http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/K1-2973-on-the-Air-Choosing-the-K1-or-KX1-tp6251730p6252349.html
Well written Mike. I agree with most. Especially as a favorite qrp
rig. Its a blast. Interesting points about the 4 band module. I guess
I'll order one. Switching boards is a pain. Totally agree on the
back-lighting - its truly a missing feature that should be there. Trying
getting it in my face is a pain. The KX1 has its place. It is much
more compromised than the K1. Its still a blast to use when the
environment is to its strengths (really portable). A smaller version of
their talented junior engineers and design a K0. (K zero). A single
>> Great to see K1s are still popular. I'm looking to get a K1 or a Kx1.
>> I was not sure how well the K1s were selling. Can you tell me why
>> you selected the K1 rather than the Kx1?
> I ordered my K1 after seeing the prototype at Dayton 2000. It was delivered
> (S/N 175) in late November, 2000. In 10.5 years of sales, about 3000 K1s have
> been sold. That's one for every business day for the past 10.5 years. I don't
> know what the current sales volume is, but the K1 remains firmly after more
> than ten years of ownership my favorite QRP rig of all time. Nothing else comes
> close.
>
> With respect to the choice of KX1 of K1, as far as ham band CW *RF* performance
> goes, the K1 is inarguably superior.
>
> (1) The K1 uses a L-C VFO that is cleaner than the direct digital synthesis
> 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. According to
> reported measurements of the K1 with two-band board, it has better transmitter
> spurious output specs than even the K2. The low-pass filtering of the four-band
> version is much better than the two-band version. Beware of drawing conclusions
> from the QST review of the K1, because they tested a two-band model, which had
> the poorer filtering.
>
> (2) The K1 can be placed on any HF band, though Elecraft sells parts for 80m
> through 15m only. The KX1 DDS chip is clocked at its maximum rate of 50 MHz,
> which limits KX1 frequency coverage to around 20m and lower. The 15m band is
> one of the finest QRP bands when open. It's my favorite band. This *alone*
> would be enough to make me choose the K1 over the KX1.
>
> (3) The K1 uses a four-pole crystal IF filter, while the KX1 IF uses a three-pole
> filter. It's a well-noted characteristic of the KX1 to be able to receive on
> *both* sides of a CW signal as one tunes through it because of the lack of
> selectivity of its IF filtering. OTOH, since many use their KX1 to receive SSB,
> there the three-pole filter is an advantage.
>
> (4) The K1's optional auto antenna tuner tunes a *much* wider range of impedances
> than that of the KX1. I'd choose the K1 with KAT1 without any question over any
> external tuner. The argument that an external tuner makes it easier to swap filter
> boards is specious, since very few K1 owners of the four-band model make such
> swaps except rarely.
>
> (5) Most find the continuous L-C VFO tuning of the K1 to be more natural than
> the step-wise tuning of the DDS in the KX1.
>
> (6) The K1 has a noise blanker option, while the KX1 does not. I once thought
> that the KNB1 wasn't all that useful, but I have some odd type of digital noise
> in the area I now live on which the KNB1 is *most* effective.
>
> (7) The K1 transmitter can produce up to seven watts of output power. The KX1
> is about half that, if one is lucky.
>
> (8) The K1 case contains a speaker, the KX1 does not. The K1 has plenty of
> audio to drive it too.
>
> (9) IMHO, the full-house K1 (with KNB1, KAT1, and four-band board) is easier
> (less-tricky) to build than the full-house KX1 with all its options (40/20m with
> 80/30m option, KXAT1).
>
> (10) I like the front-mounted controls of the K1 more than the top-mounted
> controls of the KX1. The so-called "trail-friendly" top control configuration
> is, I think, without demonstrable advantage. I've often used my K1 as a
> backpack rig.
>
> I personally do NOT like the K1 KBT1. It is a bad idea to have a chemical
> corrosion source inside a radio, the pack can't be charged internally, and
> the normal K1 speaker is far better than the micro-speaker that comes with
> the KBT1.
>
> I do not like the KTS1 tilt stand. It is way over-designed. A simple wire
> tilt-bale would be much cheaper and could be premanently stowed under the rig
> when not in use, unlike the KTS1.
>
> I think that it is a disservice to supply the K1 without the LCD back-light as
> standard equipment. That back-light is a *tremendous* asset to the K1, and it
> is, IMHO, a real pain in the butt to back fit to a K1 that has been built without
> the back-light.
>
> The KX1 is clearly superior in terms of VFO stability. The DDS is about as
> stable as a crystal oscillator. It is superior in its span of frequency
> coverage within the limits of the DDS. It can switch between USB and LSB due
> to the frequency agility of the DDS as the local oscillator. It has neat
> features like audio feedback to controls. It is definitely smaller and lighter.
> The KX1 definitely has some positive features that the K1 doesn't have. *None*
> of them, except VFO stability, are improvements in *RF* performance on the
> ham CW bands. Yet, the K1's L-C VFO is astonishingly and surprisingly stable.
>
> But...if the K1 were not available, the KX1 would be my very next choice for a
> QRP rig. It's a very fine and well-designed rig. I would like to see a new KX2
> that offered four-pole IF filtering, a DDS that could provide operation at least
> up to 15m band coverage, and "from the design stage" coverage from 80m to 15m
> without the trickiness of the current KX1 design. And maybe, a little more
> versatility in the auto antenna tuner (more like the KAT1). I'd also like to
> see an option to choose a case that did not waste volume for a battery pack.
> I do NOT want batteries inside a radio. A little external 10-cell AA-holder
> works just fine. An option to buy built and tested would also be nice. I've
> built many things since I started messing with radio gear in 1964, and today
> I don't have the time to waste on mostly mindless, definitely boring kit
> building activities. I'd buy such a QRP rig in a heartbeat. If Elecraft doesn't
> step up, China will at much lower price. But Elecraft has been pretty much a
> K3 enterprise for several years now, just like this list. But many will *never*
> want a K3 type of rig for QRP operation.
>
> 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>