Hey, Robert, here’s a thought:  Given the irony of a secondary model (a passive 
version of the speaker) actually having higher production cost (due to the more 
limited production run), you could simply produce one model: an active 
speaker—which has the added versatility of being able to be configured as a 
passive speaker.  Cost-wise, it would be less expensive to add another ‘A’ 
model to serve as a second [passive] speaker (albeit with the amp turned off, 
with a bypass for the direct feed from an external source).  This would only 
require the ‘A’ model to be switchable to either L or R input (a channel swap 
DPDT)—and be able to go into bypass [through] mode

Although it may seems wasteful to have a 2nd active speaker doing duty as a 
passive one, but it would be less expensive to implement (both for producer and 
user), and, hey, you’d have the utility of having a 2nd active speaker kicking 
around in your kit (for whatever:)

As an incentive [sweetener], Robert, you could offer a discount on ordering a 
second ‘A’ speaker at time of purchase

Addendum: if you only made one model, an SPX3A, to pair with the KX3, as a KX2 
user I would be willing to lump it and purchase them anyway… ’cuz, Elecraft <3

FB es 73  de KX2CW  Joan  kn

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra, said Piglet.
Shaka, when the walls fell, said Pooh.

> On Apr 15, 2018, at 20:40, Robert Morris <ag...@iloc.com> wrote:
> First of all, I want to say thanks to everyone for all the great feedback 
> I've been getting on the speaker. Here's are some requested features:
> 1. One stereo channel to speaker driver and another channel to output jack 
> (already in first prototype)
> 2. 12V input (planned is 9-15V, like the KX3)
> 3. Separate powered (active) and unpowered (passive) speakers
> The reasons I've gotten for this is that it would save on the weight of and 
> inconvenience of charging a second battery
> 4. Separate volume controls for the internal speaker driver and the output 
> jack
> The reason I've gotten for this is that a computer will need the volume set 
> separately from the speaker.
> Some have stated the computer's software can adjust the gain on the input, 
> and that there only needs to be one volume control for the speaker driver. 
> I'll need consensus on this from the digital mode folks.
> 5. USB power output
> This would be convenient for those who wish to use their speakers as phone 
> chargers.
> Things to consider:
> A. Making two different speakers substantially increases manufacturing costs 
> for the most expensive part; the enclosure. Since most folks will be fine 
> with just one speaker, then the lower production numbers of the passive 
> speaker would make its per unit cost much higher than the active one. 
> However, folks would expect a lower price on the passive one. So, I'd have to 
> sell them as pairs to justify manufacturing the passive ones, which would 
> mean a higher cost to consumers who only want the active one. It would also 
> increase the cost to those who want both because of the two different 
> enclosures instead of just one enclosure twice.
> B. The one issue which would force making both an active and a passive 
> speaker is the need stated by some respondents that the active one would 
> require a second volume control for the output to the computer for digital 
> modes. It would be expensive and time consuming for me to try every digital 
> mode software on every operating system, so I need confirmation whether this 
> is truly necessary.
> C. If a second volume control is not truly necessary, then that simplifies 
> things tremendously. I'll wait for consensus on this before going into why.
> D. A USB power output port is beyond the scope of the speaker's intended 
> utility. Also, it would draw down the battery at the cost of significantly 
> limiting how long the speaker could be used before needing a recharge. 
> Furthermore, the extra hole and port would increase the cost while reducing 
> ingress protection. Lastly, there's not much room in the small enclosure to 
> accomodate nonessential items.
> Thanks and 73,
> Robert (AG6ZZ)
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

Reply via email to