Elecraft

comparisons of K3 control software

Classic

List

Threaded

11 messages Options

AB2E Darrell

comparisons of K3 control software

I wonder if anyone has tried either N4PY's Pegasus program for controlling the K3, or TRX-Manager? It seems many of the K3's menu items can be controlled from within the programs. I have positive experience with N4PY for Icom radios, so have a good idea of what to expect for the K3. TRX-Manager appears to offer a slick interface that's a copy of the K3 front panel. I would like to hear your experiences with either program.

Contact me off-list at [hidden email].

Thanks and 73,
Darrell AB2E

______________________________________________________________
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]

Gary Gregory-2

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

Darrel

Look at WIN4K3 Software....by a k3 owner for the k3

Gary
Vk1ZZ
K3, KPA500-FT, KAT500-FT
On 11/04/2015 1:14 PM, "AB2E Darrell" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I wonder if anyone has tried either N4PY's Pegasus program for controlling
> the K3, or TRX-Manager? It seems many of the K3's menu items can be
> controlled from within the programs. I have positive experience with N4PY
> for Icom radios, so have a good idea of what to expect for the K3.
> TRX-Manager appears to offer a slick interface that's a copy of the K3
> front panel. I would like to hear your experiences with either program.
>
> Contact me off-list at [hidden email].
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Darrell AB2E
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Bill-3

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

I tried several different softwares for rig control of the K3. The
problem I see is the plethora of do everything packages(logging, rotor
control, wash dishes, etc.) I did not find a software that really did a
good job at rig control. Hence, I use an old (free) version of Ham Radio
Deluxe that does most of what I want for rig control. The best add-on
for rig control I have found is the Pigknob - with 8 programmable
buttons and a 2-speed VFO knob.

Be careful when testing some of these software packages. I experienced
having to reset all my menu choices (equalizers, AGC, DSP, etc.) after
using them. It appears the settings were changed by the software. I do
not recall which package it was for sure - I failed to write it down. My
bad.

Bill W2BLC K-Line

______________________________________________________________
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]

Doug Ellmore Sr.

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

In reply to this post by AB2E Darrell

I and many of my k3/kx3 cohorts in out area use Win4K. It's second to
none. It is not focused on logging but stable fast radio operating.

It can be used as a simple application or integrated with contest software
like n1mm+, hrdlogger, cwskimmer, etc.

The manual is extensive.

Doug NA1DX
______________________________________________________________
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]

Chester Alderman

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

And how well does it produce CW? Also can you explain the advantage of
using a computer to operate a radio verses using the radio manually?

Thanks and 73,
Tom - W4BQF

-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Doug
Ellmore
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 9:29 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] comparisons of K3 control software

I and many of my k3/kx3 cohorts in out area use Win4K. It's second to none.
It is not focused on logging but stable fast radio operating.

It can be used as a simple application or integrated with contest software
like n1mm+, hrdlogger, cwskimmer, etc.

The manual is extensive.

Doug NA1DX
______________________________________________________________
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]

Doug Ellmore Sr.

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

It captures the k3/kx3 capture perfectly. I also run cwskimmer to decode
from the IF. Skimmer is the best decoder.

Doug NA1DX
On Apr 11, 2015 9:58 AM, "Chester Alderman" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> And how well does it produce CW? Also can you explain the advantage of
> using a computer to operate a radio verses using the radio manually?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Tom - W4BQF
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Doug
> Ellmore
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 9:29 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] comparisons of K3 control software
>
> I and many of my k3/kx3 cohorts in out area use Win4K. It's second to
> none.
> It is not focused on logging but stable fast radio operating.
>
> It can be used as a simple application or integrated with contest software
> like n1mm+, hrdlogger, cwskimmer, etc.
>
> The manual is extensive.
>
> Doug NA1DX
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>
>

KEN-3

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

In reply to this post by Chester Alderman

Chester, I have wondered the same thing. I see some functions that an
on screen button can speed up, such as changing power levels. but most
of the time I prefer using the rig rather than the mouse. That's one
reason I prefer operating the K3 vs. the FlexRadio. The main thing I
want a computer involved for is logging, digital modes, and multi unit
synchoronization (such as the KAT500 with either the K3 or the Flex
6300.) But for routine operating, changing frequency or channels,
changing CW speed, etc. I much prefer the rig vs the computer.

Ken WA8JXM

On 11/04/2015 09:58, Chester Alderman wrote:
> And how well does it produce CW? Also can you explain the advantage of
> using a computer to operate a radio verses using the radio manually?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Tom - W4BQF

______________________________________________________________
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-3

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

For one reason or another, some operators enjoy being able to control
their rigs from a mouse (or - in my case - a Pigknob and HRD). For some
it is nearly a necessity - as is my case.

To reach my rig's controls I must reach across my desk's writing
surface. Perhaps hard for some to understand, but that can, at times, be
challenging for me. Hence, being able to use a mouse at the edge of the
desk - or the Pigknob in the same position - is a great advantage. I use
an older version (free) of HRD to act as my memory manager - with its
visual indicators on the band displays.

The best option for my particular operation is the TS480 - with a small
faceplate that can be positioned at the edge of my desk. That method
provides full rig control as it was intended - without any software or
hardware addons. Elecraft offers no simple/affordable answers for this.
However, the K3's performance tends to spoil your acceptance of other
rigs. So............. I use the Pigknob and HRD combo.

I have tried all the available methods and, thus far, have found what I
am using to be the best means of fully enjoying my K-Line.

My 2-cents worth from my world.

Bill W2BLC K-Line
______________________________________________________________
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]

Chester Alderman

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

In reply to this post by KEN-3

Hi Ken,

Well I didn't ask my question properly, so I got back info about how well it
decoded CW! Anyway I got a nice response from Tom, the author, responded to
him but got no response from him again yet.

I also have no interest in a CW decoder as I used to operate QRQ over 60
wpm, thus have no need for a decoder. And like you, I also have no interest
in controlling my K3 with a mouse. Tom seems to have a nice program
otherwise.

73,
Tom - W4BQF

-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of WA8JXM
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 11:29 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] comparisons of K3 control software

Chester, I have wondered the same thing. I see some functions that an
on screen button can speed up, such as changing power levels. but most of
the time I prefer using the rig rather than the mouse. That's one reason I
prefer operating the K3 vs. the FlexRadio. The main thing I want a computer
involved for is logging, digital modes, and multi unit synchoronization
(such as the KAT500 with either the K3 or the Flex
6300.) But for routine operating, changing frequency or channels,
changing CW speed, etc. I much prefer the rig vs the computer.

Ken WA8JXM

On 11/04/2015 09:58, Chester Alderman wrote:
> And how well does it produce CW? Also can you explain the advantage
> of using a computer to operate a radio verses using the radio manually?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Tom - W4BQF

______________________________________________________________
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]

tomb18

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

In reply to this post by AB2E Darrell

Hi Chester,
The k3 and kx3 have the ability to use their built in keyer which responds to a KY programming command. The KY command has characters that you want sent as a parameter. Therefore KY CQ; sends CQ with the keyer speed defined in the radio. So the characters entered in the terminal are sent with the KY command. The characters that are sent to the radio, are sent at a slightly higher rate than what the radio sends so that the keyer is not waiting for a character.
Decoding really depends on the quality of the sender. Machine generated code is decoded quite well. Human generated code, can be poor!
Of course none of this replaces a knowledge of cw. Where it is useful is for the built in messages, and for remote operation using a keyboard and your tablet or even a phone.
I have a confession though, I do not know cw but I have used this along with cw skimmer to make 50 new dxcc during the last CQ contest. Was a lot of fun.
Tom
va2fsq.com

On Apr 11, 2015 5:25 PM, Chester Alderman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Ken,
>
> Well I didn't ask my question properly, so I got back info about how well it
> decoded CW! Anyway I got a nice response from Tom, the author, responded to
> him but got no response from him again yet.
>
> I also have no interest in a CW decoder as I used to operate QRQ over 60
> wpm, thus have no need for a decoder. And like you, I also have no interest
> in controlling my K3 with a mouse. Tom seems to have a nice program
> otherwise.
>
> 73,
> Tom - W4BQF
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of WA8JXM
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 11:29 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] comparisons of K3 control software
>
> Chester, I have wondered the same thing. I see some functions that an
> on screen button can speed up, such as changing power levels. but most of
> the time I prefer using the rig rather than the mouse. That's one reason I
> prefer operating the K3 vs. the FlexRadio. The main thing I want a computer
> involved for is logging, digital modes, and multi unit synchoronization
> (such as the KAT500 with either the K3 or the Flex
> 6300.) But for routine operating, changing frequency or channels,
> changing CW speed, etc. I much prefer the rig vs the computer.
>
> Ken WA8JXM
>
> On 11/04/2015 09:58, Chester Alderman wrote:
> > And how well does it produce CW? Also can you explain the advantage
> > of using a computer to operate a radio verses using the radio manually?
> >
> > Thanks and 73,
> > Tom - W4BQF
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Barry K3NDM

Re: comparisons of K3 control software

In reply to this post by KEN-3

----- Original Message -----

From: "WA8JXM" <[hidden email]>
To: "elecraft" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 11:28:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] comparisons of K3 control software

Chester, I have wondered the same thing. I see some functions that an
on screen button can speed up, such as changing power levels. but most
of the time I prefer using the rig rather than the mouse. That's one
reason I prefer operating the K3 vs. the FlexRadio. The main thing I
want a computer involved for is logging, digital modes, and multi unit
synchoronization (such as the KAT500 with either the K3 or the Flex
6300.) But for routine operating, changing frequency or channels,
changing CW speed, etc. I much prefer the rig vs the computer.

Ken WA8JXM

On 11/04/2015 09:58, Chester Alderman wrote:
> And how well does it produce CW? Also can you explain the advantage of
> using a computer to operate a radio verses using the radio manually?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Tom - W4BQF

______________________________________________________________
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]