Dick Green WC1M wrote: > > Recently, there was a post on the FOC reflector to the effect that the > FT2000 is a superior choice to the K3. Much of the criticism of the K3 > centered around the size and "heft" of the rig, as well as the cost. >
In that message he referred to the K3 costing $3300. Where did he get that mistaken idea? The beauty of the K3 is its modularity which does not force me to pay for unwanted options like AM, FM, ATU (I use a tuned input amp and resonant antennas), General Coverage RX, etc. An unassembled K3/100 with KXV3 and a 500 Hz filter costs $2050. The FT2000 has a minimum "3 kHz" roofing filter which actually has been measured at ~5 kHz by Sherwood and others, so I could subtract another $100 for the 500 Hz filter to be more comparable (i.e. the K3's 2.7k vs FT2000's 5k) but I don't want the absolutely terrible BDR and IMD performance of the FT2000 that would result so I left that in. Add a KRX3 and another 500 Hz filter and you have $2750 for the *only* rig on the market with True Diversity using two high performance receivers. Having used diversity for ~6 months now I will never have another rig without it. Duplicating all the whistles and bells of the FT2000 would make a K3 cost more, but I much prefer unexcelled performance to unnecessary whistles and bells. IMHO the choice between a K3 and FT2000 amounts to a basic intelligence test, and this guy failed the test. At least he didn't spend $10k... that definitely puts one into the "more money than sense" category. :-) 73, Bill W4ZV -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/why-the-K3-is-my-favorite-rig-tp2103444p2106007.html Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
