[Elecraft] [KX3] New Product: SPX3 External Speaker

[Joan]

Hey, Robert, here’s a thought:  Given the irony of a secondary model (a passive version of the speaker) actually having higher production cost (due to the more limited production run), you could simply produce one model: an active speaker—which has the added versatility of being able to be configured as a passive speaker.  Cost-wise, it would be less expensive to add another ‘A’ model to serve as a second [passive] speaker (albeit with the amp turned off, with a bypass for the direct feed from an external source).  This would only require the ‘A’ model to be switchable to either L or R input (a channel swap DPDT)—and be able to go into bypass [through] mode

Although it may seems wasteful to have a 2nd active speaker doing duty as a passive one, but it would be less expensive to implement (both for producer and user), and, hey, you’d have the utility of having a 2nd active speaker kicking around in your kit (for whatever:)

As an incentive [sweetener], Robert, you could offer a discount on ordering a second ‘A’ speaker at time of purchase

Addendum: if you only made one model, an SPX3A, to pair with the KX3, as a KX2 user I would be willing to lump it and purchase them anyway… ’cuz, Elecraft <3

FB es 73  de KX2CW  Joan  kn


Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra, said Piglet.
Shaka, when the walls fell, said Pooh.

> On Apr 15, 2018, at 20:40, Robert Morris <ag6zz at iloc.com> wrote:
> 
> First of all, I want to say thanks to everyone for all the great feedback I've been getting on the speaker. Here's are some requested features:
> 
> 1. One stereo channel to speaker driver and another channel to output jack (already in first prototype)
> 
> 2. 12V input (planned is 9-15V, like the KX3)
> 
> 3. Separate powered (active) and unpowered (passive) speakers
> The reasons I've gotten for this is that it would save on the weight of and inconvenience of charging a second battery
> 
> 4. Separate volume controls for the internal speaker driver and the output jack
> The reason I've gotten for this is that a computer will need the volume set separately from the speaker.
> Some have stated the computer's software can adjust the gain on the input, and that there only needs to be one volume control for the speaker driver. I'll need consensus on this from the digital mode folks.
> 
> 5. USB power output
> This would be convenient for those who wish to use their speakers as phone chargers.
> 
> Things to consider:
> 
> A. Making two different speakers substantially increases manufacturing costs for the most expensive part; the enclosure. Since most folks will be fine with just one speaker, then the lower production numbers of the passive speaker would make its per unit cost much higher than the active one. However, folks would expect a lower price on the passive one. So, I'd have to sell them as pairs to justify manufacturing the passive ones, which would mean a higher cost to consumers who only want the active one. It would also increase the cost to those who want both because of the two different enclosures instead of just one enclosure twice.
> 
> B. The one issue which would force making both an active and a passive speaker is the need stated by some respondents that the active one would require a second volume control for the output to the computer for digital modes. It would be expensive and time consuming for me to try every digital mode software on every operating system, so I need confirmation whether this is truly necessary.
> 
> C. If a second volume control is not truly necessary, then that simplifies things tremendously. I'll wait for consensus on this before going into why.
> 
> D. A USB power output port is beyond the scope of the speaker's intended utility. Also, it would draw down the battery at the cost of significantly limiting how long the speaker could be used before needing a recharge. Furthermore, the extra hole and port would increase the cost while reducing ingress protection. Lastly, there's not much room in the small enclosure to accomodate nonessential items.
> 
> Thanks and 73,
> Robert (AG6ZZ)
>