To: HB9CVQ……. Sir. Thanks for the Real Information on these Radio’s, will apply. WA6VAB Ray K3
From: hb9...@hispeed.ch Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 4:52 AM To: 'Morgan Bailey'; 'Ray' Cc: 'Elecraft' Subject: AW: [Elecraft] A Clarification: IC-7300 vs FTDX10 Yes, I agree, I also prefer the FTDX101MP (own it 1 + year/CW, SSB) and have 3 K3S/P3 Systems…..but...no such thing as perfect…here is my story from my qrz.com blog I now use and recommend ( e.g. DSP even Better) the YAESU May 2021 SW/FW update now. I own a YAESU FTDX101MP ( SW/FW upgrade April 2020 ) since 1 Year and am very impressed by the high performance (I do SSB , also QRO CW; ragchewing/ DXing/ Contesting). This unit YAESU is partly even better than Tx / RX K3S, but not for QSK (relays chattering) . I would like to bring the following, unexpected findings -should get fixed a.s.a.p.- to your attention (or did I overlook something?): 1. Voice Messages (e.g. CQ) can be recorded e.g. in SSB and CW. Bacon Mode (automatic , interval repeat) is only possible in CW not in SSB , very impractical. 2. Incoming signals like QSOs cannot be recorded by the TRX directly. 3. The TX PWR Meter should read PEP not average. 4. 60m (5MHz) there is no sharp preselector available (VC Tune). It is also not possible to activate VC Tune on 12m, 6m. 5. RX: IPO to AMP1 to AMP2 is about a 10dB difference each step (20dB range) , Input RX Attenuator is correct with -6, -12, -18 dB 6. S-Meter Calibration 160m to 6m is not always real as (IARU Definition) S9=-73dBm or 50uV/50Ohm. Yes, below S9 there are -3dB steps per S-Unit, above S9 meter indication is correct as shown 7. The band scope needs different sensitivity settings for viewing RX and own TX signals. If optimized for RX, you will see a completly distorted/ overloading signal in TX mode ! • 160m to 40m: real S9 (AMP1) is more like S 7.5 on the meter, with IPO more like S 4.5 e.g. on 40m • 20 to 6m: real S9 is about S9 (AMP1) on the meter • Knowing about this I can live with it, easily. On the low bands the S-Meter is not very generous. A much more critical issue for some RX denoising applications is … Tricky Antenna port selection , accessibility to Input RX1 and RX2 individually not possible (diversity or local QRM reduction by phasing?) • There are 3 Ant. Ports. • There is a RX1 out and RX2 out port, obviously only , individually selectable via menu • Normal Configuration: T1 is TX and RX Port-> measuring the RX signal attenuation between T1 (AMP1 , ATT 0dB, VC Tune on) and e.g. RX1 out: It varies, from 160 to 30m…15m from -6db/-9dB, on 12m it is suddenly +5dB, on 10m there is 0dB. On the low bands there is a considerable signal loss! • Special RX Ant. Configuration: port One (#3) can be configured e.g. as RX on 3 only , while T1 is only transmit • Configuration R3 (RX only: AMP1 , ATT 0dB, VC Tune on), T1 TX only. Measuring the RX signal attenuation now between RX only import and e.g. RX1 out: -10 dB on 160m, 80m -3dB, 60/40/30/20m -5dB, 17m -7dB, 12m +6dB, 10m +2dB. The mostly relatively sharp frequency band selection (VC Tune) is clearly visible. • Problem/Dilemma with using an external RX phasing/ QRM Eliminator, there is now a missing function of routing the Main (TX) /RX Ant 1 Signal safely through to an RX outport (as in K3S). In FTDX101MP it is either RX all on Ant 1 or all RX on R3. • The phasing unit NCC1 with me has 2 channels: A noisy main Antenna, B noise local noise pick-up by a 1m diameter magnetic broadband loop. The S/N improved, vector combined output port signal must go to the Transceiver RX input port ( e.g. R3). • Therefore the safe routing through of the main antenna (only Rx function ) is badly missed here. • Envisioned external solution: Order/Installation of a separate, “Modular Receive Antenna Interface for Transceivers DXE-RTR-2” in front of the FTDX1001MP I also own a Elecraft K3S and did some EMI (Electromag. Interference) coupling experiment into the power supply (PS) port. This is another, aside from antenna port, important EMI port and potentially causing uncontrolled RX coupling. The effect is often overlooked. Conducted EMI -on the PS- of TRX ( Transceiver) results in backdoor coupling , if e.g. using external 12V (13.8V DC) external PS in a station. Investigation: Elecraft K3S ( minus on chassis ground and grounded by terminal (stud) to station ground => risk of loop formation with PE protective earth): Lab-Testing in a well-controlled coupling experiment (TRX Antenna terminated with DL 50 Ohm , 12V Battery operated-20 dB choked off, EMI injected capacitively into TRX plus, minus on GND ) • one can show S3 on the S-Meter on 80m for already some 20mVpp CM voltage ( 12V DC plus/minus input of TRX). • In the same test on 20m it takes just 30mVpp to reach S8 We have seen over 100mVpp induced on the 13.8V DC supply voltage in a K3S experiment 28MHz, 60W into Dummy Load 50Ohm. Using a MDS-clamp (EMC Test 30M-1GHz, --CISPR 16-1-3--, applicable to only on cable connection on K3S) test on the DC supply line resulted in 76dBpW ( about 40 micro Watt @28 MHz). This test is a "simple system configuration substitute" for a radiated test. An anechoic chamber was not available. From this one can estimate the 100W PA shielding/filtering efficiency to be about 62 dB [10xlg(60W/40uW)]. This is not unusual, rather reasonable and ok. All this can easily be field/stray effect induced in a complex station wiring-situation. If you have only one, individual, linear power supply (with earth-minus-GND on PE) backdoor coupling may get even more critical. High permeability CM (Common Mode) ferrite chokes (in 13.8V DC plus/minus) will easily saturate. Plus-amp and minus-amp will be different, because the GND (GND K3/ Earth PE ) will carry the return current difference! The worst configuration is to use one common Power-Supply-BUS for several TRX (daisy chaining, forming ground coupling loops ). TRX with an internal PS ( mains operated TRX) are typically better decoupled, causing less RX EMI backdoor input. Hopefully you have now a better understanding for trying to de-noise your station! ------------------------------------------ -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net <elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net> Im Auftrag von Morgan Bailey Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2021 02:27 An: Ray <wa6...@gmail.com> Cc: Elecraft <elecraft@mailman.qth.net> Betreff: Re: [Elecraft] A Clarification: IC-7300 vs FTDX10 I went to a radio store to see what all the hubbub was about the FTDX10. I came prepared to test the radio. After having downloaded the manual and reading it through 3 or 4 times getting the menus, setting, knobs, filtering, general settings well in my head, I went to the store and turned one on for about 2 solid hours. I was so upset with my K3S/P3 costing over 6K$ being shown up by a $1700 radio. Granted it does not have all the bells and whistles that the Elecraft had but for a great receiver, it blows the K3 away with band noise, and electrical noise mitigation. I found the receiver to be much quieter over all and with no harsh roar constantly as the K3S has. The Pan Adaptor was way easier to use and adjustment to 5khz wide was a S&P dream to operate with an adjustable notch and contour peaking or nulling functions continuously variable for best reception. I went home and got my money back from Elecraft, $9879, they had it for over a year, and once it was in my account I ordered sight unseen and untested both FTDX101MP and D models. The MP came first. I had the D sent to the factory to install the extra 300hz cw filter. Putting the K3S/P3 on an A/B switch with the MP, the difference was astounding. I immediately listed the K3S/P3 and sold it within an hour. It went out the next morning to UPS and I have had no regrets. Both my son, NS0R, and I operated the Yaesu's in multiple contests. This was the first time in my life that we could hear stations that we could not work. Having the Yaesus was an absolute game changer for me. The VC tune is the money. This last WPX cw we increased our score by a million because we could hear stations that the K3 was deaf to. The Band noise and intermittent electrical noise in the city was easily managed by the FTDX101MP. The K3S could not even come close to this performance. Simply put the FTDX10 and the FTDX101MP/D just have better receivers, due to the noise mitigation, lower internal noise, easier to listen to for long periods, and features like the adjustable notch and contour controls coupled with the VC tune and remarkable DSP, width and IF shift controls...it is just not a little bit better, it is atleast a magnitude better. Running SO2R on a city lot with cramped antenna space is not a problem. They are clean and no phase noise/composite noise is detected on transmit in the other radio on receive. I have them side by side. I have given 2 or 3 presentations on Zoom to explain how I use the rig and the great noise mitigation that It can do. When you push a button or turn a knob on these radios, something happens. They are not there for display. FTDX101MP and D---The best radios I have ever owned or operated. 73, Morgan NJ8M On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:55 PM Ray <wa6...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Like the Old Saying…… > If you cant Hear them You cant Work them………. > That is WHY that is a $1000.00 Radio. > Good Luck Hunting the DX…… > > Ray WA6VAB K3 > > > From: Don Wilhelm > Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 4:35 PM > To: Richard; Elecraft > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] A Clarification: IC-7300 vs FTDX10 > > Richard and all, > > I have a friend who bought a K3s and then afterward bought an IC-7300. > He is a weak signal CW type of guy and reports that there are many > weak signals that he could copy on the K3, but were non-existent on the > IC-7300. > > His reason for buying the IC-7300 had to do with possible "portable" > operation. Of course, the K3 is his rig of choice. > Yes, he does have the P3 to compliment it. > > He had operated my K3 with P3 for 2 years at Field Day and found it > excellent. He commented that the K3 with the P3 allowed him to work > stations "like shooting a fish in a barrel". > > I know this does not compare the IC-7300 to the FTDX10, but I thought > it to be a point of interest to some. > > I wonder how many will be comparing the K4 to the K3 with on the air > experiences. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > > > On 6/8/2021 7:00 PM, Richard wrote: > > Assuming you're a casual rawchewer and DXer, if you had an IC-7300 > > and > an FTDX10 side by side, where would they be pretty much equal, and > where would each outshine the other? > > > > Think in terms of using them with a KPA500 and a KAT500. > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > wa6...@gmail.com > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > mbaileyc...@gmail.com ______________________________________________________________ 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 hb9...@hispeed.ch ______________________________________________________________ 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
