K3 for CW


SGS 126
 

I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW.  I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000.  My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency.  I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

 

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC


Lou Kolb
 

Ben,

I can tell you that when I got my k3-100 10 years ago, my CW operation
jumped from 50 per cent to around 80 per cent. As you've surmised,
it's a great CW rig.
As for filters, I suggest iether the 400hz or 200hz filters. The 200
is a good idea if you want to do a lot of contest or DX operating. If
your operating is more casual, the 400hz filter does a fine job. I use
an 8 pole 400hz filter, which does a terific job. Good luck. Lou
WA3MIX

On 10/2/20, SGS 126 <brloper@gmail.com> wrote:
I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW. I
have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000. My code speed is between
13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at
the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency. I presently have an Icom
7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN
diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC






Michael Kopec
 

Hello Ben. Great that your pushing toward CW operation especially with a K3. I have been told by Elecraft that the K3s(s) that they loan to the DXpeditions are outfitted with 400hz and 250hz 8-pole filters for CW operation. my K3s has the 400hz 8-pole and a 200hz filter for tight contest type operation. Normally I use the 400hz filter with the DSP width set to 250hz or 300hz. Works for me. The width is variable with a front control knob so no getting into the menu reqd to change after initial filter set-up. Have fun and GL de Mike K8NS

On Saturday, October 3, 2020, 12:59:20 PM EDT, SGS 126 <brloper@...> wrote:


I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW.  I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000.  My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency.  I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

 

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC


Tom Doligalski W4KX
 

I have both the 400 hz and the 250 hz 8 pole filters. Honestly, I rarely use the 250, and often have the bandwidth open wider than 400 hz. 

Tom W4KX

 

On Oct 3, 2020, at 12:59 PM, SGS 126 <brloper@...> wrote:



I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW.  I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000.  My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency.  I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

 

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC


Rob Sherwood
 

Remember that the crystal filters are roofing filters, and you can operate CW even if you only have the standard 2.7 kHz filter.  Set the DSP for any bandwidth you want.  Of course in a pile-up a 400 or 500-Hz roofing filter is more optimum.    Rob, NC0B

 

From: Elecraft-K3@groups.io [mailto:Elecraft-K3@groups.io] On Behalf Of Thomas Doligalski via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2020 12:28 PM
To: Elecraft-K3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Elecraft-K3] K3 for CW

 

I have both the 400 hz and the 250 hz 8 pole filters. Honestly, I rarely use the 250, and often have the bandwidth open wider than 400 hz. 

 

Tom W4KX

 



On Oct 3, 2020, at 12:59 PM, SGS 126 <brloper@...> wrote:



I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW.  I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000.  My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency.  I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

 

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC


K9MA
 

I also have those filters, but I wouldn't recommend the 250 Hz one. It really isn't much better than the 400 Hz one, by either Elecraft's published data or my own measurements. I think for those times when a bandwidth of less than 400 Hz is required, the 400 Hz filter with the DSP set narrower would work just as well. Even with the 250 Hz filter, it's not quite as good at rejecting nearby QRM as my old FT-1000D, with two cascaded 250 Hz filters, but at least the K3 doesn't have key clicks.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 1:28 PM, Thomas Doligalski via groups.io wrote:
I have both the 400 hz and the 250 hz 8 pole filters. Honestly, I rarely use the 250, and often have the bandwidth open wider than 400 hz. 

Tom W4KX

 

On Oct 3, 2020, at 12:59 PM, SGS 126 <brloper@...> wrote:



I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW.  I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000.  My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency.  I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

 

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC


-- 
Scott  K9MA

k9ma@...


Colin Smithers
 

I have had two of the 250 Hz filters fail open circuit. Fortunate that they are not really needed.

73, G4CWH


On 3 Oct 2020, at 21:44, K9MA via groups.io <K9ma@...> wrote:


I also have those filters, but I wouldn't recommend the 250 Hz one. It really isn't much better than the 400 Hz one, by either Elecraft's published data or my own measurements. I think for those times when a bandwidth of less than 400 Hz is required, the 400 Hz filter with the DSP set narrower would work just as well. Even with the 250 Hz filter, it's not quite as good at rejecting nearby QRM as my old FT-1000D, with two cascaded 250 Hz filters, but at least the K3 doesn't have key clicks.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 1:28 PM, Thomas Doligalski via groups.io wrote:
I have both the 400 hz and the 250 hz 8 pole filters. Honestly, I rarely use the 250, and often have the bandwidth open wider than 400 hz. 

Tom W4KX

 

On Oct 3, 2020, at 12:59 PM, SGS 126 <brloper@...> wrote:



I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW.  I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000.  My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency.  I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

 

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC


-- 
Scott  K9MA

k9ma@...


Steve VE3RX
 

I agree with Thomas. While I'm not a real "CW" operator, I do use it during some contests. I have the 400 and 250, 8 pole filters. I find the 400 is usually good enough, and with the DSP bandwidth width, I can trim down the bandwidth from there. Once I hit 250, it is real tight and I find not too much better than the DSP turned down to 300Hz with the 400 filter. That said, the odd time, I do need 100-150Hz or so for some real tight DX with pileups, it does help. The only thing I don't know is how different it would be with 400Hz filter and DSP turned down to 100Hz vs a 250 filter and DSP width turned down to 100Hz.
I think you will be happy with a 400 filter, to start with. You can always add another filter later if you feel up to it. There is not a lot of difference in bandwidth between the 250 and 400Hz (8 pole) filters, maybe about 65Hz at -6dB. Not sure of the difference with the 5 pole filters.

73
Steve

73
Steve


K9MA
 

If you look at the published curves for the two filters, you will see that the skirts of the narrow one aren't really much better than the wide one. So, even with the narrow filter, below 400 Hz, the DSP is doing most of the work.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 5:44 PM, Steve VE3RX wrote:
I agree with Thomas. While I'm not a real "CW" operator, I do use it during some contests. I have the 400 and 250, 8 pole filters. I find the 400 is usually good enough, and with the DSP bandwidth width, I can trim down the bandwidth from there. Once I hit 250, it is real tight and I find not too much better than the DSP turned down to 300Hz with the 400 filter. That said, the odd time, I do need 100-150Hz or so for some real tight DX with pileups, it does help. The only thing I don't know is how different it would be with 400Hz filter and DSP turned down to 100Hz vs a 250 filter and DSP width turned down to 100Hz.
I think you will be happy with a 400 filter, to start with. You can always add another filter later if you feel up to it. There is not a lot of difference in bandwidth between the 250 and 400Hz (8 pole) filters, maybe about 65Hz at -6dB. Not sure of the difference with the 5 pole filters.

73
Steve

73
Steve


-- 
Scott  K9MA

k9ma@...


 

I am 99.99% on CW. I have 250-400-1k-1k8-2k8 8-pole filter set in both main and sub RX (10 filters total!). My K3 #7554 with new synthesizers is the best radio I used in my 50+ years of ham radio activity. Good QSK is a mandatory for me, I do often also QRQ up to 60 wpm.

Your choice of K3 is excellent.

73,
Martin, OK1RR

P.S. I strongly hate clicking antenna relays, the fast & silent PIN diode switching (K3 and KPA500) is mandatory for any rig in the future.


Dne 02. 10. 20 v 17:39 SGS 126 napsal(a):

I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW. I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000. My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency. I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC





Brian K0DTJ
 

I just spent a fun afternoon in the CA QSO party on 20 meters CW. In a crowd of S9++ signals I could always find a run frequency where I could hear all the way to the noise floor without QRM using the 400 Hz roofing filter and the DSP set at 350-400 Hz. For S&P I may set the DSP a little tighter.

It just doesn't get any better. :-)

73,
Brian, K0DTJ


Michael Kopec
 

Hi Scott. The filters are roofing filters and really only take over on strong 9+ sigs while the dsp handles the weaker sigs. Elecraft has/published an article on this. 73 de Mike K8NS

On Saturday, October 3, 2020, 08:26:09 PM EDT, K9MA <k9ma@...> wrote:


If you look at the published curves for the two filters, you will see that the skirts of the narrow one aren't really much better than the wide one. So, even with the narrow filter, below 400 Hz, the DSP is doing most of the work.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 5:44 PM, Steve VE3RX wrote:
I agree with Thomas. While I'm not a real "CW" operator, I do use it during some contests. I have the 400 and 250, 8 pole filters. I find the 400 is usually good enough, and with the DSP bandwidth width, I can trim down the bandwidth from there. Once I hit 250, it is real tight and I find not too much better than the DSP turned down to 300Hz with the 400 filter. That said, the odd time, I do need 100-150Hz or so for some real tight DX with pileups, it does help. The only thing I don't know is how different it would be with 400Hz filter and DSP turned down to 100Hz vs a 250 filter and DSP width turned down to 100Hz.
I think you will be happy with a 400 filter, to start with. You can always add another filter later if you feel up to it. There is not a lot of difference in bandwidth between the 250 and 400Hz (8 pole) filters, maybe about 65Hz at -6dB. Not sure of the difference with the 5 pole filters.

73
Steve

73
Steve


-- Scott  K9MAk9ma@...


K9MA
 

Hello Martin,

I've been using QSK for many, many years, going back to the days of vacuum tube radios. The one thing that disappoints me about the K3 and other modern DSP radios is that the receiver latency is so long that even at 30 wpm or so, you can't hear between dots and dashes, only between letters or words. Even my old FT-1000D (no DSP) is much better. Have you noticed that? I really miss the transparency fast QSK gave us. I guess that's the price we must pay for the benefits of QSK.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 7:31 PM, Martin Kratoska wrote:
I am 99.99% on CW. I have 250-400-1k-1k8-2k8 8-pole filter set in both main and sub RX (10 filters total!). My K3 #7554 with new synthesizers is the best radio I used in my 50+ years of ham radio activity. Good QSK is a mandatory for me, I do often also QRQ up to 60 wpm.

Your choice of K3 is excellent.

73,
Martin, OK1RR

P.S. I strongly hate clicking antenna relays, the fast & silent PIN diode switching (K3 and KPA500) is mandatory for any rig in the future.


Dne 02. 10. 20 v 17:39 SGS 126 napsal(a):
I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW. I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000. My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency. I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC













-- 
Scott  K9MA

k9ma@...


K9MA
 

Hi Mike,

There's no doubt that the crystal filters greatly improve the dynamic range of the K3. The dynamic range of the DSP is inherently limited by the resolution of the A/D converter, though they are getting better. I think Elecraft was one of the first to combine the benefits of crystal filters with the DSP, with excellent results. I'm looking forward to seeing test results for the K4.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 7:47 PM, Michael Kopec via groups.io wrote:
Hi Scott. The filters are roofing filters and really only take over on strong 9+ sigs while the dsp handles the weaker sigs. Elecraft has/published an article on this. 73 de Mike K8NS
On Saturday, October 3, 2020, 08:26:09 PM EDT, K9MA <k9ma@...> wrote:


If you look at the published curves for the two filters, you will see that the skirts of the narrow one aren't really much better than the wide one. So, even with the narrow filter, below 400 Hz, the DSP is doing most of the work.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 5:44 PM, Steve VE3RX wrote:
I agree with Thomas. While I'm not a real "CW" operator, I do use it during some contests. I have the 400 and 250, 8 pole filters. I find the 400 is usually good enough, and with the DSP bandwidth width, I can trim down the bandwidth from there. Once I hit 250, it is real tight and I find not too much better than the DSP turned down to 300Hz with the 400 filter. That said, the odd time, I do need 100-150Hz or so for some real tight DX with pileups, it does help. The only thing I don't know is how different it would be with 400Hz filter and DSP turned down to 100Hz vs a 250 filter and DSP width turned down to 100Hz.
I think you will be happy with a 400 filter, to start with. You can always add another filter later if you feel up to it. There is not a lot of difference in bandwidth between the 250 and 400Hz (8 pole) filters, maybe about 65Hz at -6dB. Not sure of the difference with the 5 pole filters.

73
Steve

73
Steve


-- Scott  K9MAk9ma@...


-- 
Scott  K9MA

k9ma@...


Rob Sherwood
 

The Ten-Tec Orion was the first to go back to a relative low first IF with roofing filters, followed by DSP I think in 2004.  Then in 2008 the K3 overwhelmed the Orion II.  Rob, NC0B


On Oct 3, 2020, at 7:15 PM, K9MA <K9ma@...> wrote:


Hi Mike,

There's no doubt that the crystal filters greatly improve the dynamic range of the K3. The dynamic range of the DSP is inherently limited by the resolution of the A/D converter, though they are getting better. I think Elecraft was one of the first to combine the benefits of crystal filters with the DSP, with excellent results. I'm looking forward to seeing test results for the K4.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 7:47 PM, Michael Kopec via groups.io wrote:
Hi Scott. The filters are roofing filters and really only take over on strong 9+ sigs while the dsp handles the weaker sigs. Elecraft has/published an article on this. 73 de Mike K8NS
On Saturday, October 3, 2020, 08:26:09 PM EDT, K9MA <k9ma@...> wrote:


If you look at the published curves for the two filters, you will see that the skirts of the narrow one aren't really much better than the wide one. So, even with the narrow filter, below 400 Hz, the DSP is doing most of the work.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 5:44 PM, Steve VE3RX wrote:
I agree with Thomas. While I'm not a real "CW" operator, I do use it during some contests. I have the 400 and 250, 8 pole filters. I find the 400 is usually good enough, and with the DSP bandwidth width, I can trim down the bandwidth from there. Once I hit 250, it is real tight and I find not too much better than the DSP turned down to 300Hz with the 400 filter. That said, the odd time, I do need 100-150Hz or so for some real tight DX with pileups, it does help. The only thing I don't know is how different it would be with 400Hz filter and DSP turned down to 100Hz vs a 250 filter and DSP width turned down to 100Hz.
I think you will be happy with a 400 filter, to start with. You can always add another filter later if you feel up to it. There is not a lot of difference in bandwidth between the 250 and 400Hz (8 pole) filters, maybe about 65Hz at -6dB. Not sure of the difference with the 5 pole filters.

73
Steve

73
Steve


-- Scott  K9MAk9ma@...


-- 
Scott  K9MA

k9ma@...


 

Hi Scott,

your observation is correct, at least in particular. I don't have now any ricebox to confirm this. Anyway some numbers can be measured with Keying Analyzer by Nick, WA5BDU (attached), of course some not. I agree, a separate RX and TX with a 6AH6 antenna switch is unbeatable stellar performer although it introduces some level of attenuation into RX path. The "processorless" were much better (speaking about QSK) than the modern DSP/DDS gear. AFAIK the RX "recovery time" is mostly introduced by firmware built-in delays. Manufacturers won't allow any artifacts on the receiver audio during the switching time, unfortunately no firmware allows to adjust it. Anyway, the K3 with new synthesizers KSYN3A is still the best QSK radio on the market - if you have other info, tell me, please.

My idea is to extend the WA5BDU gem to measure RX audio. It seems that it will need another channel detecting the presence of an audio signal. I plan to get in touch with WA5BDU to do this.

73,
Martin, OK1RR

Dne 04. 10. 20 v 3:11 K9MA napsal(a):

Hello Martin,

I've been using QSK for many, many years, going back to the days of vacuum tube radios. The one thing that disappoints me about the K3 and other modern DSP radios is that the receiver latency is so long that even at 30 wpm or so, you can't hear between dots and dashes, only between letters or words. Even my old FT-1000D (no DSP) is much better. Have you noticed that? I really miss the transparency fast QSK gave us. I guess that's the price we must pay for the benefits of QSK.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 7:31 PM, Martin Kratoska wrote:
I am 99.99% on CW. I have 250-400-1k-1k8-2k8 8-pole filter set in both main and sub RX (10 filters total!). My K3 #7554 with new synthesizers is the best radio I used in my 50+ years of ham radio activity. Good QSK is a mandatory for me, I do often also QRQ up to 60 wpm.

Your choice of K3 is excellent.

73,
Martin, OK1RR

P.S. I strongly hate clicking antenna relays, the fast & silent PIN diode switching (K3 and KPA500) is mandatory for any rig in the future.


Dne 02. 10. 20 v 17:39 SGS 126 napsal(a):
I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW. I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000. My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency. I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC










Robert W5AJ
 

Ben, an excellent choice
the 250Hz helped my 160 meter country count, could hear better!!
Indeed the DSP part of that was cranked to 150hz (that's about as tight and still being useful)

Look at the filter curves. The 400hz maybe more of a 350hz filter (ah, memory...)
I set the configuration of the 250hz to start at 300hz and the 400hz filter to kick in at 450hz.
just a preference
The 400hz is also great RTTY filter

it's correct to say don't use the 250hz as much as 400hz but it's worth being there.
if it's one or the other - 400hz

also in one of the QST reviews of K3 - there is a sidebar on the filters
it's worth finding and reading

73 W5AJ




Robert
Midland, Texas

-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft-K3@groups.io [mailto:Elecraft-K3@groups.io] On Behalf Of Lou Kolb
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2020 12:07 PM
To: Elecraft-K3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Elecraft-K3] K3 for CW

Ben,

I can tell you that when I got my k3-100 10 years ago, my CW operation jumped from 50 per cent to around 80 per cent. As you've surmised, it's a great CW rig.
As for filters, I suggest iether the 400hz or 200hz filters. The 200 is a good idea if you want to do a lot of contest or DX operating. If your operating is more casual, the 400hz filter does a fine job. I use an 8 pole 400hz filter, which does a terific job. Good luck. Lou WA3MIX

On 10/2/20, SGS 126 <brloper@gmail.com> wrote:
I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for
CW. I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000. My code speed is
between
13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am
looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency. I
presently have an Icom
7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses
PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC






K9MA
 

Hi Martin,

On the issue of receiver latency compromising QSK operation, I don't think the T/R switching necessarily introduces any significant latency. (My RJ-1 vacuum relay switches in 1.4 ms!) Receiver recovery can be made fast enough by proper AGC design. However, a DSP unavoidably introduces delay, in addition to the inherent delay of any narrow filter. I think the DSP delay can be reduced by using a faster processor and/or sampling rate, but I'm not sure. Perhaps someone can fill us in.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/4/2020 3:20 AM, Martin Kratoska wrote:
Hi Scott,

your observation is correct, at least in particular. I don't have now any ricebox to confirm this. Anyway some numbers can be measured with Keying Analyzer by Nick, WA5BDU (attached), of course some not. I agree, a separate RX and TX with a 6AH6 antenna switch is unbeatable stellar performer although it introduces some level of attenuation into RX path. The "processorless" were much better (speaking about QSK) than the modern DSP/DDS gear. AFAIK the RX "recovery time" is mostly introduced by firmware built-in delays. Manufacturers won't allow any artifacts on the receiver audio during the switching time, unfortunately no firmware allows to adjust it. Anyway, the K3 with new synthesizers KSYN3A is still the best QSK radio on the market - if you have other info, tell me, please.

My idea is to extend the WA5BDU gem to measure RX audio. It seems that it will need another channel detecting the presence of an audio signal. I plan to get in touch with WA5BDU to do this.

73,
Martin, OK1RR

Dne 04. 10. 20 v 3:11 K9MA napsal(a):
Hello Martin,

I've been using QSK for many, many years, going back to the days of vacuum tube radios. The one thing that disappoints me about the K3 and other modern DSP radios is that the receiver latency is so long that even at 30 wpm or so, you can't hear between dots and dashes, only between letters or words. Even my old FT-1000D (no DSP) is much better. Have you noticed that? I really miss the transparency fast QSK gave us. I guess that's the price we must pay for the benefits of QSK.

73,
Scott K9MA

On 10/3/2020 7:31 PM, Martin Kratoska wrote:
I am 99.99% on CW. I have 250-400-1k-1k8-2k8 8-pole filter set in both main and sub RX (10 filters total!). My K3 #7554 with new synthesizers is the best radio I used in my 50+ years of ham radio activity. Good QSK is a mandatory for me, I do often also QRQ up to 60 wpm.

Your choice of K3 is excellent.

73,
Martin, OK1RR

P.S. I strongly hate clicking antenna relays, the fast & silent PIN diode switching (K3 and KPA500) is mandatory for any rig in the future.


Dne 02. 10. 20 v 17:39 SGS 126 napsal(a):
I have recently gotten back into CW and I want to get a K3 purely for CW. I have seen plenty of K3/100/AT for under $2000. My code speed is between 13-18 wpm, but I am trying to get proficient so that is why I am looking at the K3 to use for code and build up my proficiency. I presently have an Icom 7300 which I know would work fine but I like that the Elecraft uses PIN diodes for switching. Any recommendations on must-have filters?

Thanks, Ben KJ4CC




















-- 
Scott  K9MA

k9ma@...