That was
the reason I added the SSB board to my K2. The K2 is larger than an
FT-817 and a few other rigs so I built the KX1 with the 4 band board. I
wasn't happy being limited to CW so I got the KX3 and the amplifier; I
had been running a Tentec Orion II for my base radio. However, There was
something I couldn't do with the Orion that Elecraft handed me, I&Q data
so that I could really do an integrated home station. It became quite
obvious that the KX3 could meet all of my requirements as listed in your
use case. and, I could do it all with one radio. So, I retired my Orion
II and am as happy as I can be. But, I don't camp, climb mountains, or
walk around with a radio, except 2 meters.

If you really do not intend to do anything other than QRP CW in the
park, operating SOTA, etc, even a KX2 might be overkill. I would look at
the KX1. It's really simple works really well and it fits in the pocket
of my cargo pants. I would have preferred the K1, but I don't believe
Elecraft is selling that anymore. If there is any probability that you
might want PSK31 or RTTY while in the park, a KX2 would be the way to
go. But if you can only handle a one radio inventory, the KX3.

Performance wise the KX3 is world class. It's limited only by
ambient noise and the bad signals of others. I suspect the KX2 is the
same as it is fully based on the KX3, as stated by Elecraft. The KX1
will be close, but may not get fully there, but it is far more than
adequate for CW in the park with a portable antenna.

73,
Barry
K3NDM

------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Lunday" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]; "'Reflector Elecraft'"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: 7/6/2016 10:56:15 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP
portable scenario?

>I want to ask some questions to help me understand the thinking behind
>the
>KX2 (and the KX3) because I am not fully understanding some things. I
>am a
>current owner of an LNR MTR3B. 39 years in the hobby, but new to TRUE
>QRP.
>Did I make a sub-optimal decision with the MTR3B? (Yes, I WANT a KX2.
>I
>have drooled over the KX3 since it was first produced. And I used a
>friend's K2, so I am a fan, but did I make the BEST choice?)
>
>I see three use cases for the small QRP rig in this category:
>* QRO home station, with an amplifier.
>* QRP home station.
>* QRP portable station (NOT FIELD DAY). This is where I get confused.
>Why would someone purchase all those features in KX2/KX3?
>
>I have the following REQUIREMENTS:
>* Minimize the weight
>* Simplify the operation
>* Maximize the operating time
>* Use efficient and easy-to-install antennas
>* Maximize the possibility of a QSO, any QSO
>
>I have the following OBJECTIVES:
>* Have fun
>* Improve my QRP skill
>* Learn about station optimization
>* See how far I can work
>* See if I can get a few DX and as many states as possible
>* Enrich my time outdoors by including my lifelong hobby of ham radio
>
>Again, why buy a KX2 or KX3? Let's take PRICE out of the equation for
>this
>thread. That's not a good metric for me in this QRP portable use case
>analysis, because my SELECTION of FEATURES that fulfill the
>requirements
>will dictate what I need to pay in order to MEET those requirements.
>(The
>XYL sees it differently, but if the KX2 or KX3 meets the requirements
>best,
>then that is what I want to purchase.) And let us call the weight,
>size and
>battery consumption as even factors, none wins over the other for this
>argument. So here goes the analysis:
>
>* Why do I need all those bands with the KX2/KX3? I am not going to
>erect an 80 meter end fed (too long) or a compromise 80 meter antenna
>for
>QRP ops in the park, as that won't maximize my objectives. 40/30/20
>should
>do it. Anything higher than 20 will, in the coming sunspot lull
>(already
>here?) render QRP operations quite difficult (not impossible, but a
>huge
>investment of time for little return). Notwithstanding sporadic E, I
>don't
>understand why those other bands would be of benefit now for QRP
>Portable
>operation.
>
>* Why do I need all those filters and awesome DSP capabilities with
>the KX2/KX3? I plan to use CW only to maximize QSO possibility.and I
>am
>going to only call the strongest stations that my rig will hear. Why
>would
>I need to filter so I can hear weak signals that I won't be calling
>anyway?
>And I don't see the benefit of chasing DX in a pileup, using an offset,
>when
>I am QRP on an end-fed wire on a picnic bench in a park.
>
>* Why do I need SSB with the KX2/KX3? See previous bullet item
>regarding CW only.
>
>* Who do I need digital modes with the KX2/KX3? (In fact, why does
>Elecraft provide the two digital modes most susceptible to QSB, fading
>and
>interference? (How many RTTY QRP operators do I know? None. The
>old-timers I work on HF are all running high power. And many of the
>PSK QRP
>guys have gone to JT65 or JT9. I get why Elecraft did this, because
>PSK and
>RTTY have been around a long time, but why not add in some additional
>digital modes that would increase my QSO chances with portable QRP?)
>
>* Why do I need 10 watts with the KX2 or KX3, or SDR, or firmware
>updates? It's no longer QRP at 10 watts, and QRP is why I am out on
>the
>picnic bench with the end-fed and the rig in the first place. I won't
>have
>a tablet with me. The rig is the rig, it is simple and no need for
>updates.
>
>Use case #3 (and ONLY use case #3), QRP portable, I don't see why the
>KX2 or
>KX3 is a better fit than the KX1 (or my MTR3B). Maybe KX2 or KX3 is
>better
>BECAUSE IT COVERS more than one use case, but I already have a rig in
>my
>shack with lots of nice features.
>
>If we consider the Field Day use case, THAT is where the KX2 or KX3 is
>THE
>RIG to have (filters, digital modes, antenna tuner). But that's not
>part of
>my use case #3, it is a special one-off scenario that has its own set
>of
>requirements and objectives that are DIFFERENT than the ones I listed
>above.
>
>Comments/critiques welcome. Did I make a sub-optimal decision with my
>MTR3B? Maybe I should get rid of all my other gear so I can get a KX2
>or
>KX3 so I can do it all with one rig?
>
>Mark Lunday, WD4ELG
>Greensboro, NC FM06be
>[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]

Mark Lunday

FOLLOW-UP: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

Thanks to all who replied on-board and direct to me.

As expected, the support/encouragement/guidance/feedback have been EXTREMELY VALUABLE.

I know these boards to contain some of the best Elmers our hobby has ever had….and this thread exceeded my highest expectations.

Mark Lunday, WD4ELG

Greensboro, NC FM06be

[hidden email]

http://wd4elg.blogspot.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]

Mike Morrow-3

Re: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

In reply to this post by Mark Lunday

Barry wrote:

> ...I would have preferred the K1, but I don't believe Elecraft is
> selling that anymore.

The K1 is still sold...see http://www.elecraft.com/k1_page.htm . The K1 remains an excellent small CW-only transceiver. However, the four-band KFL1-4 filter board has been unavailable for a couple of years.

The original posting in this thread contrasted the KX1 vs. KX2 or KX3. If RF performance mattered, where the K1 is clearly superior to the KX1, the 16-year-old K1 deserves honorable mention among small QRP transceivers:
(1) The K1 uses an LC VFO that is cleaner than the DDS frequency generation scheme of the KX1. This reduces transmitter spurious output, and improves receiver performance because fewer spur frequencies are part of the local oscillator signal fed to the front-end mixer.
(2) The K1 can be placed on any of the HF bands, although Elecraft sells parts for 80m through 15m only. The KX1 DDS chip is clocked at its maximum rate of 50 MHz, which limits KX1 highest frequency coverage to around those of 20m band.
(3) The K1 IF uses a four-pole crystal filter...the KX1 IF uses three-pole. This makes a very noticeable difference in selectivity.
(4) The KAT1 produces a larger number of configurations (1020) of impedance than the KXAT1 (124). (It's of note that the KXAT2 produces 32764 different network configurations, 264 *times* the number of the KXAT1. The KXAT3 produces 131068 configurations, 1057 times the KXAT1.)
(5) Many find continuous K1 LC VFO tuning more natural than step-wise KX1 DDS tuning.
(6) The K1 has a noise blanker option...the KX1 does not.
(7) The K1 transmitter can produce up to seven watts of output power. The KX1 is about half that...at best.
(8) The K1 case has a speaker...the KX1 does not.

OTOH, the KX1 is clearly superior in terms of VFO stability. It is superior in its span of frequency coverage within the limits of the DDS. It can switch between USB and LSB receive mode due to the frequency agility of the DDS as local oscillator. It has neat features like audio feedback to controls. It is smaller and lighter.

With respect to the KX1 vs. KX2 or KX3, the gulf in capability and performance is so great as to render the question absurd. The only advantage to the KX1 over the KX2 is that Elecraft provides a schematic for the KX1...something that very noticeably withheld for the KX2 and its accessories. That implies the customer is an "appliance operator".

Mike / KK5F
______________________________________________________________
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

Re: [KX3] Re: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

Main fun of the K1 and KX1 is building them :-)

Phil W7OX

On 7/7/16 11:07 AM, Mike Morrow [hidden email]
[KX3] wrote:

>
> Barry wrote:
>
> > ...I would have preferred the K1, but I don't
> believe Elecraft is
> > selling that anymore.
>
> The K1 is still sold...see
> http://www.elecraft.com/k1_page.htm . The K1
> remains an excellent small CW-only transceiver.
> However, the four-band KFL1-4 filter board has
> been unavailable for a couple of years.
>
> The original posting in this thread contrasted
> the KX1 vs. KX2 or KX3. If RF performance
> mattered, where the K1 is clearly superior to
> the KX1, the 16-year-old K1 deserves honorable
> mention among small QRP transceivers:
> (1) The K1 uses an LC VFO that is cleaner than
> the DDS frequency generation scheme of the KX1.
> This reduces transmitter spurious output, and
> improves receiver performance because fewer spur
> frequencies are part of the local oscillator
> signal fed to the front-end mixer.
> (2) The K1 can be placed on any of the HF bands,
> although Elecraft sells parts for 80m through
> 15m only. The KX1 DDS chip is clocked at its
> maximum rate of 50 MHz, which limits KX1 highest
> frequency coverage to around those of 20m band.
> (3) The K1 IF uses a four-pole crystal
> filter...the KX1 IF uses three-pole. This makes
> a very noticeable difference in selectivity.
> (4) The KAT1 produces a larger number of
> configurations (1020) of impedance than the
> KXAT1 (124). (It's of note that the KXAT2
> produces 32764 different network configurations,
> 264 *times* the number of the KXAT1. The KXAT3
> produces 131068 configurations, 1057 times the
> KXAT1.)
> (5) Many find continuous K1 LC VFO tuning more
> natural than step-wise KX1 DDS tuning.
> (6) The K1 has a noise blanker option...the KX1
> does not.
> (7) The K1 transmitter can produce up to seven
> watts of output power. The KX1 is about half
> that...at best.
> (8) The K1 case has a speaker...the KX1 does not.
>
> OTOH, the KX1 is clearly superior in terms of
> VFO stability. It is superior in its span of
> frequency coverage within the limits of the DDS.
> It can switch between USB and LSB receive mode
> due to the frequency agility of the DDS as local
> oscillator. It has neat features like audio
> feedback to controls. It is smaller and lighter.
>
> With respect to the KX1 vs. KX2 or KX3, the gulf
> in capability and performance is so great as to
> render the question absurd. The only advantage
> to the KX1 over the KX2 is that Elecraft
> provides a schematic for the KX1...something
> that very noticeably withheld for the KX2 and
> its accessories. That implies the customer is an
> "appliance operator".
>
> Mike / KK5F
>
> __._,_.___
>

ae5ka

Re: [KX3] Re: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

>
> Main fun of the K1 and KX1 is building them :-)
>

Well, that is fun. But it is also fun to "do much with little".

Work VK with a K3S - nice. Work VK with a KX1 - thats gives a kind of
"Wow!" feeling.

I'm just saying there is a lot of gratification working with limited gear.

Chip
AE5KA

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Phil Wheeler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Main fun of the K1 and KX1 is building them :-)
>
> Phil W7OX
>
> On 7/7/16 11:07 AM, Mike Morrow [hidden email] [KX3] wrote:
>
>>
>> Barry wrote:
>>
>> > ...I would have preferred the K1, but I don't believe Elecraft is
>> > selling that anymore.
>>
>> The K1 is still sold...see http://www.elecraft.com/k1_page.htm . The K1
>> remains an excellent small CW-only transceiver. However, the four-band
>> KFL1-4 filter board has been unavailable for a couple of years.
>>
>> The original posting in this thread contrasted the KX1 vs. KX2 or KX3. If
>> RF performance mattered, where the K1 is clearly superior to the KX1, the
>> 16-year-old K1 deserves honorable mention among small QRP transceivers:
>> (1) The K1 uses an LC VFO that is cleaner than the DDS frequency
>> generation scheme of the KX1. This reduces transmitter spurious output, and
>> improves receiver performance because fewer spur frequencies are part of
>> the local oscillator signal fed to the front-end mixer.
>> (2) The K1 can be placed on any of the HF bands, although Elecraft sells
>> parts for 80m through 15m only. The KX1 DDS chip is clocked at its maximum
>> rate of 50 MHz, which limits KX1 highest frequency coverage to around those
>> of 20m band.
>> (3) The K1 IF uses a four-pole crystal filter...the KX1 IF uses
>> three-pole. This makes a very noticeable difference in selectivity.
>> (4) The KAT1 produces a larger number of configurations (1020) of
>> impedance than the KXAT1 (124). (It's of note that the KXAT2 produces 32764
>> different network configurations, 264 *times* the number of the KXAT1. The
>> KXAT3 produces 131068 configurations, 1057 times the KXAT1.)
>> (5) Many find continuous K1 LC VFO tuning more natural than step-wise KX1
>> DDS tuning.
>> (6) The K1 has a noise blanker option...the KX1 does not.
>> (7) The K1 transmitter can produce up to seven watts of output power. The
>> KX1 is about half that...at best.
>> (8) The K1 case has a speaker...the KX1 does not.
>>
>> OTOH, the KX1 is clearly superior in terms of VFO stability. It is
>> superior in its span of frequency coverage within the limits of the DDS. It
>> can switch between USB and LSB receive mode due to the frequency agility of
>> the DDS as local oscillator. It has neat features like audio feedback to
>> controls. It is smaller and lighter.
>>
>> With respect to the KX1 vs. KX2 or KX3, the gulf in capability and
>> performance is so great as to render the question absurd. The only
>> advantage to the KX1 over the KX2 is that Elecraft provides a schematic for
>> the KX1...something that very noticeably withheld for the KX2 and its
>> accessories. That implies the customer is an "appliance operator".
>>
>> Mike / KK5F
>>
>> __._,_.___
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

Re: [KX3] Re: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

Heck, Chip: I provide enough limitations myself,
without my hardware helping even a tiny bit ;-)

73, Phil W7OX

On 7/7/16 11:44 AM, Chip Stratton wrote:

>> Main fun of the K1 and KX1 is building them :-)
>>
> Well, that is fun. But it is also fun to "do much with little".
>
> Work VK with a K3S - nice. Work VK with a KX1 - thats gives a kind of
> "Wow!" feeling.
>
> I'm just saying there is a lot of gratification working with limited gear.
>
> Chip
> AE5KA
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Phil Wheeler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Main fun of the K1 and KX1 is building them :-)
>>
>> Phil W7OX