Ok, but there's still another way of looking at it: the KXFL3
filter only improves the narrow-spaced dynamic range by 8dB.
Look at the Sherwood Eng. table:
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
*without* the KXFL3 the KX3 DRNS was measured at 96dB. That's the same as
the K3 with the 400 Hz filter! If the KX3 must have the KXFL3 filter for
field day or DX pileups, then the K3 isn't good enough either - yet is
used a lot more than "sometimes" for exactly these types of operation!
What am I missing?
Bob NW8L
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Rick Tavan N6XI wrote:
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:40:09 -0700
From: Rick Tavan N6XI <rta...@gmail.com>
To: Bill Frantz <fra...@pwpconsult.com>
Cc: Elecraft Reflector <elecraft@mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [KX3] KXFL3 dual-Passband Roofing Filter
The KXFL3 decision is pretty easy. If you plan to use the KX3 only with
simple antennas (random wires, loaded verticals, magnetic loops) and for
casual QSOs, you don't really need it. Unwanted signals will be weak enough
not to overload the DSP. If you plan to use the KX3, even sometimes, with
good antennas (big, high), especially in urban environments or
multi-transmitter sites like Field Day, or on crowded bands as in contests
or DX pileups, then you should have the filter to protect the DSP from very
strong, adjacent signals.
Another way of looking at it is, if the extra cost is not a hardship, get
the filter. Some day you'll be glad you did.
Either way, you're gonna love it!
73,
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
