[Elecraft] Firmware development

[Rick Tavan]

The point of a new radio is not the full feature list but *what it does for
you* in your current and desired-future operating conditions. Very few of
us take full advantage of every bell and whistle, but newer radios do tend
to enhance whatever experiences most amateurs seek. This applies not only
to Elecraft but also to the other manufacturers.

It would be commercial suicide for a company to produce separate radios for
contesting, DXing, ragchewing, moonbounce, high-QRN environments, CW, SSB,
RTTY, PSK, WARC bands, point-and-shoot, search-and-pounce, SO2V, diversity
reception, pileup running, pileup busting, ... you name it. So almost all
radios attempt to do well at most or all applications within various price
constraints. Elecraft does distinguish itself with a small number of highly
modular offerings and long-term support and enhancement commitments so you
don't feel the urge to upgrade every three years. I enjoyed the K3 for
about 14 years (and still do!), installing most but not all available
upgrades, but the K4 is a new delight. There are features of K3 that I
never used (e.g. external reference oscillator) and features of K4 that I
may never use (e.g. multiple rx-only antennas) but others find them
essential or at least highly desirable. Some will decide to buy a given
radio based solely on some feature that others find extraneous.

Yes, radio architectures change over time. Many are now digital,
software-defined, direct conversion designs, quite different from the
analog superhets that most of us grew up with. Their controls and features
have changed. If their advantages don't outweigh (for you) the effort to
learn a few new tricks (or concepts or practices), don't upgrade. For me,
K4 represents the new generation of transceiver and I'm delighted with what
it does for me. I feel like a kid in a new sandbox. YMMV.

73,

/Rick N6XI

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:05 AM David Wilcox via Elecraft <
elecraft at mailman.qth.net> wrote:

> I would venture to say that most hams (especially those recently licensed)
> don’t and can’t utilize all the features of even an older K3, let alone one
> with all the enhancements.  The K4 is so far beyond the “average” ham in
> its ability that unless you are an electronics guru with an EE you won’t
> need, much less understand, all the neat things it can do.
>
> I am not disparaging the K3, K3S, or the K4 but whatever version you might
> have or want it will do the job 95% of the time.  I love my upgraded K3s
> but still haven’t scratched the surface of what it will do.  I could spend
> the rest of my life exploring all the features of my fine radio (I have all
> of Fred Cady’s books) but there are other avenues of enjoyment in ham radio
> that I am pursuing. This IS a hobby and it has been my go to in times of
> good and bad since 1960.  Cheaper than a psychiatrist and less trouble than
> a mistress.
>
> What I have said above may not apply to the top of the list contester as
> that is a field all to itself. Those guys and gals may notice the
> difference in some of the enhancements to the K line in a pileup, but
> that’s another rabbit hole.
>
> Dave K8WPE since 1960.
>
> David J. Wilcox’s iPad
>
> > On Nov 24, 2020, at 11:03 PM, Bill Frantz <frantz at pwpconsult.com> wrote:
> >
> > While I agree with Skip here, my agreement is based on practicality,
> not physical ability. The internal K3 hardware design is quite modular, and
> replacing the DSP boards for the main and sub receivers should be straight
> forward. We have seen how the K3 can be improved by replacing boards.
> Upgrading the DSP is just another kind of new board.
> >
> > BUT, designing, coding, and manufacture engineering these boards is a
> big project. The boards will be quite expensive. How many people are likely
> to upgrade? And, we already have the K4, built to remain competitive in the
> market. The K4 is probably a better radio than the mythical upgraded K3.
> The upgrades to the K3 are also likely to cost more than a K4. All these
> considerations make this project a non-starter. As I said, practical
> considerations.
> >
> > 73 Bill AE6JV
> >
> >> On 11/24/20 at 6:03 PM, k6dgw at foothill.net (Fred Jensen) wrote:
> >>
> >> There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you
> commit to a physical design in year XXXX, it will be a design that uses the
> parts of year XXXX forever.  I think XXXX about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine
> is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it].  Yes, the firmware can be
> upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components
> [like memory and CPU].  There is also the fact that eventually, you will
> run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates.  The K3 hit that point
> some time back.  Elecraft had fixed all or nearly all of the bugs, they'd
> supported all of the add-on accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is
> approaching it's limits.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Bill Frantz        | Security is like Government  | Periwinkle
> > (408)348-7900      | services. The market doesn't | 150 Rivermead Rd #235
> > www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them.        | Peterborough, NH
> 03458
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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 djwilcox01 at yahoo.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 rtavan at gmail.com



-- 
--

Rick Tavan
Truckee and Saratoga, CA