>David stated (repeatedly) that RX I/Q was suppressed on the KX2 ... not to
reduce cost, size or weight, but rather to create "product differentiation" (his words) with the K3 and KX3. In other words (my words), Elecraft didn't want to make the same "mistake" with the KX2 that it made with the KX3. Forced product differentiation is rarely ever done well. Is the implication that if the KX3 were intentionally crippled so it were substantially less effective than a K3, many Elecraft customers would buy both? I know I certainly wouldn't have. I wouldn't have bought a K3 or any other similarly sized transceiver for home. My home station upstream of the coax is disassembled and packed/locked up after most operating sessions. Furthermore, if the KX3 were less effective, I may not have paid the premium for it (twice) for portable use either. I bought the KX3 precisely because its combination of features made it a superior choice for both my home and portable use. If Elecraft never existed, I'd probably have been happy enough--ignorance is bliss--with my FT-857D and its successors. >Please reply to this thread if you're interested in having Elecraft expose RX I/Q on the KX2. I'm conflicted on this. With no RX I/Q, I'm not tempted to buy one. My wife already thinks I've bought too many expensive R2D2s... 73, Ryan AI6DO ______________________________________________________________ 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
