WW2PT Amateur & Shortwave Radio

Where's WW2PT these days?

Paul — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:37:00 +0000

So I finally got my 2007 tax refund, the first in as long as I can remember, which was earmarked long in advance for all sorts of new ham equipment to complete my SO2R station.

Meet my new amplifier:
...my MicroHam MK2R+:
...my tribander:
...and my new power supply system:

See, now, this is the problem with having more than one hobby. Especially when each of those hobbies brings you one step closer to homelessness. It's not just a sickness, it's like suffering from several sicknesses at once and never knowing which one is going to flare up. If that refund had arrived a few weeks earlier when my brain was deep in radio fever it would have certainly been blown on all that stuff I ~~want~~ need for the shack; a few weeks later, maybe a Tele Vue NP127IS. Or a Taylor XXX-RS. Or model trains, or a lift kit for my Jeep, or a trip to Banff, or Yankees season tickets, or...

Someone stop me.

A Typical eHam Product Review

Paul — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:09:00 +0000

I don't own a K3, but I borrowed my friend's rig for a whole week; this is certainly long enough to make me an expert. I also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I didn't bother to read the K3's manual because I had a looming deadline for submitting this eHam review; and besides, reading the manual would have taken me forever because I'm functionally illiterate.

Here are a few of the defects I found in the K3 through my extensive, expert testing.

1. The AGC doesn't handle S9+30dB signals very well when I run full RF Gain. Also, the audio distorts and the speaker starts getting all crackly when I run full AF Gain. I thought about turning down both the RF and AF Gain but that makes no sense to me - that would be like driving a car without having the accelerator pressed to the floor all the time, and who drives like that? In fact, I really don't know why Elecraft would waste limited front panel space on the RF and AF Gain controls, no one uses them. This is just one example of Elecraft's flawed design concept. If they were smart they would have added adjustments to tailor the AGC slope, threshold, hold and decay rate to one's liking - but then again, that would probably require reading a manual, and who has time for that?

2. The noise floor is not as good as my Pro3. I always have to use the NR of the K3, while I never use the NR on my Pro3. The fact that the K3 with NR ultimately delivers a better signal than the Pro3 is capable of, with or without NR, is irrelevant since no one uses NR anyway - it's as stupid a feature as the RF and AF Gain controls.

3. The K3 transmitter really sucks. First of all, the third-order IMD products are so bad that it wipes out QSOs 3 kHz away. Second, the transmit audio is so narrow that it is impossible for me to generate hi-fi voice signals with 6 kHz bandwidth, which really limits my ability to wipe out QSOs 3 kHz away. In addition, the compressor distorts my transmit audio unless it is set it to a proper level which doesn't distort my transmit audio. This is ridiculous - what good is compression if you can't run it flat-out like the RF and AF Gain?

4. The Noise Blanker on the receiver adds distortion to the received audio unless it is set to a proper level which doesn't add distortion to the received audio. I just can't seem to come to grips with the complexity of this system.

5. The K3 is too small for contesting. Everyone knows that Big Guns need Big Radios, because they show up much better in the photos we take of our shack and post all over the web. Instead of having a front panel littered with buttons and knobs and meters and a large LCD display (which really impresses my non-ham friends, btw), important parameters are buried in menus, which is very frustrating when I need to re-calibrate my PA heatsink temperature or change the date format from US to EU in the middle of a 100 QSO-per-hour run.

6. The clock needs to be set manually. Elecraft really missed the boat on this one. They could have included a GPS receiver to keep accurate time, or at the very least included an atomic cesium-133 oscillator option.

7. I find the lack of 10 antenna jacks stupid, especially since the radio has 10 bands. It's bizarre that you have to buy an optional accessory to get a separate receive antenna and a second antenna jack. This is as ridiculous saying the narrow CW filter, transverter output, 100W power amplifier, antenna tuner, general coverage BPF, and digital voice recorder are options on a radio. Everyone should pay for these features whether they require them or not.

8. I ordered the 1ppm TCXO and was shocked - shocked! - to learn it only provides 1ppm accuracy.

9. I find using the VFO knob very tiring, the arm bail is way too high and with the bail arm down its way too low. The K3 needs some kind of variable height adjustment, preferably a digital control with a dedicated knob on the front panel. This should be easily accomplished through a firmware update, but Elecraft is too busy wasting time on less important things like finishing the subreceiver design and improving filtering and AGC performance.

If you asked me if you should buy this radio today, I would say no. I would wait until all the options, mods, bug fixes, and pixie dust are released. There appears to be a unwritten code of silence on making criticisms of Elecraft, the fact that I am criticizing Elecraft notwithstanding - that's only because I've managed to outmaneuver the Aptos hit squad that has been following me for the past week. There's no telling when I might end up sleeping with the fishes because of my unwillingness to take my medication and get treatment for my K3 Derangement Syndrome, but until then I will continue to speak truth in the face of the K3 Kool-Aid Drinkers.

I rate the K3 between 0.0 stars and probably 0.5 stars. If all the stuff they promised gets delivered and the all the bugs get fixed its probably a 1 star radio. On the other hand, if Icom executes a hostile takeover of Elecraft and the K3 is re-released as-is with an Icom label, it will probably be a 5 star radio.

73 DE ANONYMOUS

p.s.: I almost forgot the most important thing: The markings on the front panel are difficult to read when I turn off all of the lights in my shack and operate in the dark, which I need to do if want to chase DX while under surveillance of the Aptos hit squad.

Elecraft K3 Hardware Changes: Ham Radio's Worst Kept "Secret"

Paul — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:36:00 +0000

The K3 kerfuffle du jour on the Elecraft reflector is the "scary" proposition that Elecraft is making "secret" hardware changes to correct problems with the original design, and that by not sharing this information with K3 owners and prospective buyers, Elecraft's honesty is in question. Oy vey...

The argument that Elecraft is "secretive" regarding their updates and changes is belied simply by the fact that we're discussing the updates and changes at all. If anything, Elecraft and their field testers talk too much about these things - otherwise, how would anyone know about such changes in the first place? So much for the "secrecy" theory.

Elecraft should be commended for the frankness, openness and accessibility to their customers; for quickly responding to customer requests; for their willingness to improve the K3 with new features (for example, CW-to-PSK, and improvements to the filtering and noise reduction programming) that go above and beyond the published specs of the radio); and for (up to now) offering these improvements to the end user free of charge. Yet some still complain and excoriate because they are being kept out of a loop that they are not, in fact, in. It is not my business (nor anyone else's) what goes on inside the design shop at Elecraft. The only reason we know as much as we do is that Wayne, Eric, Lyle, and others choose to share such things with us; they are not obligated to do so.

Most other manufacturers would say nothing at all and either make changes unannounced, or simply say, "Don't like the AGC [or QSK, or filtering, or third-order IMD, or whatever]? Deal with it - that's the way it is. Maybe we'll fix it in the next model." As for adding previously unadvertised features free of charge as Elecraft continues to do with the K3, consider this: when I purchased the original Icom IC-706, it had coverage from HF through 2m. When Icom added the 70cm band to the '706 my upgrade path was simple: Sell the '706 and buy a '706mkII. Was Icom being "dishonest"? Of course not - I got what I paid for when I bought the original '706. A free or inexpensive upgrade path would have been nice, but by no means was Icom required to offer one.

Now let's pause for another boring JRC allegory...

WWJD? (What Would JRC Do?)
When JRC first released the NRD-535D receiver, it had a Murata CLF-D8 filter in the WIDE position, the BWC (variable bandwidth control) only worked in SSB modes and only with the INTER filter (2.2 kHz), and the RS-232C command set was lacking several useful commands (though it performed exactly as advertised).

It soon became apparent that the CLF-D8 filter was a poor choice - it was as wide as a barn door and did little to reject adjacent interference on the SWBC bands for which it was primarily intended. After much consideration JRC decided to offer free filter replacements for early NRD-535 owners and a box of CLF-D6S filters (the same as used in the NRD-525) was promptly sent to me at JRC-NY. I did my best to spread the word through the dealers and hobby grapevine (as it existed back then before the internets) that people could either have a filter mailed to them for self-installation or they could send me their radio (or just their IF Filter circuit board) and I'd happily swap it for them free of charge. There were no accusations of "secrecy" because we didn't notify owners that the CLF-D8 sucked before we devised the solution to the problem or keep them informed with progress reports; nor was JRC's character questioned because we did not prostrate ourselves before the marketplace and beg forgiveness for making a poor filter choice. People were happy - their original filter performed as promised, but a better filter was offered free of charge. Who wouldn't be happy?

We also started to receive a lot of requests from software developers for additional commands to improve the way the '535 interfaced with computers for remote control. Almost every useful suggestion was implemented, resulting in a series of firmware upgrades which necessitated the replacement of two EEPROM ICs, one of which was buried deep inside the front panel assembly - not as easy an upgrade as hooking a K3 up to a computer and running a utility app! Once again, these upgrades were offered for free, even though the original firmware worked exactly as specified. Some people took advantage of the offer, many who did not use computer control (or used software that did not utilize the new commands) chose not to do the upgrade. In any case, people were happy - it was nice to see a manufacturer pay attention to the wants and needs of its end-users. (Does this remind you of any current American manufacturer? Perhaps one located in Aptos, CA? Think hard...)

Later on, we started receiving question about why the BWC was disabled in the AM mode and not used with the WIDE filter. I, too, thought this was a good idea. The factory was persuaded to modify the BWC design to make it work with the WIDE filter and in all modes; this was done through a hardware change (the crystal filter on the BWC circuit board was replaced) and modification to the radio's firmware. All future production runs would incorporate the new BWC features, and again an upgrade was offered to early NRD-535 D owners. However, this time there was a nominal charge for the upgrade kit ($129.95, as I recall) because it was not a bug fix, but rather an improvement to the original design. I don't recall too many complaints about how unfair it was to charge early owners for the same features that later purchasers enjoyed for free. The fact was, JRC (once again) listened to it's customer base and improved an already excellent product, and (once again), people were happy. But this was back in a time before no good deed went unpunished.

My point is, hardware and software changes are a normal part of production. No product is perfect, so it is a good thing to take customer feedback and fix things that need fixing, and if possible add things that can be added to an existing design. JRC understood this over 15 years ago just as Elecraft understands it now. Many other companies could care less, as long as the product is "good enough" to meet the published specs. The K3's transmit 3rd Order IMD of -27dB as measured in the QST test currently puts it in the same league as the Icom IC-746PRO and Kenwood TS-480; that is not "poor" as some have suggested but "average" performance and unless I'm very wrong falls completely within Elecraft's claimed specifications for the K3 as well as FCC spectral purity requirements. Elecraft could easily just leave it alone and be content to offer a rig with a superlative receiver but only an average transmitter, and they'd still be considered to be acting ethically and honestly; instead they've pledged to improve the TX side of things and offer a solution to early purchasers. I applaud them.

We now return to our regularly scheduled rant...

As an early adopter of the K3 I fully accept the fact that I am one of the test pilots of a complex piece of equipment, produced by a pioneering and evolving company in a way that is diametrically opposite the standard business model of the Big Three of JA-land. I considered this fact carefully when I sent in my deposit check to get one of the first production run. I could have waited for all the bugs to be shaken out of the K3, or I could have purchased a different radio with a more proven track record. In the end I chose to be part of the K3 bug-shaking process.

The moral of the story is, when you pre-order a version 1.0 product as complex and specialized as the K3, any expectation that it will work 100% as advertised right out of the starting gate is both unrealistic and unreasonable. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to expect problems that pop up after the initial release of the K3 to be addressed in incremental updates (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.); that seems to be the path Elecraft is on and nothing that they have done so far suggests otherwise.* Furthermore, if new features or functionality not originally specified or promised in the 1.0 version are added to later versions, Elecraft has every right to charge those who wish to implement those new features a reasonable fee, just as they have every right not to offer any such improvements at all. As someone else pointed out, how many Orion I's have a color LCD display?

* In fact, the official response from Elecraft to the specific question of transmitter spectral purity raised by the ARRL's lab test is pretty much what anyone familiar with Elecraft would expect: "We're looking into this already. Any improvement we make in firmware (or hardware, for that matter) will immediately be made available to all K3 owners." Who could ask for more? (Don't answer - we know who they are...)

Contrast Elecraft to the auto industry: I've received manufacturer recall notices for just about every car I've ever owned, each telling me that my car has a bug and I should bring it in to have it fixed. The manufacturers did not issue a series of prior reports informing me that they think there might be a bug, nor did they provide me with regular updates from their engineering departments letting me know what they were doing about it. A CEO of an automobile company is not going to be active in the owner's groups responding to individual questions and complaints. Instead, when a problem is confirmed and a solution is found, owners are notified and offered a remedy. If I buy a completely new model car when it is first introduced, I understand that I'll be much more likely to receive recall notices for it than if I wait a couple of model-years. This would be no different for any other type of hi-tech, non-disposable product; in recent years I've had to perform upgrades - both software and hardware - to fix bugs in countless computers and software applications, not to mention my iPod, my Celestron NexStar 8 GPS telescope, my Line 6 POD, many other amateur radio products, and God knows what else. This situation is by no means unique to the K3, and no other amateur radio product's upgrade path in my experience has been as smooth and painless as the K3's.

As Elecraft grows I fully expect them to learn from their K3 experiences and clam up a bit more about what is going on behind the magic curtain, as it will soon be impossible to respond to every gripe from every customer as they have so nobly done in the past. This will fundamentally change the character of the company, but it is an inevitable side effect of market growth. Like Apple, they will soon have to move out of the garage and start behaving like a "real" company - and I don't say "real" like it's a good thing; I like Elecraft just the way they are! Before the K3 there were a relatively small number of Elecraft users and the company enjoyed an almost exclusive, club-like following; now the K3 will likely push Elecraft to a new level in the industry and the "family" feel that Elecrafters now enjoy (and that I only recently became aware and part of) will by necessity have to give way to more mainstream business practices - including real secrecy, not the kind they are imagined by some to have now. My advice to the bitchers and moaners is: Enjoy it while it lasts.

Shortwave Listening With The K3

Paul — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:54:00 +0000

I would love to see the K3 receive the attention it deserves from the too-often ignored hardcore shortwave and mediumwave DXers and believe that with a few minor software tweaks the K3 could fill a huge void in the high-performance communications receiver market since it has been all but abandoned by major manufacturers.

Twenty years ago when I first started out in the radio business there were a good number of new desktop shortwave receivers to choose from including the Yaesu FRG-8800 ($639.95), Icom IC-R71A ($799,95), Kenwood R-5000 ($859.95), JRC NRD-525 ($1189.95), not to mention many used late-model receivers such as the JRC NRD-515, Drake R7, Yaesu FRG-7700 and Icom IC-R70. With sadness I've watched as radios like these have been slowly disappearing from the market, replaced by small portable radios aimed at the broader consumer market while serious hobbyists have fewer and fewer choices other than prohibitively expensive mil-com HF receivers, or amateur radio transceivers which more often than not perform awfully in the AM mode.

With the K3, I see hope; a basic 10W K3 costs only $1600 (or $1400 if self-assembled), less than the soon-to-be discontinued NRD-545 is currently selling for, and even with only the stock 2.7 kHz roofing filter the K3 would likely run circles around the '545 not to mention most of the classic receivers mentioned above. However, it will take a little fine-tuning by Elecraft for it to realize its potential as a top-notch SWL receiver.

AM Mode Filtering: There was talk on the Elecraft reflector a while back about the way the filtering works in the AM mode, specifically the 3 kHz maximum "audio" bandwidth. From an SWL's perspective, this makes no sense; it is counter-intuitive and non-standard compared to all other high-end communications receivers (I'll use the NRD-535D as a reference, since I'm most familiar with JRC equipment). With the '535, the filtering in AM mode works like one would expect; no matter which filter is selected, when the passband shift (PBS) control is centered the filter passband is centered on the carrier frequency and shifting the passband shifts tha actual i.f. passband, not the audio passband. So if a 2.4 kHz filter is used, it will pass 1.2 kHz of each sideband when PBS is centered. Offsetting the PBS 1.5 kHz to the right, for example, will move the entire filter passband to pass only the upper sideband while rejecting the lower sideband. This is useful to the SWBC DXer in cases where there is a strong signal 5 kHz below a weaker station that I'm trying to receive and the lower sideband suffers from adjacent channel QRM but the upper sideband is clear. And vice versa, if the interfering signal is 5 kHz above, tweaking the PBS to the left passes the lower sideband while rejecting the upper sideband and the QRM.

I'm not sure what actually happens in the same scenario when using the K3. If I set the filter width to 2.4 kHz and shift the passband to the right, it seems to work as expected - audio frequency response gets higher; but when the passband is shifted to the left, frequency response gets lower, which indicates that the filter passband is either not centered on the carrier, or it is split similar to the way it works in RTTY mode, and passes equal slices of both passbands. Whatever the case, the way it currently works is at odds with what is expected by a true SW or MW broadcast DXer.

Synchronous Detection: There is also the unanswered question as to whether the K3's forthcoming AM Synch mode will allow independent sideband selection. With synchronous AM detection, the ability to select sidebands independently is pretty much mandatory, otherwise the synchronous mode is useless on all but the strong, clear signals which frankly sound just fine without synchronous detection. The NRD-535 selects AM-USB and AM-LSB with the ECSS (exalted carrier selectable sideband) button. Most other receivers that have this feature work similarly. The Sony ICF-2010 does it a little differently - it lets you select sideband by adjusting the main tuning dial up or down slightly, and a little LED indicates which sideband is selected. The Drake R8, by comparison, does not directly allow selectable sideband; its synch mode was DSB, and although you could move the passband shift it isn't as effective as the JRC and Sony systems which totally reject the unwanted sideband.

Joe, W4TV, gets it; in one of his reflector postings on AM filtering he pretty much describes how the JRC ECSS system works in principle (the exception being that JRC doesn't do it with DSP):

Given the DSP demodulation in the K3, it's a shame that there isn't an "offset" option to do "vestigial sideband" demodulation (offset the AM filter to the upper sideband or lower sideband) and demodulate carrier and one sideband for better fidelity.

I'm not sure if Joe is talking about syncing the carrier and replacing it with an internally generated one, but that is what a good synchronous ECSS system does in a nutshell. Without selectable sideband capability, synchronous AM detection is like tits on a bull.

SWL Mode: Another easy software mod that would be welcome for people who wish to use the K3 solely for SWL purposes would be to include a setting to disable the transmitter, similar to the TX TEST mode but without requiring it to be set each time the radio is turned on. This can be done by at least making the TX TEST mode persistent so that the K3 would remember it was in test mode when it was last powered up. Preferably there would be an additional CONFIG menu parameter that would put the radio into SWL mode in which the TX indicator will be turned off (not flashing like in Test mode); if the PTT line is keyed while in SWL mode the K3 would display a message like "SWL MD" and there will be no RF output - basically extending the out-of-band transmitter disability to K3's the entire frequency coverage while in SWL mode.

And that's it - just modify the firmware code and send a K3 off to Larry Magne for testing! The rest will be history.

Specs, Lab Tests, and Other Myths

Paul — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:59:00 +0000

Rob Sherwood's K3 test results have been published. Key strong-signal performance specs include:

100 kHz Blocking: 140 dB
Ultimate Rejection: 105 dB
Wide-Spaced (20 kHz) Dynamic Range: 104 dB
Narrow-Spaced (2 kHz) Dynamic Range: 101 dB

All is well in Elecraft-land as the K3 takes the prize over the Flex 5000, IC-7800, Orion II and, well, everything else Sherwood has tested, at least in the Narrow DR category. Predictably many early K3 owners are pumping fists and doing the Happy Dance, and I'm sure there are going to be IC-7800s and Orions on eBay in the coming weeks.

But what does it all really mean? I don't have any overwhelming sense of validation for choosing wisely, nor do I intend to take Rob's receiver tests as liberty to taunt the unfortunate fools who bought the FT-2000 about how much better my K3 is, because frankly they're not unfortunate fools and I'd love to have an FT-2000. Performance is certainly important - no one wants a complete dog - but my ears can't tell the difference between 105 dB dynamic range and 95 dB. If you think you can, then you probably can hear the difference between Monster Cable and Radio Shack speaker wire, too. Bless your heart.

Myriad reasons I picked the K3 without hesitation have already been mentioned in my previous posts. Sure, the claimed (but at that time, unconfirmed) performance was a factor, but equally important were Elecraft's reputation, the K3's feature set, its elegant design, portability, price, the ability to configure it to my needs with just the options I require - all these things are much more subjective than the K3's now-documented performance advantage over all the megabuck rigs. I spent years toying with the idea of a new HF rig (MK V, Pro2, Pro3, FT2K, Omni VII, K2) but never pulled the trigger; when the K3 was announced and I sent in a deposit check within a week. It was preference, not performance, that sold me - the K3 simply has everything I want in a radio at this time.

Having a large radio with a beautiful display might be an important enough preference for some people that they would gladly sacrifice the 21 dB dynamic range advantage (and $6,000+ price difference) of the K3 for the IC-7800. Honestly, if I could afford the '7800, I'm pretty sure there would be one on my desk right now. Maybe an FTDX-9000MP, too. But they would certainly be in addition to - not instead of - the K3.

I'm of the opinion that test specs are useful for marketing purposes, splitting hairs, winning bets, and endowing nitwits with bragging rights, but in most cases specs tell only half (or less) of the story. I'd rather have a radio that has an 85dB dynamic range but is a joy to use, for example, than one with 105 dB DR but also crappy audio quality, drill-down menus for important settings, and a loud fan. A radio is much, much more than the sum of its specs. What makes the Elecraft K3 special is that it delivers on both fronts: performance and usability. Or, as they say on the Elecraft reflector, it's got mojo.

K3 vs. JST-245: The Road To Victory

Paul — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:21:00 +0000

With the addition of a stereo line splitter to feed K3 audio into two separate channels on the Multi-RX, it is now far easier to compare the two rigs. The following observations refer to SSB mode only; testing in CW and data modes to come as time allows.

Audio Quality: The most obvious thing is, the K3's audio is much more crisp than that of the JST-245. By "crisp" I mean it has a bit more high frequency response, while the '245 has more punch at the low frequency end. Which is better is more a matter of preference than science. My ears generally find the weakest signals more easily readable with the K3, while signals S9 or better tend to have a more natural tone with the '245. But the differences are subtle, neither radio sounds dramatically better than the other when using a common audio system (in this case, the Multi-RX feeding a pair of small Sony speakers left over from my home theater surround sound installation, as well as a pair of JRC ST-3 communications headphones). The K3's stereo audio effects (AFX) settings can tremendously improve the quality of reception and reduce listening fatigue, and works equally well with speakers and headphones; the AFX feature gives the K3 a slight edge.

Noise Reduction: Most notable is the DSP Noise Reduction (NR). Even at it's lowest setting, the NR removes so much background hash with the push of a single magic button that I find myself turning it on and off just to come to grips with the fact that it actually works. There are several NR settings selectable by holding the NR button and dialing in the level. Lyle Johnson KK7P, Elecraft's DSP genius, says:

NR is more properly Signal Enhancement rather than Noise Reduction. The distinction is subtle but important if you wish to understand how it works and how to best apply it. If ti were noise reduction, the implication is that it passes everything until it figures out what is more likely to be noise, which it then attempts to suppress. Since it is signal enhancement, it tends to pass nothing until it figures out that which is more likely signal, which it then attempts to pass.

With this understanding there is one more concept I must explain: correlation. This is the degree to which a signal is similar to itself; conversely, it can be used to figure out how noise is dis-similar to itself (more random). This is the basis on which NR works.

In the current implementation of the K3, we have four (4) basic NR filters. These are displayed as F1..F4. F1 is the gentlest, F4 the most aggressive. Recalling that the filters tend to suppress everything until they can sort out what is probably a signal, there is some time delay involved in their application. Further, especially with voice signals, some components of the signal may not be recognized as well as others. THis gives rise to distortion.

So, we added a second field to the NR. This is the -1..-4 which specifies a certain amount of "bleed through" of the original signal. This reduces the apparent distortion and delay, but limits the ultimate S/N improvement. -1 provides the least distortion but limits the S/N improvement on weak to moderate signals to about 6 dB. -4 provides no "mixing" whatsoever and can result in dramatic S/N improvements, but at a cost of slight time delays and increased distortion.

NR is not appropriate for very weak signals, so a -1 or -2 is best if you wish to hear them.

Having said all this, the correct way to use the NR is to listen and adjust it for the best compromise between noise reduction and distortion. Everyone is different in this regard. Some tolerate noise better than others, while some don't tolerate distortion very well at all.

I live in a quiet location, and use NR1-2 as my most common setting. This is low in distortion, allows me to hear weak signals, and shows no apparent delay as I tune through the bands. On the rare occasions when things get noisy here, I crank it to higher values.

Noise Blanker: The K3 Noise Blanker (NB) is also a masterpiece - between the separate IF and DSP blanker settings I've been able to remove all sorts of crap that would otherwise make it impossible to hear any but the big gun signals. It's as simple as this: When I hear any sort of electrical noise, I first crank the DSP NB up to see if it has any effect. If not, I try the IF DSP. Usually one or the other does the trick, I haven't found any noise that requires both at the same time. The '245 NB is useless by comparison; if it works at all it must be against a very specific type of impulse noise that I've never encountered, because I've never found it to be of any use at all (unless distorting a desired signal is of use to anyone).

Notch Filter: With the '245 I almost always use the manual notch filter as a mid-cut to tailor the receive audio to my liking. I find this technique to be a bit more effective with the '245 than the K3 as the latter takes an awful lot of dial turning to adjust the notch range from 200 Hz to 3.92kHz in 20 Hz steps. Also, the K3 notch width is much sharper than the '245 so the effect is more subtle. Of course the K3 has built-in graphic equalization for the purpose of shaping the audio response, so this issue is pretty much moot and leaves the notch filter to be used for its intended purpose - to remove heterodyne interference. To this end, the K3's Auto Notch is superb. The manual says it will, in some cases, remove multiple carriers although I've yet to find a situation that will confirm this. The '245 does not have an auto notch function, but it has Notch Tracking which will offset the manually adjusted notch filter when the VFO is tuned slightly; this is useful but not nearly as effective as a fully automatic system. Notch depth is adequate on both rigs.

Ergonomics: Both of these radios are a joy to use. The '245 has a solid feel and a heavy, balanced main VFO knob that spins like a top. All of it's buttons have a nice positive 'click' when pushed, and the smaller knobs and controls feel good and not overly 'plastic'. And the color LCD! - it's about the finest looking display of it's generation and, in my opinion, better than anything even today short of the newer Icom color TFT displays of the IC-7800, IC-7700, etc. Because JRC took the time and effort to find out what amateur radio operators really wanted and where things were supposed to go on the front panel, all of the most commonly used controls are assigned to individual buttons or knobs with very few alternate functions or hidden menus to toggle through; outstanding ergonomics was a chief goal during the JST-245 design review, especially after the JST-135 got raked over the coals by Dave Newkirk in his QST review (and deservedly so). So although I may be biased as a member of aforementioned JST-245 design review team, I find the JST-245 to be a more enjoyable radio to sit in front of and operate.

The K3, however, is no slouch. Elecraft had different design criteria, one of which was to make the K3 compact and easily transportable. Neither of these adjectives can be applied to the '245, therefore JRC had a whole lot more front panel real estate to work with than did Elecraft. Consequently many of the K3's controls are doubled up, several often-accessed settings are menu-driven, and some things which take a single button push with the '245 take two or more with the K3. But by and large I think Elecraft got it right, the K3 has just the right amount of compromise between keeping the size of the radio down, making it attractive to the field user and people with limited space, and including all the high-performance features demanded by discriminating users such as contesters and DXers. So while I may have to toggle through different modes to set the K3 instead of pressing a single button, it's not a big deal to me. The K3's buttons have a soft feel to them which reminds me of the Drake R8 receiver's front panel buttons. While the main tuning dial does not have the same flywheel feel of the JRC it still spins nicely. The main liquid crystal display is very sharp and has a wide range of backlighting levels (including OFF), though it must be viewed at a fairly straight-ahead angle. All in all, from a usability perspective, the K3 is a nicely designed little rig.

The one area in which I find the K3 to be deficient is in its selection of memory channels - unlike the '245 which has a dedicated Memory Channel knob that lets the user dial through channels one by one, the K3 has a more convoluted process of pressing the M>V button, dialing up the memory channel with the VFO knob - without being able to hear what's going on at that channel's particular frequency! - then pressing M>V again to set the rig to the stored frequency, mode and other parameters. If I could change one thing with the K3 it would be to let me hear what's on each channel as I dial through the memories, before I hit the M>VFO button. This should be an easy firmware fix.

And the winner is...: In the tweakability department the K3 has a few bells and whistles that are missing (or ineffective) in the '245. In practice I find that I am able to get similar reception with both rigs by using each radio's tools to maximize the desired signal and minimize the junk. I am still amazed at how well the JST-245 holds up to the latest and greatest in DSP technology, and it is such a pleasure to use. Therefore I've abandoned any thoughts of selling the '245 to finance the acquisition of a second K3; it is simply too good a rig to let go of.

That said, the K3 is clearly the future of HF transceivers, and it looks to be a pretty bright future at that. While the above observations are subjective and based narrowly on SSB reception under less than perfect antenna and propagation conditions I think it's pretty clear that the K3 is a gem of a rig. Of course many of the design elements that on paper put the K3 in the league of the mega-buck rigs from JA-land do not come into play with my limited antenna system - for example, I rarely see a signal stronger than S9+10dB, and have yet to find two such signals close together as in a contest situation, therefore the benefit of the narrow roofing filters and strong front-end performance remain untested by me in any real way. In any case, others (ARRL, Sherwood*, etc.) will confirm or deny Elecraft's published dynamic range and IP3 specs soon enough, so I'll leave it to the pros to do the scientific evaluations.

If held at gunpoint and told to choose one of these two radios, subjectively, emotionally, and based solely upon my ears, fingers and eyes... it would have to be the K3. But barely.

* Update 09-Feb-08: Serendipitously, Rob Sherwood has released some of his K3 test results which were promptly passed on to the Elecraft reflector by Wayne Burdick:

Rob Sherwood, NC0B, an independent and well-known receiver performance specialist, has completed his K3 receiver tests. We're pleased with the results, which will place the K3 at the top of his comparison chart.

Rob will be updating his web site in a few days. For now, I'll just mention a couple of his numbers (with his permission).

Elecraft K3, S/N 00149, 20 meters, preamp off:

Dynamic Range 20 kHz 104 dB
Dynamic Range 5 kHz 102
Dynamic Range 2 kHz 101*

* with 200 Hz 5-pole filter

Blocking above noise floor at 100 kHz spacing, AGC On: 140 dB
Phase noise (normalized) at 10 kHz spacing: 138 dBc/Hz

Rob performs some tests differently that we (and the ARRL) do, but in general we're all in close agreement. Note that the unit under test had only Elecraft 5-pole filters. Our tests show the 8-pole filters to be as good or better, and we sent some of them to Rob to test when he gets a chance.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

Back in business...

Paul — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:51:00 +0000

The K3 is in place, the Multi-RX is back in action, the MFJ-267 watt meter/dummy load finally arrived, the antennas still suck...

With the playing field level - both rigs hooked up to the same antenna and speakers - I can do some fair and honest comparisons between the K3 and the JST-245. I must still fine-tune the system a bit - an adapter to split left and right channel audio from the K3 speaker output is first on the list, and I think I can do something with an antenna that is somewhat temporary yet still effective (and quiet) and will tide me over until I get to the new QTH later this spring.

K3 Testing Pt. III

Paul — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:32:00 +0000

A week on, and the K3 continues to impress.

RS232 Interface: Got the computer interface working, using a Keyspan USB Serial adapter. MacLogger DX has actual K3 support. Running Windows 2000 via Paralells on the MacBook Pro, allows me to finally try HamRadioDeluxe by HB9DRV - a very cool program which will take a bit of poking around on my part before coming to grips with all the features. HRD, however, does not support the full K3 command set, instead uses the K2 subset which is backwards compatible with the K3.

Firmware Updates: With the serial port tested and working I downloaded the Mac OS X version of the K3 Utility software. A couple of clicks later, my K3 has the latest firmware revisions installed (MCU: 1.66, DSP: 1.52). Kudos to the design team for such a smooth and elegant update process. Oh, the thought of all those times I had to disassemble the NRD-535's front panel to change EEPROMs... [shudder].

Headphones: I am not 100% satisfied with the audio quality of the Heil Proset headphones, and the frequency response of the Audio-Technica ATH-M3X stereo phones that I sometimes use is a little too broad for radio communications. Then I remembered that I got a pair of JRC ST-3 phones with my recent NRD-515 acquisition so gave them a try. Awesome... except that they are monophonic and will not work with the stereo AFX settings. But the gears are turning - can I rewire the ST-3 for stereo? Can I add a boom mic? Hmm...

RX Antenna: The Outbacker antenna is awful. Maybe that's because it's old and decrepit, maybe it's the installation, maybe it just never worked as well as I thought it did. In any case, it really sucks, no signals appear to be more than S5-S7 on the 40m band and even worse when tuning 80m, so I ran that Bell Imel eBay special to the RX Ant In and now see strong signals in excess of S9+10dB on all of the low bands which gives me a better idea of how the K3 will work when I finally get it hooked into a real antenna. Of course the noise level is also increased to S9 or so. This gives the NR and NB a good workout, and I'm pleased with the amount of noise reduction I'm able to dial in - not always enough to completely eliminate the noise but almost always sufficient to make a thoroughly unintelligible signal copyable. I also discovered that with antenna connected to RX ANT IN and second radio connected to RX ANT OUT, simultaneous reception on both radios is possible* making receiver comparisons easy.

Birdies: There are some nasty birdies on 80m band, especially down in the CW portion. They are heard with no antenna connected and vary in pitch when I adjust the filter controls, so I suspect they are being generated by either the DSP board or the MCU. I will go back into the rig and check that all screws are tight when I install the 100W PA.** Haven't noticed any loud birdies on other bands.

Miscellany: Decoded my first PSK31 signal. Figured out how to set and recall memory channels. Ditto CW messages. No further sign of PL1 ERR.

* Update 08-Feb-08: I've discovered that while reception on both radios is indeed simultaneous, when the RX ANT is selected the K3 will receive from the antenna connected to the RX ANT IN jack, but the second rig connected to RX ANT OUT will receive from the K3's main antenna (ANT 1 or ANT 2).

** Update 10-Feb-08: KPA3 is now installed, and although I didn't find anything loose that may have caused the birdies, after the PA was bolted in and the rig reassembled the birdies on 80m seem to have disappeared!

Day 2 With K3

Paul — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:15:00 +0000

Saturday yielded some interesting observations.

PL1 ERR?: I flipped the K3 on in the afternoon and let in run for about 6 hours to give it a chance to burn in. Later, around 8:30pm I meandered down to the dungeon to give it a spin. When switching to 40m I got a "PL1 ERR" message on the display. Hmm. Switched to other bands, no error; it occurred only on 40m. After looking up the error in the manual (PLL voltage out of range) I did another VCO calibration and the error went away. Have to keep an eye on that to see if it recurs.

RTTY Decode: The BARTG RTTY Contest is running this weekend so there are lots of digital signals on the air. Getting the K3 to decode and display standard Baudot RTTY was a snap. The CWT tuning meter and split filtering for mark and space tones are both great features. Decoded almost everything with a moderately strong signal or better.

CW: In a word: Stunning. So much better than other radios I've used. Auto Spot works extremely well, and text decode is a useful but not so much that it can (or should) be used as a crutch. The French REF CW contest was on and I heard several F stations calling CQ TEST, plus several domestic QSOs. Even at the narrowest bandwidths the copy was perfect with no filter ringing or distortion as with the JST-245, just a clean DC note. The Dual Pass Band filter mode is great. This may very well be the rig that finally gets me into CW in a big way.

Ergonomics: It's a small radio, but not cramped with buttons and knobs. Everything seems to be where it needs to be for easy access. I never particularly liked radios that made me step through modes and bands (especially when wearing headphones!) but that is just a personal preference thing, I'm sure I will get used to it. All of the knobs and buttons feel good to the touch, not overly cheap like some of the YaeComWood radios I've used over the years. The LCD is very crisp and looks great at all brightness levels. Fairly light weight, but not so much that it goes sliding across the desk when I push buttons. All in all, a very solid radio.

JST-245 Comparo: I ran a cable from K3 RX Ant Out jack to the JST-245 for receiver comparison. Under this night's particular conditions (shitty antenna, internal speakers, dead bands) I was surprised to find the two radios to be very close on SSB. When not using the K3 noise reduction the JST-245 delivered a little more punch on the weakest signals, but when the NR is kicked in the K3 really stepped up. On stronger voice signals, I really preferred the sound coming out of the JST-245 - it just seemed to have a little more punch to it. This could be attributable to the different speakers, or perhaps to the fact that I haven't tweaked the K3's RX EQ to a setting I like. Whatever, this fight will have to continue once I get the Multi-RX set up again so the two radios can be compared through a common AF system. On CW... well, I never liked the JST-245 in that mode so it's not a fair fight. So for Round One, I'd score it K3 10, JST 9 - very close but the DSP giving a slight edge to the K3.

Receiver-wise, the K3 has pretty much met my expectations relative to the hype it has received. I was at first a little surprised that the JST-245 compared as well as it did, but then I remember how much better that radio is over all the other analog (and several DSP) HF rigs I've used so maybe it's not so surprising after all, just further testament to how great the JST-245 really is. It will be interesting to see how the two radios compare when better antennas deliver stronger signals under more favorable band conditions. Meanwhile, I need to complete the installation of the 100W PA, set the rig up for use with my Heil Proset and MH2 mics, and wait patiently for the rest of the options to ship.

Elecraft K3 #216 Passes Smoke Test!

Paul — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 03:12:00 +0000

It's aliiiiiive!!!!!!

Assembly took about 6 hours, including a painstaking inventory count of every #4 inside-tooth lock washer and whatnot. The 100W PA is still in the box, that will have to wait until I get a dummy load and can do the TX tests called for in the manual. No major problems with assembly, just a few minor things like the four connectors that mate the front panel assembly to the main RF board taking a lot of fidgeting before snapping together.

When I confirmed and updated my order with Lisa at Elecraft I left the General Coverage BPF off my list, so I've asked her to send one to me as soon as possible.

First impressions:

DSP Noise Reduction and AFX (binaural audio and delay effects) make weak signals jump out of the background noise.
Filtering very steep and with good rejection - tune 3 kHz away from S9+ SWBC carrier on 40m, dial bandwidth down to 2.5 kHz, and it vanishes without a hint of it ever being there.
Ergonomics excellent, though I have to get used to the Vol/RF Gain knobs on the left side of the main tuning dial. I keep reaching to the right instinctively after years of using JRC and Kenwood transceivers.

Some photos during assembly...

Woohoo!!!

Paul — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:50:00 +0000

The nicest thing anyone has said to me so far this year:

Dear Paul,
Attached is a copy of your K3 invoice for your confirmation. Your order will be shipping within the next 7-10 days.

Finally, after 8 months and 4 days! I've changed my order slightly, sticking with the stock 2.7 kHz (5 pole) filters instead of the 2.8 kHz (8 pole) options, and adding 2.1 kHz (8 pole) filters to go along with the 6 kHz and 400 Hz filters (one of each in main and sub receivers). Also ordered: the KVX3 transverter output in order to take full advantage of the K3's myriad antenna possibilities; the KDVR3 digital voice recorder, as I intend to do some contesting with the new rig; and an MH2 hand mic just in case I ever need it. I will still have one open filter position in each receiver, but otherwise this radio is fully loaded.

Total price for all this fun stuff is $3,603.00 - this for a radio which by all early accounts will hold its own with (if not surpass) the Orion II ($4,500) and IC-7800 ($10,500).

An Inexpensive Case for the KX1

Paul — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:21:00 +0000

Always on the lookout for new cases to tote my crap around in, I found this little gem at a local Staples store for around $10.00. It's just big enough to hold my KX1, a set of iPod earphones, the KXPD1 paddle (in the top cover netting), and a DC cord with lighter plug, holding everything snugly with nothing rattling around.

Vaultz lists it on their web site as a Pencil Box. Staples, Office Depot and OfficeMax are listed as dealers but none have it on their web sites, and in fact the only place I found to order online only sells them in lots of 6 for around $50.00.

Elecraft K3: Waiting, waiting...

Paul — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:31:00 +0000

...and waiting some more. Elecraft began shipping the K3 in mid-November. Serial #117 was shipped on Nov. 27; it was ordered on May 1. I placed my order on May 4 via the Elecraft web site and sent a 50% deposit check the following day, yet as of today (Dec. 1) I have not heard anything from the Elecraft sales dept. regarding my balance due, much less the expected ship date. So I'm checking the email every day hoping to find the magic email from Aptos telling me my radios ready to go.

Meanwhile I have to endure such torture as this:

Oh, the agony...

Update 01/08/08
The nicest thing anyone has said to me all week:

Dear Paul,

Attached is a copy of your K3 invoice for your confirmation. Your order will be shipping within the next 7-10 days.

Assorted junk...

Paul — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:10:00 +0000

Fifty years later, Jimmy Mulligan still lives with his mother and has never been laid.

Antennas, etc...

Paul — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:35:00 +0000

I bought one of these antennas on eBay for $20, reasoning that it was cheap enough to take a chance, and if it works it would serve as a travel/portable/emergency HF antenna for my KX1 - and, short-term at least, as the main antenna at the house. The seller, Bell Imel Group LLC, says:

This system requires NO GROUND and NO COUNTERPOISE. It only requires a minimum of one support and it can be configured for vertical polarization, horizontal polarization and NVIS operations. It tunes from 40 meters to 10 meters using an internal tuner on your rig or an external tuner.

Sounds good to me.

It arrived by Priority Mail in about a week. Upon first inspection it looks like a 50 ft. length of zip cord with one of the twin-leads cut at the halfway point. It terminates in a BNC connector.

First test was to hang it from a hook off my deck, running it along the front of the house, around the corner and through the door into the shack. In this configuration the KX1 tunes it up fairly well on 20m (3.1 SWR) but SWR is pretty high (9.9) on 40m (as measured by the KXAT1, which may or may not be calibrated correctly..); I'm hoping both of these figures will improve if I get it up high and in the clear, and away from the side of the house. On receive, the antenna works quite well. And quiet - even with the plasma TV on there was less broadband noise than I typically encounter with a random wire or the Jeep-mounted verticals (Outbacker and mono-band hamsticks). So in all, it's $20 well spent.

The only question is: What exactly is it? A J-Pole ? A Zepp? Damned if I know. I can't find any similar antenna design on the web or in any antenna books in the shack. From what I can tell it doesn't seem to be cut for any particular frequency as it requires a tuner to match it to 50 ohms. But it appears to work.

Some links regarding end-fed wire antennas:

While in antenna mode I took some time to properly attach the TerraFlex mounting brackets on the Jeep, drilling through the transom and bolting them firmly to the body. While doing this I had a close look at the HF connector and found it to be pretty much shot. I originally salvaged this from a 3-magnet mount that was on my old SE-R; I guess I got my money's worth out of it, but it's time for something new - the High Sierra Sidekick is the #1 candidate to replace the Outbacker.

Until then, I bought a new 3/8-in-to-SO239 mounting stud and installed it along with a short grounding wire from the underside of the stud to one of the screws which hold the door latch thingy. Now I can tune the 40m hamstick to under 2:1 - without the ground wire the antenna was a basket case, reaching 50 ohm resistance down around 6.2 MHZ with an SWR dip a bit lower. I adjusted the whip for lowest SWR in the CW portion of the band. So now I have at least one antenna that loads up properly. The JST-245 has no problem matching it even up in the phone segment. Of course it's still about 8 ft. away from the plasma TV, so not much use until the living room is shut down for the night. Been too hot and sticky to do anything with the hamsticks for the other bands, but the Outbacker, once cleaned up, loads up nicely on all bands except for 10m. The JST-245 is getting some use now; might try some RTTY next chance I get.

With the mobile antennas out of the way, I relocated the end-fed wire antenna to the back of the house, running it out the bedroom window and along the side of the house - still not in the clear, but it works well enough for me to SWL and practice my CW at night with the KX1 before I fade. I'm still too chickenshit to actually attempt a QSO, though I'm finding myself on occasion able to copy CW without realizing that I'm copying it, a sure sign that it's starting to stick. I did some tuning during the IOTA contest this past weekend and was able to copy some of the higher-speed QSOs - but contest QSOs are relatively easy because they're predictable.

The KX1 has turned out to be a real pisser of a radio; despite crappy band conditions and RFI I've had lots of fun tuning around and getting to know all the menu-driven features to the point where I can operate the rig without the manual. I'm hearing a lot of stations in the midwest and south during my midnight tuning sessions, plus the occasional European.

Elecraft KX1: Building the KXAT1 Automatic Antenna Tuner

Paul — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:40:00 +0000

This was an easy job, taking but a few hours. Once again I am at a standstill regarding calibration until I get a dummy load and a resonant antenna, but I tried it out on the 40m hamstick and it seemed to handle a mismatch of around 9:1 without giving any error message or releasing any smoke.

I'm not sure what all the hand-wringing over winding toroids is about; after reading the Elecraft reflector all these months I was expecting this to be a difficult, painstaking process that would surely end in disaster. Not so, this went smoothly for me during both the KX1 and KXAT1 builds.

So now two of the three major components are done, only the 80m/30m kit left unbuilt. I will give that a go maybe next weekend. An end-fed dipole antenna is on the way, so I will hopefully have the chance to make first QSO soon. Meanwhile, I'm listening as much as can and my CW skills are steadily improving. Who knows, maybe I'll be contest-ready by the time CQWW rolls around...

Elecraft KX1: Assembly Parts II & III, Final Assembly and Initial Tests

Paul — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:39:00 +0000

The second part of the assembly process (receiver section) was completed over the course of two days - I spent a couple of hours on Wednesday night installing the resistors and inductors, and completed the section early Friday evening. I probably spent more time looking at the the inductors under a magnifying glass to make certain I was reading the color bands correctly (did I mention color blindness sucks?). Apparently I did OK, because all of the tests and check at the end of Part II were satisfactory and, upon firing the radio up with a DMM probe stuck in the BNC connector as an antenna, I was able to copy CW signals on both 40m and 20m bands!

Since it was still early, I decided to proceed with Part III, the transmitter section and final assembly. This all went smoothly and quickly, and by 2am I was finished mounting the board in the case and sticking the rubber feet on the bottom. I proudly present Elecraft KX1 S#1763:

I still need to perform the final transmitter tests once I get my hands on a dummy load (the Elecraft DL1, perhaps). For shits and giggles I attached my Diamond RH77 VHF/UHF rubber ducky and tuned around on Saturday night during the IARU HF contest and was able to copy a bunch of stations, though not well enough to hear both sides of any QSO. On Sunday I tested it briefly with the Datong AD-270 active antenna that has been in the attic in Closter since forever, that seemed to work though the receiver gain was still not what I hoped it would be - had to turn AF gain nearly full, and thus got lots of hiss.

This morning I tried it in the Jeep with a 40m hamstick and the Outbacker set for 20m. Both antennas are poorly tuned, probably because of the lack of adequate grounding on the mount. Not much to be heard on 40 other than the growls from the plasma TV which is about 10 ft. from the antenna. Also noted what seemed to be lower gain on 20m. But again, this may be more an indicator of how poor my antenna systems are than anything else; I had to use a PL-259-to-BNC adapter which is of questionable quality. More tests to follow...

Elecraft KX1: Assembly Part 1

Paul — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:24:00 +0000

So after 3 months, I decided it was time to melt solder.

The first step of assembly - the control circuitry - was completed in about 5 hours. This included about a half-hour of measuring all of the resistors with the DMM, taping them to the inside of the cardboard box, and penciling in their resistance values; color blindness sucks.

The Hakko 936-12 soldering station worked very well, but the Kester .020" solder I bought didn't flow - it just balled up on the end of the iron - because (I found out later) I bought 'No Flux' solder. I wondered why it was so cheap... I found some old, thicker Radio Shack solder that I had in the junk box and used it as carefully and sparingly as I could, mindful of numerous warnings about the hazards of using excessive amounts of solder. The PanaVise circuit board holder is the best thing since peanut butter, I can't believe I worked without one in the past.

The KX1 passed all tests at the end of Part 1 - all voltages were within spec, the unit powered up, the white LED lit, everything that was supposed to work seemed to work.

First Component

WW2PT Advanced Resistor Identification System (patent pending).

Instant Electronics Lab - Just Add Clutter.

Words of Wisdom

Paul — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:30:00 +0000

FCC's Riley Hollingsworth (K4ZDH) channels my sentiments precisely in his Dayton HamVention address.

To the Nets: Just because you have been on the same frequency for 75 years, that doesn't mean you own it. All frequencies are shared. If you vary your frequency, or even if you don't have a net one night, the radio world isn't going to end.
To repeater owners: Just because you are coordinated doesn't mean you own the frequency. Coordination is a recommendation, not a frequency assignment. It's your call sign on the repeater and it's your station and your responsibility ...just as if you had left the door open to your station at home. If there is abuse, lock the door. Don't ask us to be baby-sitters or hall monitors of your repeater. That's what control operators are for. Nobody asked you to start a repeater. If you shut it down tomorrow, what would happen? People would use OTHER repeaters!
To the contesters: be more courteous. You are responsible for the frequency you are operating on and realize that's true even when you operate split. All frequencies are shared.
To those who don't like contesters: lighten UP!! Contests are short lived. Use the WARC bands. Wash the car. Cut the grass. Learn from the contesters - and this applies to you Traffic net folks too - learn from the contesters. They pass information a lot faster and more efficiently than you do. Contesters are some of the best radio operators on planet Earth. If the contesters operated at the same pace as some of the emergency traffic nets, the contest would be over after the first few dozen signal strengths were exchanged!
To the widebanders: If you want to be a Broadcaster, apply for a broadcast license. Using extraordinarily wide bandwidth on crowded frequencies at peak operating time is rude, selfish and inconsiderate.
To the QRP'ers: Thank you, thank you, thank you for your vitality, inspiration, enthusiasm and for being BUILDERS again! I wish I could take your enthusiasm and spread it over all segments of Amateur radio. When I watch you folks, I see the excitement and magic of my first contact.
To those who don't like QRP'ers: Lighten UP. ANYONE can use a linear amplifier as a crutch.
To the rag chew nets: 4 or 5 people meeting on the same frequency every night for 50 years using 1200 watts to talk a few hundred miles when 100 watts would do just fine is not a net. It's an informal roundtable. It ain't going to hurt you either to vary your frequency or skip a night. And the so-called "net" on 75 that bills itself as an "Oasis of Amateur Radio": Give us all a break. You are an ordinary roundtable. And no net is an "Oasis of Amateur radio."
To those of you who don't like DXpeditions: Lighten UP! If a group of people want to spend a lot of money to go to a rock or sandbar in the ocean, live in a tent and swat flies and scorpions for a week and talk over Ham radio 24 hours a day, SO WHAT: LET'EM DO IT!!. DXpeditions, too, are short lived, and such operation must be important to SOMEONE. Scarborough Reef drew over 50,000 contacts didn't it. And weren't over half of them CW, by the way? Nobody would have even known about it had it not been published in popular radio magazines.

When I'm elected President my first act will be to appoint Hollingsworth as FCC Chairman.

Elecraft K3 Transceiver

Paul — Fri, 04 May 2007 01:16:00 +0000

The Mighty K3 - My next rig.

I've had many a jones for many a radio since my last acquisition, the JST-245, over 10 years ago. First it was the FT-1000MP Mk.V, then the IC-756PROIII. But I waited. When the FT-2000 was released and I was certain that would be the one when I rebuilt my shack at the Closter QTH. Then Ten Tec announced the Omni VII, and I was sure that was the rig for me.

I've always admired Ten Tec, especially their Argonaut series which I lusted for as a young future-ham, but I never owned any of their gear - I always went for the extra bells and whistles of similarly priced Japanese rigs in the 80's and 90's. I had spent some quality time with their RX-325 receiver when I worked at Gilfer and found it a curious but uninspiring radio, a bit goofy to operate but a solid radio for it's price. Their Omni VI and Paragon transceivers in the 90's always looked a bit too 'homebrew' for me, plus the Omni VI was ham-band only. But I started to take notice when Ten Tec turned out a series of superb DSP-based receivers and transceivers - the RX-340, Jupiter, Orion, and Orion II - all of these really seemed to suggest that Ten Tec was no longer a niche-market player. Thus when the Omni VII was announced I felt compelled to put my FT-2000 purchase on hold.

The first Omni VII transceivers started shipping in February 2007. The reviews I've seen on eHam are all overwhelming positive. Rob Sherwood's lab tests show key performance results which exceed Ten Tec's claimed specs. The Omni VII brochure shows a radio which clearly resembles the 756PROIII - large color LCD screen in the center, tuning dial to the right with keypad above it, but lacking the PROIII's analog S-meter. There is a band scope that appears to be displayed at all times, and unlike the real-time scope of the PROIII, it does periodic sweeps. Compared to the PROIII it finishes a close second in the KB2YAN test ("Always buy the one with more buttons!"). Lets face it, the PROIII is just about the coolest looking radio on the market (well, except for it's big brother, the 7800). But the big difference is in the bits - by all accounts Ten Tec 's DSP software is far superior to anything coming out of Japan, and since receiver performance is of primary importance to me this tends to tip the scale in favor of the Omni VII.

The Omni VII's base price (with auto-tuner) is $2850.00. There are a few Collins CW filter options (500 Hz and 300 Hz) at $99.00 each, a cooling fan for $39.95, and the remote encoder/keypad for $139.00. Total = $3226.95.

I was finally settled on the Omni VII and ready to order it, when out of the blue Elecraft announces a new horse in the race - the K3. Under development for three years, the K3 is a DSP-based radio with a base price of $1749.00 (for the 100W version, unassembled; a 10W model starts at $1399), and a load of different options that allows one to configure it specifically to one's own taste. A summary of the K3 features and performance from the Elecraft web site:

K3/100 and K3/10 models (the K3/10 can be upgraded very easily, internally, to a K3/100)

Basic K3 price ranges from $1399 to $1989 depending on whether you start with the 10-watt or 100-watt model, and whether you choose factory assembled or modular, no-soldering, kit (this is the subject of the next email).

Desktop/portable size: 4"H x 10"W x 10"D (10 x 25 x 25 cm) -- optimized for both home and travel use

All modes (SSB, CW, DATA, AM, FM, plus AM-sync receive, and built-in PSK31/TTY decoder)

High-dynamic range, down-conversion architecture, plus 32-bit I.F. DSP for software-defined capabilities (and lots of room for future expansion)

Optional subreceiver with *identical* performance to the main receiver, including a fully independent front end, its own set of roofing filters, its own DSP, and low-noise synthesizer; binaural or combined receiver audio

Up to five crystal roofing filters *per receiver*, with bandwidths as narrow as 200 Hz

Narrow ham-band filtering, plus optional general-coverage receive filters (can be added to either or both receivers)

Internal 100-W ATU option with two antenna jacks

100 W PA module includes two large fans, circuit breaker, full parameter monitoring

All signal sources phase-locked to common 49.380 MHz reference oscillator; 1 PPM TCXO option, firmware-corrected to better than 0.5 PPM

Built-in PSK31, RTTY, and CW decoding and display allows use of digital modes with or *without* a computer; use CW keyer paddle or attached computer for casual, two-way data QSOs

Advanced noise reduction; auto- and manual notch. Noise blanker included (both I.F. hardware pulse blanker and DSP noise blanking)

Easy-to-use DSP shift/width and locut/hicut controls with automatic crystal filter selection based on selected passband width (in real-time -- no filter calculation delays)

Dedicated CW/voice message buttons; optional digital voice recorder

100 general frequency memories with alphanumeric text labeling, plus 4 scratchpad memories per band

Full-custom, optimized, segmented LCD with two VFO displays, alphanumeric text, and dedicated filter passband graphic

Rich I/O set: stereo speaker outputs, fully isolated soundcard interface, dedicated RS-232 I/O (and optional USB adapter), receive antenna in/out jacks (for patching in RX filters, etc.), and both front- and rear-panel mic and headphone jacks

One-click PC firmware download program checks for updates automatically and quickly updates microcontroller and DSP firmware

As I was prepared to spend $4000+ for a loaded FT-2000, I decided to price out a fairly loaded K3 just for giggles. Here's how it looks:

K3/100 Transceiver: $1749.00
Basic 100W radio with single receiver.
KAT3 Automatic Antenna Tuner: $259.00
According to Elecraft it will handle 2:1 SWR at full power, but as much as a 20:1 mismatch at QRP levels. Expensive, but probably useful.
KRX3 2nd RX Module: $539.00
Gotta have this. Not just a scaled-down "dual-watch" receiver like that found in the 756PRROIII which shares circuitry with the main RX, but a true second receiver with its own DSP circuitry and filters, a la IC-7800 and Orion, making the K3 a serious contest/DX machine.
KBPF3 Gen. Cov. RX Module: $99.00/ea (x 2 = $198.00)
As explained by N6KR:
"The basic radio, as well as the subreceiver, have a full array of ham-band-only filters at the front end. This is to ensure excellent performance in the ham bands. These filters are switched in by means of relays. The KBPF3 option is a small plug-in module that sits above the ham-band filters. It, too, has a number of filters switched in by relays. The difference is that these are wider filters, covering all of the area between the ham bands. But they share the same input/output path as the ham-band filters. When not selected, the GC filters have absolutely no effect on performance, thanks to a very careful layout that minimizes trace lengths. When you tune the radio well outside the ham bands, an appropriate GC filter is automatically selected by firmware."
Need two of these, one for each receiver. Did I mention this thing has Synchronous AM Detection?
KFL3A-2.8K 2.8 kHz, 8 pole filter: $120.00 (x 2 = $240.00)
Pair of wide SSB filters, which work with the variable bandwidth control and act a roofing filters.
KFL3A-400 400 Hz, 8 pole filter: $120.00 (x 2 = $240.00)
Same deal as above. I chose 8-pole 400 Hz over 5-pole 500 Hz.
KFL3A-6K 6 kHz, 8 pole filter: $120.00 (x 2 = $240.00)
Need to have good roofing filters for SWBC use.
KTCXO3-1 TCXO: $99.00
High-stability crystal oscillator (1ppm f/w corr. to 0.5 ppm.). I'm sure I won't really need this, but what the hell - I'm already broke.

Total for this configuration is $3564.00, just a bit more than the Omni VII, and a whole lot less than a tricked-out FT-2000. For a radio that, on paper at least, looks to give the IC-7800 and FTDX-9000 a run for the money, it's a no-brainer. While it doesn't have the LCD and bandscope of the YaeCom rigs, Elecraft has stated that a panoramic display unit will be produced later this year.

Took me about 10 minutes to decide to take the plunge and order the K3 as equipped above.

People on the various forums are already complaining about the price, about the fact that it's "modular" assembly and not a full-blown soldering job to build it, about the fact that Elecraft has lost it's charm, and a plethora of other gripes. Give me a break! If you want to build a kit, buy a K2 (or K1 or KX1)! If you don't want to buy a $3500 radio, just buy the basic model - it will probably run circles around anything else in it's price class, though there will be a trade-off between features and performance. I simply love the fact that Elecraft lets you buy as much radio as you need or can afford. Shit, I'd even make the transmitter section optional; this thing would make a killer receiver for SWL's and fill a niche in a market that is void since the disappearance of JRC and Drake.

There's also been much talk on the Elecraft reflector regarding filters - whether the optional filters are needed or not. I decided to order the filters (400 Hz, 2.8 kHz and 6.0 kHz, one of each for main and sub receivers) to cover my basic needs (CW, SSB and AM). And there's room for two more on each receiver if I want, say, the 1.o kHz for RTTY and maybe another narrow SSB filter later on. One thing I've learned over the years is get your filter while they're available - if I didn't load up the JST-245 early on, I'd be out of luck if I wanted to do so now. WA6HHQ has a nice summation of the K3 filter philosophy on the Elecraft site which supports my choice of filters:

My personal real-world operating -basic- filter recommendations? In a nutshell:
SSB: 2.7 kHz or 2.8 kHz

CW/DATA: 400Hz or 500Hz (Narrower for Data if you prefer)

AM: 6 kHz (and for wider SSB TX, we can select which filter you TX through and limit SSB b/w in the K3's DSP)

So the trigger is pulled, the order placed, a 50% deposit check is in the mail ensuring me a first-run unit, and the wait is on - the K3 is scheduled to ship in July, by which time I will be comfortably (!) settled at the Closter QTH and back on the air.

It admittedly takes a leap of faith to commit kilobucks to what is essentially vaporware, but I am impressed and comforted by Elecraft's track record, and the attention paid to customer by the design team (Wayne N6KR, Eric WA6HHQ, and Lyle KK7P) on the Elecraft reflector. It would be remarkable if this radio does not live up to expectations. I don't necessarily feel like I'm rolling the dice here.

As for the Omni VII, I'm not sure that there won't be one in my shack in the future. I really like that radio, and were it not for the timing of the announcement of the K3 I might have ordered it already.

Elecraft KX1: Tech Musings & HW-9 Comparo

Paul — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:26:00 +0000

With the KX1 kit on it's way I've been reading up on it (in particular) and QRP rigs (in general) in order to get back up to speed with the whole radio-electro-voodoo thing. Following is the KX1 block diagram:

Now let's see if I can't figure out what makes this thing tick before I start building it...

KX1 Circuit Description
The KX1 manual has a fairly simple description of the signal path, excerpted below in italics, along with my notes, observations, opinions, and other lies. To better understand the KX1 I compare it to my last (and first!) QRP kit, the Heathkit HW-9, as they are very similar in spirit if not design.

Receiver: The receiver is a single-conversion superhet, using down-conversion to a low intermediate frequency (I.F.) of about 4.915 MHz. Down-conversion minimizes complexity and receive-chain noise, while the low I.F. allows adequate CW selectivity with a variable-passband, 3-pole crystal filter. The use of active mixers keeps current consumption low, compatible with portable operation.

The single-conversion system is common to the HW-9, and that's prety much where the similarities end. The HW-9 uses a bank of switched crystal-controlled HFO (high frequency oscillator) circuits, each producing a fixed signal which is then combined with a 5.9993 to 5.7495 MHz VFO signal at the 1st mixer (Q107, an MFE131 dual gate MOSFET) to produce a premix signal for the second mixer (U401, a double-balanced mixer) - i.e., for 80m, the crystal oscillator output is 18.330 MHz; 18.330 MHz minus 5.993 MHz = 12.3307 MHz premix signal. The desired RF signal is subtracted from the premix signal and filtered by the 8.830 crystal filter (FL301) to produce the fixed 8.83 MHz IF - for example, 12.3307 MHz minus 3.500 MHz = 8.3307 MHz.

The KX1 is obviously a much more modern design. It replaces all of the HW-9's HFO, VFO and 1st mixer circuitry with a single AD9834 DDS IC to synthesize the injection signal for a single mixer (an NE602). Elecraft says:

DDS VFO: The VFO is based on a low-power DDS (direct digital synthesis) IC. A crystal oscillator provides the reference signal for the DDS, ensuring excellent frequency stability over a wide temperature range. While a DDS-based VFO does not offer the same signal purity as an L-C VFO or PLL synthesizer, it is a good choice for a portable station that will most often be used by a single operator well removed from strong nearby stations. It is also extremely frequency-agile, allowing coverage of both ham bands and SWL bands. The unit chosen (AD9834) requires a minimum of components and draws only 5 to 8 milliamps. The DDS output is filtered by low-pass filter L4/L5/C50-52. In order to provide adequate roll-off of non-harmonic spurs about 14 MHz when operating at 40 meters, the filter's knee is set just above the 20-m band edge. Because of this, LSB receive mode on 20 meters is less sensitive; LSB on this band requires a mixer injection frequency of 4.9+14 = 18.9 MHz, which is significantly attenuated by the DDS filter.

I'm a bit confused about the signal purity comment as it pertains to PLL synthesizers - I always though a big advantage of DDS over PLL designs was the lack of phase noise, but maybe they speak of other issues. For certain, nothing beats a crystal-controlled VFO (the big selling point of the Ten-Tec Omni VI, as I recall). Nevertheless, the DDS advantage is obvious: a single chip in the KX1 virtually replaces the entire oscillator circuit board found in the HW-9, the sole purpose of which is simply to generate an injection signal for a double-balanced mixer.

Analog Devices says, "The AD9834 is a 75 MHz low power DDS device capable of producing high performance sine and triangular outputs. It also has an on-board comparator that allows a square wave to be produced for clock generation. Consuming only 20 mW of power at 3 V makes the AD9834 an ideal candidate for power-sensitive applications."

KX1 designer Wayne Burdick chose the AD9834 specifically because of it's frugality. " The most important design decision was to use a DDS VFO. This would eliminate a number of parts, including the transmit mixer and its crystal oscillator. While it wouldn't provide the high spurious-free dynamic range of an L-C VFO, it would be very stable over a wide temperature range, and also frequency-agile, allowing full coverage of 40, 30, and 20 meters as well as nearby SWL bands. Other designers had used DDS VFOs in QRP rigs with success, notably Dave Benson (NN1G) in his DSW series. But I'd been holding out for a DDS chip with much lower current drain. Luckily, one appeared: the Analog Devices AD9834, which draws just 5 to 8 mA."

Transmitter: On transmit, the DDS outputs the actual carrier frequency, so no transmit mixer stage is required. Q1, Q4 and Q5 form a 3-stage buffer for the DDS signal. Maximum power output from the final stage (Q6) is about 4 to 5 watts, depending on the supply voltage. Q7, in the receive band-pass filter, limits the signal voltage that can reach the receive mixer when the rig is in transmit mode.

A big departure from the HW-9, the KX1's transmitted signal is completely synthesized by the AD9834 chip. Exactly how this happens is a beyond my limited understanding at this time, except that the DDS is keyed by the MCU which (I assume) handles all of the built-in keyer functions, receiver muting, RIT, etc. The final amplifier of the KX1 is a single device, a 2SC2166 NPN transistor (Q6) in common-emitter configuration.

By comparison, the HW-9 transmitter and receiver sections share much of the same signal chain - the HFO, VFO and BFO sections, 1st and 2nd mixer, bandpass and low pass filters. In addition, the HW9 uses two devices (Q405/Q406, both MRF237 NPN-type power transistors).

Microcontroller: A low-power microcontroller (U1, MCU) is used to control the transceiver and handle user interface elements, such as the display and switches. The MCU communicates with the optional KXAT1 ATU on the VFWD/DATA line at about a 2 kHz data rate. U1 runs at just below 4 MHz to avoid band-edge spurs.

Not much I can add here, and there's no comparison to the HW9 here as it is a completely analog rig.

The KXAT1 provides SWR and power information for the KX1 display in TUNE mode. During normal keying, it provides an accurate indication of power output (1 bar per 0.5 watts). Without the ATU installed, the KX1 displays only a qualitative power output indication.

I built the optional manual antenna tuner and SWR bridge along with my HW-9 but don't think I ever used them. They are small units but certainly not as small as the KXAT1 internal board. It uses latching relays so there is no power drain (except while tuning), and according to the QST review it will match a random wire. It also remains in line during receive and is supposed to peak up incoming signals somewhat. I'm sure any sort of filtering will help since the KX1 has no front-end bandpass filters at all, just a low-pass filter.

Elecraft KX1: Pulling The Trigger

Paul — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:05:00 +0000

I've gone and done it now. I just ordered a KX1 QRP Transceiver kit, along with 30m/80m module and internal ATU. This will be my 2nd try at kit building; the first was my Heathkit HW-9 (along with matching tuner, SWR/wattmeter, and electronic keyer) back in 1985, which ended in near disaster - after completing assembly, the radio would not receive anything. I ended up sending it back to Benton Harbor, where they found a couple of cold solder joints and backwards-mounted components. I chalk that experience up to youth and ignorance (an oxymoron, to be sure). The KX1 sounds like an easy build, and there are a plethora of online resources to help me when (not if) I get stuck.

Why the KX1?
I've always been a fan of QRP operation even though I've rarely operated with less than 100 watts. I used to enjoy Adrian Weiss' QRP column in CQ Magazine back in the 70's, and still read the QRP construction projects in QST and CQ with interest and envy. My first ever HF QSO was made with the HW-9 back in 1987 on 40m CW, but once I got my TS-440S I don't think I ever used the HW-9 again. I bought an Yaesu FT-817 for a few years, made a few 5 watt mobile QSOs on 20m with it but mostly used it as a receiver before selling it on eBay (still kicking myself in the ass for that). Now I'm ready to give QRP another go. I considered another FT-817, but really feel like building something instead (and who wouldn't, after listening to all those SolderSmoke podcasts?). The Elecraft K2 would have been my first choice, it has so many more features (SSB, for one...); but it looks like it's a little more complex to build, and as my soldering iron has been cold for so many years I thought it best to try something a little easier for my grand return to kit building. More to follow...

Update 4/10: Talk about super super fast service - ordered on 4/9, received UPS shipping confirmation email on 4/10, scheduled for delivery on 4/17!

Links & Resources:

Big Plans

Paul — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:12:00 +0000

The time is near for some major station upgrades - not the least of which is a return to the original Closter QTH and it's vast antenna farm.* It's been about 10 years since I've acquired an new HF transceiver, so I've decided it's time for a modern DSP radio to complement the JST-245. The leading contenders are the Yaesu FT-2000 and Icom IC-756PROIII. I love the look of both of them, and they appear to be closely matched in performance based on reviews in QST and elsewhere. I asked KB2YAN which one I should buy; he said, "Which one has more buttons? Always buy the one with the most buttons." I guess it's going to be the Yaesu.

So now that I'm back on the radio bandwagon, I'm thinking about goals. Foremost of these is DXCC. I've already worked well over 100 countries, although the cards are somewhat lacking to make it official. Now it's my goal to do it again, starting from scratch.

* Not really.

No, Virginia, CW is NOT Dead.

Paul — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:31:00 +0000

On February 23, 2007, the Morse code requirement for amateur radio licensing will be gone. The debate over whether this should be done has been going on for years - opponents have claimed, correctly, that CW is an antiquated mode that no other radio service uses or requires, and that it is an unreasonable hurdle that keeps many otherwise dedicated and valuable operators out of the hobby at a time when we need them most, as other services seek to grab up amateur frequency allocations that are sparingly used; meanwhile, proponents of code testing cited tradition and warned of the floodgates opening, the HF bands tuning into CB radio, and.... well, damn it, I had to pay my dues and pass a code test, why shouldn't you?

I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but when I weigh the pros and cons, I find myself dancing on the grave of the code test. It's demise will not mean the end of CW on the ham bands; the only thing that will kill CW will be if hams choose to stop using the mode. I doubt this will happen, as CW is very popular among DXers and contesters.

The slippery slope argument is tenuous. It might have been a concern in the 70's during the CB craze, when CB radios were at the cutting edge of personal communications. But today the CB substitutes of choice are the internet and text messaging; ham radio won't capture the nitwit market because, 1.) It's expensive, and 2.) Even without the code test, getting licensed takes a good deal of effort. These are major obstacles to people who aren't serious about the hobby.

Amateur radio has always appealed to people who are fascinated with the science of radio, generally a brighter demographic than your typical chat room inhabitant. I can't see how these people will go through the whole licensing process, and the trouble and expense of building an amateur radio station, then suddenly devolve into a hoard of freaks shouting "Breaker Breaker!" into their echo mics on 20 meters.

So I welcome the FCC's decision to end the code requirement for licenses with HF privileges. I doubt most of the old curmudgeons that bitch and moan about it ever tune their radios off their 75m phone frequency, and probably fail to notice that the average age of US amateurs is quickly creeping up to the Geritol and Depends age bracket, let alone understand that that's a really bad thing. The hobby is in desperate need of a transfusion of new, younger blood, and telling kids that they need to learn CW, the telecommunications version of Aramaic, is the surest way to drive them back to their text messages and MySpace pages.

Do you like all those fancy modern HF rigs with spectrum scopes and DSP filters? Me too. Do you think companies like Kenwood, Icom and Yaesu will continue to devote R&D yen to continue producing these rigs while the market shrivels away? People on Social Security are not going to be buying many IC-7800's and FT-9000's, and sooner or later, if the number of hams dwindles, no one will be making these rigs.

So I say good riddance to the code test. And to celebrate it's death, I have downloaded every W1AW code practice MP3 file to my iPod so I can get my CW chops back.

• • • — • —

QRZ?

Paul — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:03:00 +0000

Doing the blog thing again, this time for my radio hobby. I will leave the existing WW2PT page alone for station info and links, and just use this blog for bloviating.