Date   
Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

 

Hi Glenn,

Latest draft attached. Looking forward to your comments/suggestions.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:58 PM, kd0q <@kd0q> wrote:

Wayne,

Pleased forward the K3S v.s. IC-7610 comparison to me.

Thanks!

73, Glenn - KDØQ


On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:16 PM N6KR <n6kr@...> wrote:
In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.

While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).

The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.

Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.

73,
Wayne
N6KR



Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

Everett N4CY
 

Hi Wayne,

Please send me a copy of the comparison. Everettsharp@...

Everett N4CY

On Jul 4, 2018, at 3:02 AM, dalej via Groups.Io <dalej2=mac.com@groups.io> wrote:

I’m interested in this noise power ratio test that some use to evaluate receivers. How does that fit in with the K3 ?

Dale, K9VUJ





On 03, Jul 2018, at 21:16, N6KR <n6kr@...> wrote:

In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.

While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).

The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.

Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.

73,
Wayne
N6KR





Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

WA3RSL
 

Hello Wayne.

Please send me the comparison table. 

73

Frank WA3RSL 

Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

Matt Obermayer
 

Data is always good. would love to se the comparison: KFBRC@...

On Jul 3, 2018, at 7:16 PM, N6KR <n6kr@...> wrote:

In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.

While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).

The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.

Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

On 2018-07-04 4:02 AM, dalej via Groups.Io wrote:
I’m interested in this noise power ratio test that some use to
evaluate receivers. How does that fit in with the K3 ?
Noise power testing *can* be extremely confusing when comparing
direct sampling "receivers" like the Flex or IC-7851/7610/7300
with IF based SDR receivers like the K3.

In practice, proponents of noise power testing reduce the noise
power level until the ADC of the direct sampling receiver no
longer goes into overflow and then measure the IMD products
(increase in noise floor in the "notch" region). With IF/filter
based devices the noise power is not reduced. Effectively, the
two receiver technologies are being tested at different signal
levels.

The direct conversion receiver is being tested at maximum
interfering signal level but not maximum sensitivity while
the IF/Filter receiver is being tested at maximum sensitivity.
None of the tested direct conversion SDRs are capable of 100+
dB "dynamic range" while simultaneously maintaining a MDS of
~ -140 dBm unlike a IF/filter receiver (either analog like the
K2 or DSP like the K3/K3S).

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-07-04 4:02 AM, dalej via Groups.Io wrote:
I’m interested in this noise power ratio test that some use to evaluate receivers. How does that fit in with the K3 ?
Dale, K9VUJ
On 03, Jul 2018, at 21:16, N6KR <n6kr@...> wrote:
In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.
While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).
The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.
Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.
73,
Wayne
N6KR

Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

dalej
 

I’m interested in this noise power ratio test that some use to evaluate receivers. How does that fit in with the K3 ?

Dale, K9VUJ

On 03, Jul 2018, at 21:16, N6KR <n6kr@...> wrote:

In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.

While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).

The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.

Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

Petr Ourednik
 

Wayne,

I will be happy to get the draft too. Many thanks.

73 - Petr, OK1RP
http://ok1rp.blogspot.com)
(Sierra, K1, K2, K3, KX3, KPA500, KAT500 equipped)

Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

Glenn KD0Q
 

Wayne,

Pleased forward the K3S v.s. IC-7610 comparison to me.

Thanks!

73, Glenn - KDØQ


On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:16 PM N6KR <n6kr@...> wrote:
In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.

While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).

The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.

Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.

73,
Wayne
N6KR



Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

 

My apologies for letting an alias getting the best of me. Didn’t mean to send this to the full list.

Wayne
N6KR

On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:53 PM, N6KR <n6kr@...> wrote:

Hi Paul,

Attached is the current draft. Looking forward to your comments.

73,
Wayne
N6KR






On Jul 3, 2018, at 8:27 PM, Paul Dulaff <pdulaff@...> wrote:

Wayne

I have interest in the IC-7610, but would be interested in your comparison table and data comparing the two rigs.

Best 73's

Paul Dulaff
W2NMI

----- Original Message -----
From: N6KR <n6kr@...>
To: Elecraft-K3@groups.io
Sent: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 22:16:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Elecraft-K3] Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.

While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).

The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.

Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.

73,
Wayne
N6KR







Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

 

Hi Paul,

Attached is the current draft. Looking forward to your comments.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Jul 3, 2018, at 8:27 PM, Paul Dulaff <pdulaff@...> wrote:

Wayne

I have interest in the IC-7610, but would be interested in your comparison table and data comparing the two rigs.

Best 73's

Paul Dulaff
W2NMI

----- Original Message -----
From: N6KR <n6kr@...>
To: Elecraft-K3@groups.io
Sent: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 22:16:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Elecraft-K3] Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.

While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).

The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.

Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.

73,
Wayne
N6KR





Re: Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

Paul Dulaff
 

Wayne

I have interest in the IC-7610, but would be interested in your comparison table and data comparing the two rigs.

Best 73's

Paul Dulaff
W2NMI

----- Original Message -----
From: N6KR <n6kr@...>
To: Elecraft-K3@groups.io
Sent: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 22:16:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Elecraft-K3] Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.

While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).

The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.

Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

Elecraft K3S / IC-7610 comparison table

 

In response to many questions fielded by our sales and support staff we’ve put together a comparison of the K3S vs. the IC-7610.

While all rigs have certain strengths, the K3S has a combination of performance, features, and form factor that provide unique benefits to the operator, especially those who may encounter high-signal conditions or require portability (or both, as in the case of Field Day, DXpeditions, etc.).

The comparison table is in draft form and will continue to evolve, so we’re not posting it on our website just yet. However, we’ll be happy to send the current edition on request to anyone actively weighing the tradeoffs between the K3S and other transceivers.

Please email me directly if you’re interested. I’ll be happy to expand on information presented, whether theoretical or functional. No doubt these discussions will help us refine the table.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

Battery Low indication on K3/0

Doug, VE3MV
 

Hi All:

I’m now starting to get a “Battery Low” indication on my K3/0 but can’t find any reference to that in the manual. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Tnx & 73

Doug VE3MV

Re: Kudos to Parts Department/Customer Service

John AC4CA
 

I couldn't agree more. In 63 years experience dealing with ham radio companies, Elecraft is at the top of the list. When Support says they will return a call by the end of the day, they mean it. I  hope your experience parallels mine. John/AC4CA

Re: Kudos to Parts Department/Customer Service

mikerodgerske5gbc
 

Havn't seen that one for a while. 

73
Mike R

7!
Absolutely Awesome 

On Jun 28, 2018, at 4:41 PM, Paula <pmuscian@...> wrote:

This past Monday I noticed the RF control knob for my main K3 receiver was loose. My investigation revealed the knob was cracked. I emailed the Elecraft Parts Department to obtain a replacement knob. Elecraft emailed me back that it was posting replacements to me free of charge.

Today the knobs arrived in the mail. Not only do I have 2 replacements for the smaller knobs, I have a set of the larger ones as well "just in case."

Many thanks to Elecraft for great support and service! I have 4 pieces of Elecraft gear in regular service, and the excellent support is a big reason why.

73 Paula k9ir

Re: Kudos to Parts Department/Customer Service

Stan Sychev <k6wg@...>
 

YES!!!!

Guys @ Elecraft do great job on support!

73! Stan, K6WG
--------------------------------------------

On Thu, 6/28/18, Paula <pmuscian@...> wrote:

Subject: [Elecraft-K3] Kudos to Parts Department/Customer Service
To: Elecraft-K3@groups.io
Date: Thursday, June 28, 2018, 2:41 PM

This past Monday I noticed the RF
control knob for my main K3 receiver was loose. My
investigation revealed the knob was cracked. I emailed the
Elecraft Parts Department to obtain a replacement knob.
Elecraft emailed me back that it was posting replacements to
me free of charge.

Today the knobs arrived in the mail. Not only do I have 2
replacements for the smaller knobs, I have a set of the
larger ones as well "just in case."

Many thanks to Elecraft for great support and service! I
have 4 pieces of Elecraft gear in regular service, and the
excellent support is a big reason why.

73 Paula k9ir

Kudos to Parts Department/Customer Service

Paula
 

This past Monday I noticed the RF control knob for my main K3 receiver was loose. My investigation revealed the knob was cracked. I emailed the Elecraft Parts Department to obtain a replacement knob. Elecraft emailed me back that it was posting replacements to me free of charge.

Today the knobs arrived in the mail. Not only do I have 2 replacements for the smaller knobs, I have a set of the larger ones as well "just in case."

Many thanks to Elecraft for great support and service! I have 4 pieces of Elecraft gear in regular service, and the excellent support is a big reason why.

73 Paula k9ir

Re: FT8 using 1000-4000 Hz allocated to Hounds

Larry
 

I worked the KH1/KH7Z team laast night on 20M and this morning on 30M. 
The Fox/hound mode is quite simple if you've got the options set in the 
WSJT-X setting file.  I stayed above 1000 cycles on the screen and when
he answered, it was just a  2 transmission exchange, the data shifted my
tx down to the working freq he was transmitting to me on.  You have to
manually make sure the QSo gets logged though, at least i had to. 
Otherwise i made no changes to my K3 configuration at all.  His
transmissions back to the hound stations were mainly around the 350 to
650 cycle range. Piece of cake.  set it up and take a nap.  30W and
inverted V on 30M.  30W & 4 el yagi on 20M.  Nothing special here.

Larry

W0OGH

On 6/26/2018 2:53 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

Before I dig into the station to make this change, I wondered if
anyone had tried using the AM filter for receive and how it worked.
I have used the FM filter for JT65/JT9 operation for several years
with LO=0.20 and HI=4.20 (BW=4.00, FC=2.20) to provide approximately
200 Hz to 4000 Hz receive audio.   Although the FM filter is 13 KHz,
the 6 KHz AM filter should operate the same way.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-06-26 11:30 AM, Doug,  VE3MV wrote:
GM

Ref (a) FT8 DXpedition Mode User Guide, by Joe Taylor K1JT - May 16,
2018


The ref (a) User Guide indicates that the Hounds should make initial
calls anywhere in the range of 1000 - 4000 Hz.  Also, in the detailed
Instruction for Hounds, item #6 it talks about “set the high
frequency end of the waterfall to 4000 Hz".  However the waterfall in
receive on my K3 is limited to between 300 and 2750 Hz even if I
increase the bandwidth on the K3 to read 4.00 (because of the actual
bandwidth of my widest roofing filter) in the main receiver.

Seems to me that one could make use of the wider AM filter in receive
and now I, as a Hound, can see the frequencies of the other Hound
signals up to approx 4 KHz and find a opening to call.

Since the K3 Utility program provides an easy way to specify which of
the crystal filters (up to 5) is enabled for receive in each mode. 
One should be able to just put the AM filter into position 1 and
enable it for Data A receive.

In my case I would have to move the AM filter from the subRx to the
main Rx in order to do this configuration change.

Before I dig into the station to make this change, I wondered if
anyone had tried using the AM filter for receive and how it worked.
  BTW a similar question is asked in the Answers to Frequently Asked
Questions, Item 4 in the Ref (a) guide but it addresses the audio TX
frequency and the shift automatically performed by the software.  My
question relates to “seeing” the full audio range on receive.


73,  Doug  VE3MV

Re: FT8 using 1000-4000 Hz allocated to Hounds

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

Before I dig into the station to make this change, I wondered if anyone had tried using the AM filter for receive and how it worked.
I have used the FM filter for JT65/JT9 operation for several years
with LO=0.20 and HI=4.20 (BW=4.00, FC=2.20) to provide approximately
200 Hz to 4000 Hz receive audio. Although the FM filter is 13 KHz,
the 6 KHz AM filter should operate the same way.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-06-26 11:30 AM, Doug, VE3MV wrote:
GM
Ref (a) FT8 DXpedition Mode User Guide, by Joe Taylor K1JT - May 16, 2018
The ref (a) User Guide indicates that the Hounds should make initial calls anywhere in the range of 1000 - 4000 Hz. Also, in the detailed Instruction for Hounds, item #6 it talks about “set the high frequency end of the waterfall to 4000 Hz". However the waterfall in receive on my K3 is limited to between 300 and 2750 Hz even if I increase the bandwidth on the K3 to read 4.00 (because of the actual bandwidth of my widest roofing filter) in the main receiver.
Seems to me that one could make use of the wider AM filter in receive and now I, as a Hound, can see the frequencies of the other Hound signals up to approx 4 KHz and find a opening to call.
Since the K3 Utility program provides an easy way to specify which of the crystal filters (up to 5) is enabled for receive in each mode. One should be able to just put the AM filter into position 1 and enable it for Data A receive.
In my case I would have to move the AM filter from the subRx to the main Rx in order to do this configuration change.
Before I dig into the station to make this change, I wondered if anyone had tried using the AM filter for receive and how it worked.
BTW a similar question is asked in the Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, Item 4 in the Ref (a) guide but it addresses the audio TX frequency and the shift automatically performed by the software. My question relates to “seeing” the full audio range on receive.
73, Doug VE3MV

FT8 using 1000-4000 Hz allocated to Hounds

Doug, VE3MV
 

GM

Ref (a) FT8 DXpedition Mode User Guide, by Joe Taylor K1JT - May 16, 2018


The ref (a) User Guide indicates that the Hounds should make initial calls anywhere in the range of 1000 - 4000 Hz. Also, in the detailed Instruction for Hounds, item #6 it talks about “set the high frequency end of the waterfall to 4000 Hz". However the waterfall in receive on my K3 is limited to between 300 and 2750 Hz even if I increase the bandwidth on the K3 to read 4.00 (because of the actual bandwidth of my widest roofing filter) in the main receiver.

Seems to me that one could make use of the wider AM filter in receive and now I, as a Hound, can see the frequencies of the other Hound signals up to approx 4 KHz and find a opening to call.

Since the K3 Utility program provides an easy way to specify which of the crystal filters (up to 5) is enabled for receive in each mode. One should be able to just put the AM filter into position 1 and enable it for Data A receive.

In my case I would have to move the AM filter from the subRx to the main Rx in order to do this configuration change.

Before I dig into the station to make this change, I wondered if anyone had tried using the AM filter for receive and how it worked.

BTW a similar question is asked in the Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, Item 4 in the Ref (a) guide but it addresses the audio TX frequency and the shift automatically performed by the software. My question relates to “seeing” the full audio range on receive.


73, Doug VE3MV