I am currently using two K3 radios with various updates including the new synthesizers, and see no reason to go the the K3S model. Years ago I added the second receiver to my original K3. I liked the diversity capability, but I am not much of a DX'er and eventually got rid of the second receiver.
I went to the K3 from an FT-1000D, and found the K3 user interface very well thought out. Not at all hard to learn with respect to the most needed controls, although more obscure functions still have me looking in the manual. With that said, and since we are discussing possible improvements, I can suggest the following: I immediately missed the lack of band and mode buttons. Not a big deal, but still noticeable on a frequent basis after many years. The 4 controls with dual green LED's have a flimsy, cheap feel. The combination of multiple functions is perfect, but something used so often should feel super solid and expensive. My short term memory is bad, and I constantly find myself activating one of these controls just to see the current power setting and cw speed etc. Dedicated display real estate would be an improvement. I am ashamed to say that I haven't looked closely at whether one can always display the current setting witout changing it, but the reality as of right now is that I frequently go through the motions of changing a setting just to get it displayed, and then changing it back. This is a lot of wasted effort. The pushbuttons can sometimes malfunction if one doesn't push hard enough, and the dual functions (good idea in general) should be enough justification for buttons with a "Rolls Royce feel". In some cases dedicated buttons would be justified as opposed to the dual functions. I got the DVR option for one of the radios and expected it to be used a lot for getting a second chance to copy something deep in the noise during a contest. I actually never use it because I am not consistent enough in achieving the HOLD of the button that is required, especially in a busy situation. There were several reasons I sold the 2nd receiver. Not involved in DX chasing, I didn't have enough need, and I didn't have enough real estate to make the most of the diversity capability. For years I didn't have much time to operate, and I often updated the K3 firmware just to get on the air for a short period of time. This erased my settings to suppress the birdies caused by the second receiver. Being a b it of a perfectionist, I would spend an hour entering new settings. Yes, most of those birdies were weak enough that they didn't affect my ability to copy any given signal, but when tuning around each birdie would cause me to pause unnecessarigy for a fraction of a second. Yes, I could have spent some more time than I did adjusting the cable positions inside the radio to minimize the strength of the birdies, but I did spend time on it, and noone has told me that that would eliminate them entirely. I would hope that the K4 will change something fundamentally in the design so as to effect complete elimination of the birdies. Last but not least, I was never comfortable with the user interface for the second receiver. The status of it needs to be more visible through dedicated display real estate. Although one can argue for additions to the front panel controls and display items, I would not want anything like the size of yakencom top-of-the-line monsters. For one thing, I want my radios to be easily liftable. Something like my old FT-1000D is a nightmare to lift. Also, too much front panel real estate is a problem in SO2R operations, where you have to reach everything quickly. I think most if not all of what I have asked for above could be achieved in a front panel size matching that of the KPA1500. This would be a logical move for Elecraft. Since I have added P3's to both radios, I wouldn't consider being without them. I doubt that a P3-size screen could fit in the KPA1500 size front panel, but since the P3 takes up the space anyway within the reach of the SO2R operator, I would be fine with the KPA1500-sized front panel lengthened by a P3 width. Surely, the combination of the two units would make possible some improvements in panadapter controls and, additional use s for panadapter screen display items. Although I mostly operate cw, I have recently been on 20 ssb a bit. I have found that most ssb stations on 20 are effectively channelized. When manually scanning the band I save a lot of time by using the RIT knob as a tuning knob with 0.5 kHz steps. I sometimes wish that knob were bigger and with better feel. The high resolution of the P3 display shows great differences between different stations, and the visual differences often correlate with what one hears. If a station has inadequate emphasis on the highs (or excessive lows), that is easily seen. Also, some stations stand out for having clean smooth flanks, while others have ragged flanks. IC-7300 stations seem to consistently be in the clean-looking group, and sound a lot better than stations with muddy flanks. I have not gotten a feel for where K3/K3S stations fall on the scale, but notice that I haven't been getting a lot of compliments recently compared to years ago. If indeed the K3/K3S should be a little behind at this time, I would guess it might show up visually on a good panadapter, and that would reinforce any negative impression from the audio. Then of course the muddy signals I see on the P3 may result mostly from overmodulating etc and not necessarily from the equipment design. Anyway, I think many or most of the panadapters that people have built into their radios are inferior to the P3, and don't show much detail in an ssb signal. 73, Erik K7TV ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@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 arch...@mail-archive.com
