[Elecraft] KX2 and Sherwood Eng. RX Performance Ranking?

[Phil Hystad]

Sometimes when I am doing portable QRP I have both my KX1 and my KX3.  And, sometimes I would call CQ on the KX1 and work some stations and other times I would use the KX3.

There are obvious physical differences between the KX3 and the KX1, I do not mean to compare them feature by feature.  But, I don’t remember noticing any real difference in performance other than the obvious differences between the two rigs.  I could work stations just as well with either.  One of the obvious differences is that sometimes I would run more than 5 watts with the KX3 but limited to the lesser power out of the KX1 which I think is usually under 4 watts, maybe under 3.

Of course, if I had to pull out a single CW station from a pile up or crowded band, I would use some of those KX3 features that the KX1 does not have.

My KX2 is on order but I am looking forward to operating with it.  I suppose that what I am saying is that in most of my own personal operations with QRP rigs, I don’t rely on a lot of those performance features that separate the top 5-7 from the top 20 of the Sherwood Eng. RX ranking.

PEH

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Chris Tate - N6WM <ctate at ewnetinc.com> wrote:
> 
> This was my point, its a nice to know but the fun factor of the radio speaks for itself.  Its a permanent part of my portable toolkit now.
> 
> Chris N6WM, ZF2CT and N6WM/KH6  and anywhere else that pops up on the vacatio...expedition list.  ;-)
> ________________________________________
> From: Elecraft [elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] on behalf of w7aqk [w7aqk at cox.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 11:05 AM
> To: Elecraft Reflector
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX2 and Sherwood Eng. RX Performance Ranking?
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I'd be inclined to think the KX2 measurements won't knock your socks off.
> Unlike the KX3, which was designed to be a close competitor to K3
> performance (a K3 in a smaller package), the KX2 is more a pared down
> version of the KX3, and some of that paring down probably affected the specs
> somewhat.  I don't think this paring down process was allowed to noticeably
> degrade performance.  I can tell you , though, that it is very hard to
> notice any significant difference.  It has somewhat different architecture,
> but is an excellent performer.  This sort of proves to me that being "top
> tier" on Sherwood's stats is nice to talk about, but not necessarily
> critical.  That's why so many owners of older rigs have a hard time
> "hearing" the benefit of what newer designs purport to offer.
> 
> Wayne says he guesses the KX2 might rank somewhere in the top 20.  If so,
> that's pretty darned good!!!  I'd also be inclined to bet that Wayne already
> knows about where it will fall!  I just hope that, when the numbers do come
> out, we don't go through an ad nauseam exchange about some spec being a big
> problem or a serious disappointment.  A lot of these differences are only
> determinable in a lab!  On the other hand, if something does seem to be a
> real problem, I'd also bet it can be fixed!
> 
> Dave W7AQK
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 ctate at ewnetinc.com
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 phystad at mac.com