[Elecraft] [KX3] Re: Why buy a KX2/KX3 compared to a KX1/MTR3B in a QRP portable scenario?

[Chip Stratton]

>
> Main fun of  the K1 and KX1 is building them :-)
>

Well, that is fun. But it is also fun to "do much with little".

Work VK with a K3S - nice. Work VK with a KX1 - thats gives a kind of
"Wow!" feeling.

I'm just saying there is a lot of gratification working with limited gear.

Chip
AE5KA

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Phil Wheeler <w7ox at socal.rr.com> wrote:

> Main fun of  the K1 and KX1 is building them :-)
>
> Phil W7OX
>
> On 7/7/16 11:07 AM, Mike Morrow kk5f at arrl.net [KX3] wrote:
>
>>
>> Barry wrote:
>>
>> > ...I would have preferred the K1, but I don't believe Elecraft is
>> > selling that anymore.
>>
>> The K1 is still sold...see http://www.elecraft.com/k1_page.htm . The K1
>> remains an excellent small CW-only transceiver. However, the four-band
>> KFL1-4 filter board has been unavailable for a couple of years.
>>
>> The original posting in this thread contrasted the KX1 vs. KX2 or KX3. If
>> RF performance mattered, where the K1 is clearly superior to the KX1, the
>> 16-year-old K1 deserves honorable mention among small QRP transceivers:
>> (1) The K1 uses an LC VFO that is cleaner than the DDS frequency
>> generation scheme of the KX1. This reduces transmitter spurious output, and
>> improves receiver performance because fewer spur frequencies are part of
>> the local oscillator signal fed to the front-end mixer.
>> (2) The K1 can be placed on any of the HF bands, although Elecraft sells
>> parts for 80m through 15m only. The KX1 DDS chip is clocked at its maximum
>> rate of 50 MHz, which limits KX1 highest frequency coverage to around those
>> of 20m band.
>> (3) The K1 IF uses a four-pole crystal filter...the KX1 IF uses
>> three-pole. This makes a very noticeable difference in selectivity.
>> (4) The KAT1 produces a larger number of configurations (1020) of
>> impedance than the KXAT1 (124). (It's of note that the KXAT2 produces 32764
>> different network configurations, 264 *times* the number of the KXAT1. The
>> KXAT3 produces 131068 configurations, 1057 times the KXAT1.)
>> (5) Many find continuous K1 LC VFO tuning more natural than step-wise KX1
>> DDS tuning.
>> (6) The K1 has a noise blanker option...the KX1 does not.
>> (7) The K1 transmitter can produce up to seven watts of output power. The
>> KX1 is about half that...at best.
>> (8) The K1 case has a speaker...the KX1 does not.
>>
>> OTOH, the KX1 is clearly superior in terms of VFO stability. It is
>> superior in its span of frequency coverage within the limits of the DDS. It
>> can switch between USB and LSB receive mode due to the frequency agility of
>> the DDS as local oscillator. It has neat features like audio feedback to
>> controls. It is smaller and lighter.
>>
>> With respect to the KX1 vs. KX2 or KX3, the gulf in capability and
>> performance is so great as to render the question absurd. The only
>> advantage to the KX1 over the KX2 is that Elecraft provides a schematic for
>> the KX1...something that very noticeably withheld for the KX2 and its
>> accessories. That implies the customer is an "appliance operator".
>>
>> Mike / KK5F
>>
>> __._,_.___
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at 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 lightdazzled at gmail.com
>