Now you guys are convincing me I should get a K1, too! Heck I don't even have enough time to operate, but it sure is fun to build!
Bill K9YEQ K2-35 & 5279; KX1-35/3080 ___________________________________ Jim wrote: >Have been thinking about getting my feet wet with building either >a K1 or KX1. ... I can work with either one but would prefer the >one with best performance. As far as RF performance only goes, the K1 is clearly superior. (1) The K1 uses an LC 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. In fact, according to reported measurements, the K1 has better transmitter spurious output specs than even the K2. [WJ] ................ OTOH, the KX1 is clearly superior in terms of VFO stability...a 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. IMHO, the KX1 has many positive features that the K1 doesn't have, but none of them except VFO stability actually are improvements over K1 RF performance in the ham CW bands. In overall RF performance, the K1 has the clear lead. But...if the K1 were not available, the KX1 would be my very next choice for a QRP rig. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
