Rob Sherwood's data is excellent. The problem is hams thinking the order of listing is based on an overall figure of merit. It is *not*. Rob had to choose *one column* on which to sort his list. When he first published it, he chose third-order dynamic range (narrow spaced), probably because many receivers *of that day* had poor performance on that important metric. For consistency, he has chosen to retain that sort order even though many (most?) modern receivers have improved to the point where that particular parameter is almost irrelevant when choosing among top radios. George is correct that most of us can't tell the difference among radios due to minor differences in DR - they are ALL excellent and Rob is careful to point that out when he speaks at hamfests. In fact, most modern transceivers excel in so many receiver performance metrics that Rob and others are now rightly crusading for improvements in transmitter performance which has not advanced as much as receiver performance across the industry. K4 (and K3 before it) and a few others have excellent transmitter IMD and clean keying that make them best choices, especially in crowded or multi-transmitter environments and among hams who care about not generating unnecessarily broad signals. That plus ergonomics and operating features should be the new basis of comparison but they don't fit on a list of *receiver performance* metrics. I'd like to see a new table of select transmitter performance measurements. Ergonomics and feature sets don't lend themselves as easily to tabular comparison except by manufacturers who can choose which things to mention, so it's important to read the descriptions, read the reviews, listen to owners and, if still unsure, sit down with the radios before making a decision.
The Sherwood data is good. Just don't interpret it the wrong way. 73, /Rick N6XI On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:54 PM George Thornton < [email protected]> wrote: > I agree that the price for the K4 has to be compared with the fully loaded > K3 plus P3. In that respect it is not overpriced. > > I don't think we should make too much of the Sherwood Engineering test > data at this point. I would suspect it would be hard for the human ear > to tell the difference among the top eight or ten models on the list. I > also think that when the K4 HD unit is out you might see higher results. I > suspect direct sampling technology is not as capable as superhet when it > comes to separating out closely spaced signals which is what Sherwood > Engineering uses to rank radios. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > On Behalf Of turnbull > Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 11:27 PM > To: Doug Person <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Giving Up > > GM Doug, A fully loaded K3 P3 was always dear. It rivalled the 7850 > price but did not reach the cost while arguably being the better radio. > The fully loaded K4 is less expensive to my reckoning in todays money than > the loaded K3 with P3 and physically smaller. I suspect it may not be so > much superior to the K3 in RF terms except that it is in the important area > of ergonomics. The wait has been excessive for sure.Your reasonng is > understandable. Hope the next radio is great. Meanwhile keep enjoying > ham radio.I will keep waiting.73 Doug EI2CNSent from my Galaxy > -------- Original message --------From: Doug Person <[email protected]> > Date: 08/06/2021 03:34 (GMT+00:00) To: [email protected] > Subject: [Elecraft] Giving Up Sadly, I've decided to give up waiting for > the K4. I'm probably far down the list anyway. Their are numerous reason > for this decision. First, there is the cost. With a tuner the price is > $4600 making it one of the most expensive transceivers on the market. I > fully realize that the K4 is feature rich and extremely well designed. I > would never take anything away from Elecraft's engineering ability. The K3 > set a new standard of performance that made the other manufacturers > substantially up their game - which they did. But is the K4 going to do the > same thing the K3 did? To me, it doesn't look like it. Innovative in some, > perhaps many ways - yes. A new trend setter? I'm not so sure. When the K3 > came out it was very competitively priced. I'm not sure I would describe > the K4 with the same words. It is unquestionably an expensive radio. At > this point the price/performance just isn't there for me. I sold my very > complete K3 station several years ago in anticipation of the K4. But now > the waiting has left me thinking about how much I'm willing to invest and > whether or not another brand whose transceivers are as much as $1500 less > and whose performance seems quite impressive will meet my needs. After > literally several years of contemplation I conclude that, for me, the K4 is > not worth the price. $3600 (with the tuner since every other significant > radio includes one) would seem competitive and I would jump on it at this > price. But as it is? Can't see doing it. I apologize if feelings are hurt > or I've made anyone angry. I'm leaving the list since I'm no longer waiting > patiently for what we once called Vaporware.Good luck to everyone on their > current and future K4s.Doug -- > K0DXV______________________________________________________________Elecraft > mailing listHome: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraftHelp: > http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htmPost: mailto:[email protected] > list hosted by: http://www.qsl.netPlease help support this email list: > http://www.qsl.net/donate.htmlMessage delivered to [email protected] > ______________________________________________________________ > 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] > ______________________________________________________________ > 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] -- -- Rick Tavan Truckee and Saratoga, CA ______________________________________________________________ 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]
