[Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

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