Well written Mike. I agree with most. Especially as a favorite qrp rig. Its a blast. Interesting points about the 4 band module. I guess I'll order one. Switching boards is a pain. Totally agree on the back-lighting - its truly a missing feature that should be there. Trying to get the desk-light just right so I can see the display without getting it in my face is a pain. The KX1 has its place. It is much more compromised than the K1. Its still a blast to use when the environment is to its strengths (really portable). A smaller version of the K2 bail sized for the K1 would be perfect.
One other thing: I really wish Wayne and Eric would peal off one of their talented junior engineers and design a K0. (K zero). A single band superhet with 2-3 watts out and super compact. 73, Doug -- K0DXV On 4/7/2011 4:03 PM, Mike Morrow wrote: >> Great to see K1s are still popular. I'm looking to get a K1 or a Kx1. >> I was not sure how well the K1s were selling. Can you tell me why >> you selected the K1 rather than the Kx1? > I ordered my K1 after seeing the prototype at Dayton 2000. It was delivered > (S/N 175) in late November, 2000. In 10.5 years of sales, about 3000 K1s have > been sold. That's one for every business day for the past 10.5 years. I don't > know what the current sales volume is, but the K1 remains firmly after more > than ten years of ownership my favorite QRP rig of all time. Nothing else > comes > close. > > With respect to the choice of KX1 of K1, as far as ham band CW *RF* > performance > goes, the K1 is inarguably superior. > > (1) The K1 uses a L-C VFO that is cleaner than the direct digital synthesis > 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. According to > reported measurements of the K1 with two-band board, it has better transmitter > spurious output specs than even the K2. The low-pass filtering of the > four-band > version is much better than the two-band version. Beware of drawing > conclusions > from the QST review of the K1, because they tested a two-band model, which had > the poorer filtering. > > (2) The K1 can be placed on any HF band, though Elecraft sells parts for 80m > through 15m only. The KX1 DDS chip is clocked at its maximum rate of 50 MHz, > which limits KX1 frequency coverage to around 20m and lower. The 15m band is > one of the finest QRP bands when open. It's my favorite band. This *alone* > would be enough to make me choose the K1 over the KX1. > > (3) The K1 uses a four-pole crystal IF filter, while the KX1 IF uses a > three-pole > filter. It's a well-noted characteristic of the KX1 to be able to receive on > *both* sides of a CW signal as one tunes through it because of the lack of > selectivity of its IF filtering. OTOH, since many use their KX1 to receive > SSB, > there the three-pole filter is an advantage. > > (4) The K1's optional auto antenna tuner tunes a *much* wider range of > impedances > than that of the KX1. I'd choose the K1 with KAT1 without any question over > any > external tuner. The argument that an external tuner makes it easier to swap > filter > boards is specious, since very few K1 owners of the four-band model make such > swaps except rarely. > > (5) Most find the continuous L-C VFO tuning of the K1 to be more natural than > the step-wise tuning of the DDS in the KX1. > > (6) The K1 has a noise blanker option, while the KX1 does not. I once thought > that the KNB1 wasn't all that useful, but I have some odd type of digital > noise > in the area I now live on which the KNB1 is *most* effective. > > (7) The K1 transmitter can produce up to seven watts of output power. The KX1 > is about half that, if one is lucky. > > (8) The K1 case contains a speaker, the KX1 does not. The K1 has plenty of > audio to drive it too. > > (9) IMHO, the full-house K1 (with KNB1, KAT1, and four-band board) is easier > (less-tricky) to build than the full-house KX1 with all its options (40/20m > with > 80/30m option, KXAT1). > > (10) I like the front-mounted controls of the K1 more than the top-mounted > controls of the KX1. The so-called "trail-friendly" top control configuration > is, I think, without demonstrable advantage. I've often used my K1 as a > backpack rig. > > I personally do NOT like the K1 KBT1. It is a bad idea to have a chemical > corrosion source inside a radio, the pack can't be charged internally, and > the normal K1 speaker is far better than the micro-speaker that comes with > the KBT1. > > I do not like the KTS1 tilt stand. It is way over-designed. A simple wire > tilt-bale would be much cheaper and could be premanently stowed under the rig > when not in use, unlike the KTS1. > > I think that it is a disservice to supply the K1 without the LCD back-light as > standard equipment. That back-light is a *tremendous* asset to the K1, and it > is, IMHO, a real pain in the butt to back fit to a K1 that has been built > without > the back-light. > > The KX1 is clearly superior in terms of VFO stability. The DDS is about as > stable as a crystal oscillator. It is superior in its span of frequency > coverage within the limits of the DDS. It can switch between USB and LSB due > to the frequency agility of the DDS as the local oscillator. It has neat > features like audio feedback to controls. It is definitely smaller and > lighter. > The KX1 definitely has some positive features that the K1 doesn't have. > *None* > of them, except VFO stability, are improvements in *RF* performance on the > ham CW bands. Yet, the K1's L-C VFO is astonishingly and surprisingly stable. > > But...if the K1 were not available, the KX1 would be my very next choice for a > QRP rig. It's a very fine and well-designed rig. I would like to see a new > KX2 > that offered four-pole IF filtering, a DDS that could provide operation at > least > up to 15m band coverage, and "from the design stage" coverage from 80m to 15m > without the trickiness of the current KX1 design. And maybe, a little more > versatility in the auto antenna tuner (more like the KAT1). I'd also like to > see an option to choose a case that did not waste volume for a battery pack. > I do NOT want batteries inside a radio. A little external 10-cell AA-holder > works just fine. An option to buy built and tested would also be nice. I've > built many things since I started messing with radio gear in 1964, and today > I don't have the time to waste on mostly mindless, definitely boring kit > building activities. I'd buy such a QRP rig in a heartbeat. If Elecraft > doesn't > step up, China will at much lower price. But Elecraft has been pretty much a > K3 enterprise for several years now, just like this list. But many will > *never* > want a K3 type of rig for QRP operation. > > Mike / KK5F > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
