On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Steve Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm getting pretty close to the time I'm expecting to see a Katiegram, and > I'm thinking about adding either the TCXO or the 6KHz filter to my order. > > I do a lot of PSK-31 and I'm wondering if most folks find the stock > oscillator sufficiently stable for digital or if the TCXO is better to have?
Given that the regular oscillator in the K3 is better than many if not most amateur radio HF transceivers, I do not believe you will see a noticeable improvement with the higher quality TXCO. As far as I know the typical HF user will not notice any improvement by having the TCXO in standard (sane?) operating conditions at HF to 6 meter frequencies. So in short, the stock K3 is more than adequate for PSK-31 operating. The stock XO is +/- 5 ppm (0-50 C) TCXO standard (@49.380 MHz). The upgrade is to +/- 1ppm. The average user won't notice the +/- 4Hz improvement. I believe many users would have issues accurately calibrating their K3 to +/- 1ppm. As far as I know _reception_ of WWV/CHU's HF (or WWVB LF) signals are not that accurate. A GPSDO (GPS disciplined ovenized oscillator) would be typically used to in that situation. My understanding is that beside amateur metrologists (e.g. time-nuts), and the typical users of the upgraded TCXO are microwave perhaps mobile/rover VHF operators who use transverters to multiply the K3 HF output to the higher operating frequency, where you want minimal error (i.e. drift, jitter) in the K3's oscillator, because this error will be magnified (multiplied) by transverter as well. -Michael, VE3TIX _______________________________________________ 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
