The other thing you get with the additional receiver is diversity
reception. This is a truly wonderful feature that improves copy greatly
when there is QSB and some kinds of noise.
73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
On 12 May 2017 01:41, Bill Frantz wrote:
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.
______________________________________________________________
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]
