Shane,
One could say "Its all in the advertising" - or "its all smoke and mirrors".
Just take a look at Rob Sherwood's reports and you will see which is the
better performer (regardless of pricing) - the K3 is at the top of the list.
The K3 does not include a built-in power supply, and that may account
for a bit of the weight difference (but not all).
I believe the real answer is that the Elecraft K3 offers a top
performance transceiver at a fair price, and the glitz that is added
with bandscopes and other such built-ins on the competitive transceivers
are options (or future options) for the K3 - with the K3, you can pay
only for what you need rather than a lot of glitz and glamor (those
glossy brochures cost money that must be recovered in the product cost).
73,
Don W3FPR
Shane White wrote:
That's it, I'm going to ask the silly question.
How can the K3's receiver outperform that of the Icom IC-7800 and Yaesu
FTDX9000? These two radios cost in excess of $11,000 and weigh in at over
25Kg (55lbs)! The K3 costs about $2000 and weighs about 4Kg (8.5lbs). Yes
the K3 is deficient of a screen, internal PSU and some knobs but why on
earth is there such a difference in price and weight? Given this, how can
the K3's receiver outperform these other radios?
These questions keep bugging me. Those glossy Yaesu and Icom brochures
certainly don't help!
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [email protected]
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
