Consider a weak DX station working split with a big pileup and
compare the K3(S) and the KX3.
The K3 has a separate receiver for each ear. Each receiver has
its own set of roofing filters. The KX3 and KX2 have to cover
the entire frequency range between the DX station and the pileup
with one roofing filter.
If the DX station is weak, it is easy to have a strong station
in the pileup calling out of turn cause desense in the KX3 and
make it hard or impossible to hear the DX. This desense will not
happen in the K3 because of the separate roofing filters.
Yes, the K3(S) and KX(2,3) are almost equal, but this is one of
the areas where the K3(S) shows improved performance. In other
areas of difference. the K3(S) will be more convenient to operate.
73 Bill AE6JV
On 5/11/17 at 3:21 PM, [email protected] (Don Wilhelm) wrote:
You are asking about a "Dual Receive" capability, and for the
K3 the answer is that the KRX3 is required. Two identical
receivers which have much more capability and flexibility than
a 'Dual Receive' function. The subRX and Main can even be on
different bands if VFO IND is set on.
The KX3 and KX2 do implement "Dual Receive" - it is a
concession for split operation but is limited in range from the
main receive frequency, but sufficient for most Split operation
situations. There just is not room inside the KX3/KX2 for a
separate receiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | If you want total security, go to prison.
There you're
408-356-8506 | fed, clothed, given medical care and so on.
The only
www.pwpconsult.com | thing lacking is freedom. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [email protected]
