[Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs. You show us what the 817 looks like here (in the big table...just scroll down a little to see the table and then to near the bottom for the 817): http://www.elecraft.com/K2_perf.htm I know the KX3 isn't "finalized" but it must be pretty close...it's almost November, right! I know it won't be a "K3," but would love to see the "close in" specs (5kc, 2kc) for with vs without the various "roofing filters." Any rough numbers yet (plus/minus)? de Doug KR2Q __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
Ft817 was past decade technology. I once used it but eventually replaced it with k2. Ft817 receives everything but difficult to select anything. There is also no built in atu and speech compressor in ft817. Ft817 was a popular qrp rig but it is now the time for its glorious retirement. 73 Johnny Sent from my iPhone 4 DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL 於 2011年10月22日 下午6:55 寫道： > No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs. > > You show us what the 817 looks like here (in the big table...just > scroll down a little to see the table and then to near the bottom for > the 817): http://www.elecraft.com/K2_perf.htm > > I know the KX3 isn't "finalized" but it must be pretty close...it's > almost November, right! > > I know it won't be a "K3," but would love to see the "close in" specs > (5kc, 2kc) for with vs without the various "roofing filters." > > Any rough numbers yet (plus/minus)? > > de Doug KR2Q > __ > 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
Johnny, Maybe, but the FT-817 doesn't need anything except maybe the CW filter; if all you're interested in is CW on 80-10 and don't ever intend to hook a transverter to it, the out of box K2 is fine. I have both, so I have the option of using them for different purposes; the 817 is my go radio, and the K2 is my home station radio. Matthew Pitts N8OHU Sent from my Wireless Device -Original Message- From: vr2xmc Sender: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:51:19 To: DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL Cc: Elecraft Reflector Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare? Ft817 was past decade technology. I once used it but eventually replaced it with k2. Ft817 receives everything but difficult to select anything. There is also no built in atu and speech compressor in ft817. Ft817 was a popular qrp rig but it is now the time for its glorious retirement. 73 Johnny Sent from my iPhone 4 DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL 於 2011年10月22日 下午6:55 寫道： > No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs. > > You show us what the 817 looks like here (in the big table...just > scroll down a little to see the table and then to near the bottom for > the 817): http://www.elecraft.com/K2_perf.htm > > I know the KX3 isn't "finalized" but it must be pretty close...it's > almost November, right! > > I know it won't be a "K3," but would love to see the "close in" specs > (5kc, 2kc) for with vs without the various "roofing filters." > > Any rough numbers yet (plus/minus)? > > de Doug KR2Q > __ > 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 __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote: > No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs. Hi Doug, The KX3's RX performance numbers are exceptional, but only one unit has been through the full test suite. After we've tested several, we'll post more details. If the numbers hold, it should easily be in the top five on Sherwood's chart with the roofing filter module installed, and top ten without. Since you asked: it's roughly 30-40 dB stronger than the FT817 in most RX categories. OTOH, the '817 has some nice features, and I have one myself that I use as a signal generator and monitor. 73, Wayne N6KR __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
Wayne, If you would be so kind, how does K1 K2 K3 KX1 compare to each other and the "rig of the day" the '817 which seems so popular at the moment. 73, TR K6GC K2/100 S/N 838 ___ At 09:02 AM 10/22/2011 -0700, you wrote: >DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote: > > > No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs. > >Hi Doug, > >The KX3's RX performance numbers are exceptional, but only one unit >has been through the full test suite. After we've tested several, >we'll post more details. If the numbers hold, it should easily be in >the top five on Sherwood's chart with the roofing filter module >installed, and top ten without. > >Since you asked: it's roughly 30-40 dB stronger than the FT817 in most >RX categories. OTOH, the '817 has some nice features, and I have one >myself that I use as a signal generator and monitor. > >73, >Wayne >N6KR __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
Hi TR, Eventually we'll have detailed comparison charts for the KX3 vs. other small radios. I wouldn't put the K3 in this chart, because it's an entirely different radio (full-size enclosure and front panel, internal 100 W amp and ATU, high-performance sub receiver, up to 10 roofing filters, complete I/O complement including P3/RX ANT/ transverter connectors, etc.). Generally speaking, the KX3 best fills the need for an ultra-compact all-band/all-mode radio. The K2 offers similar band/mode coverage in a "full" kit (where you get to solder), but the KX3 is a lot smaller and has an updated user interface as well as I.F. DSP. If you only need CW mode and a few of the most popular bands, the K1 or KX1 would be good choices. Both are full kits. The KX1 is our smallest radio, with TFR (trail-friendly) format and an attached paddle, like the KX3. It also uses a DDS VFO and SSB/AM receive, providing SWL coverage in addition to the ham bands. The K1 is a traditional analog radio, with an LC VFO. It has higher power output and a wider-range ATU option than the KX1. 73, Wayne N6KR On Oct 22, 2011, at 9:42 AM, wreese wrote: > Wayne, > > If you would be so kind, how does K1 K2 K3 KX1 compare to each other > and the "rig of the day" the '817 which seems so popular at the > moment. > > 73, TR K6GC > K2/100 S/N 838 > ___ > > At 09:02 AM 10/22/2011 -0700, you wrote: >> DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote: >> >> > No, not physical dimensions, but RX specs. >> >> Hi Doug, >> >> The KX3's RX performance numbers are exceptional, but only one unit >> has been through the full test suite. After we've tested several, >> we'll post more details. If the numbers hold, it should easily be in >> the top five on Sherwood's chart with the roofing filter module >> installed, and top ten without. >> >> Since you asked: it's roughly 30-40 dB stronger than the FT817 in >> most >> RX categories. OTOH, the '817 has some nice features, and I have one >> myself that I use as a signal generator and monitor. >> >> 73, >> Wayne >> N6KR __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
Wayne Burdick wrote: >Hi TR, > >Eventually we'll have detailed comparison charts for the KX3 vs. other > >small radios. I wouldn't put the K3 in this chart, because it's an >entirely different radio (full-size enclosure and front panel, >internal 100 W amp and ATU, high-performance sub receiver, up to 10 >roofing filters, complete I/O complement including P3/RX ANT/ >transverter connectors, etc.). > No, please Wayne, include it (maybe in the basic 10 W version), so we have a useful idea of the things you have to sacrifice when choosing an ultra portable. Thanks, Pf -- Pierfrancesco Caci __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
After almost 50 years of being a ham, I see that the conventional wisdom of NOT including general coverage in a receiver has been refuted. It was thought to be at the expense of performance on the ham bands. How have modern design techniques overcome this limitation? 73 de Jim - AD6CW On 10/22/2011 10:11 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote: > Hi TR, > > The KX1 is our smallest radio, with TFR (trail-friendly) format and an > attached paddle, like the KX3. It also uses a DDS VFO and SSB/AM > receive, providing SWL coverage in addition to the ham bands. > > 73, > Wayne > N6KR > > > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
Hi Jim, The K3 comes with very narrow ham-band filters, standard. These provide the excellent SWL rejection that you're referring to, which is especially important in a down-conversion superhet design. To obtain full SWL coverage, the K3 user can install the KBPF3 option, which adds wider filters that cover the entire range of 0.5-30 MHz. This has no impact on ham-band performance, as the wider filters are only switched in when you tune well outside the ham bands. The KX3 has a different receiver architecture, similar to direct conversion but with quadrature channels (I/Q) to allow for single- signal reception. This architecture doesn't involve a large I.F., so there are fewer images to deal with in both RX and TX mode. This lightens the requirements for band-pass filtering. As a result, the KX3's band-pass filters can include ham and nearby SWL bands without any need for tuning. The K1, KX1, and K2 have tuned ham-band filters that provide coverage of most nearby SWL bands. 73, Wayne N6KR On Oct 23, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Jim Lowman wrote: > After almost 50 years of being a ham, I see that the conventional > wisdom > of NOT including general coverage in a receiver has been refuted. > It was > thought to be at the expense of performance on the ham bands. > > How have modern design techniques overcome this limitation? > > 73 de Jim - AD6CW > > On 10/22/2011 10:11 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote: >> Hi TR, >> >> The KX1 is our smallest radio, with TFR (trail-friendly) format and >> an >> attached paddle, like the KX3. It also uses a DDS VFO and SSB/AM >> receive, providing SWL coverage in addition to the ham bands. >> >> 73, >> Wayne >> N6KR >> >> >> > __ > 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
I had the impression that the rise of the Ham-band-only transceiver in the 1950's and 60's was based on simple economics. It was cheaper to drop general coverage receive. It was also true that they were typically better performing than most general coverage receivers, mostly due to improved input filtering that protected the mixer from large off-frequency signals. As you may recall, most general coverage receivers up to that time used simple L/C tunable input filters that required multiple knob-twiddling or a big "ganged" multi-section tuning cap with the stages carefully adjusted so they "tracked" the across the tuning range. A well-designed fixed tuned input filter was better, especially important consdering the relatively easy-to-overload mixers in common use back then. That gave the ad writers a good explanation for the limited tuning ranges. Ron AC7AC -Original Message- After almost 50 years of being a ham, I see that the conventional wisdom of NOT including general coverage in a receiver has been refuted. It was thought to be at the expense of performance on the ham bands. How have modern design techniques overcome this limitation? 73 de Jim - AD6CW __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?
On 10/23/2011 12:12 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: > I had the impression that the rise of the Ham-band-only transceiver in the > 1950's and 60's was based on simple economics. I have the GC BPF for my K3, and it works very well. There is still some press to be found on RTTY [usually 850 Hz shift], and sometimes I find the BBC. They have a lot of exposure here in the US via NPR and others, but it's fun to "hear it from the Mother Country occasionally." Sometimes I start copying the "numbers stations" just wondering whose spies I'm hearing :-)) I think the rise of the transceiver [vs separate tx and rx which had ruled ham shacks since the beginning of time] was the result of the KWM-2. Tuning SSB was hard on the receivers of that day, zero-beating your TX was even harder. When a box appeared that absolutely guaranteed you were transmitting on the same frequency as you were listening, hams embraced the concept [and SSB] almost fully [there were some AM holdouts, still are I guess]. Art's masterful scheme of a RX/TX covering 200 KHz around 3 MHz preceded by a crystal controlled converter for any 200 KHz range in the HF spectrum seems to have gotten everyone used to the idea of ham-band-only, although the KWM-2A with it's switchable crystal decks was by far and away the HF workhorse for the US Military in the 60's on other than ham band frequencies. The S-line was just a KWM-2 split into a RX and TX. A data point I'd sure like to see is how my K3 stacks up against the S-3 line I wish I had held onto. I had the 2.1 KHz and 500 Hz mech filters, I know there was a 250 Hz available, but I wonder how it would do with the blocking tests we now spend so much time scrutinizing. Not that I'm about to give up my K3 :-) 73, Fred K6DGW - Northern California Contest Club - CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012 - www.cqp.org __ 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
