AmateurRadio.com

No surprise to see the K3 and IC-7800 at the head of the pack. What does surprise me, though, is the absence of even a single mention of the Flex 5000 — can’t figure this out. Contesters, of all operators, rely so heavily on computers and software, and the Flex is clearly ready for prime-time. It’s fairly equal to the K3 and 7800 in terms of receiver performance. It just seems like a natural fit. Is it simply because it lacks a tuning dial? Is full PC control too new a trick for these old dogs to learn? Would love to hear theories as to why none of these top contesters have jumped on the SDR bandwagon.

Also surprised to see the Orion get only passing mention (and not in a good way, either). Wasn’t that the last “greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread” transceiver just a few years ago?

Seems W9OY is causing some heads to broil on the Elecraft list, thanks to Julian G4ILO stirring the pot. 😉

I don’t know W9OY but I read his blog often because I’m fascinated with the whole SDR aspect of the hobby. He’s as much a fanboy for the Flex 5000 as many are for the K3 (including me, I suppose). I have no problem with that, we all like to talk up the equipment we own. W9OY certainly knows his stuff, and even though he may toss out a jab at the K3 every now and then I just take it with a grain of salt — no burning desire to break out the dueling pistols, it’s just a hobby.

Often, though, I’ve heard hams on the air trashing the K3 as though anyone who owns one isn’t just wrong, but stoopid as well. I call it K3 Derangement Syndrome: any mention of the K3 causes them to prattle on about how inferior it is to their radio. They’ll harp about the K3’s “poor ergonomics,” as if pressing a button twice to move from 40m to 20m is somehow more of an inconvenience than having to boot Windoze every time you want to use your radio. They’ll talk about the size of the radio, as if the compact box isn’t one of the K3’s attractions for many owners. They’ll nitpick over specs, as if they really make a difference while working the DX. Mostly, it becomes evident after listening for a while that most of these K3DS sufferers have never actually used a K3, but merely heard all these horrible things from someone else. I guess the P3 will give them more ammo because it’s smaller than Power-SDR running on a 60″ plasma display — your sophomoric “mine’s bigger” kind of argument. Whatever.

Life is too short. We all have reasons for choosing the radios we choose. My big reason for not buying a Flex product is that it relies on Windoze; if it supported OS X, I might have one on my desk right now. But I have enough Windoze headaches in my daily life and don’t really want them to be at the core of my radio hobby. As Bones might tell Kirk, “Damn it, Jim! I’m a ham, not a systems administrator!” Those who might actually enjoy dicking around with computers will almost certainly report different mileage. Good for them.

Another good question has already been raised by someone else: What happens in 20 years? I have a garage full of 10-year old computer peripherals that simply won’t work with my current PCs and Macs. The Flex rigs, when you boil it all down, are computer peripherals. That it doesn’t rely on USB drivers makes it more likely to be supported years down the road, but what happens if FireWire goes the way of 5.25″ floppies? Or if future versions of Power-SDR no longer support anything older than the Flex 8000? To me, one of the things I love about ham radio is that people running vintage gear from the 50’s and 60’s are still able to do pretty much everything a guy with a K3 can do; with proper care and feeding, they can last a lifetime or more. On the other hand, computers and peripherals are throw-away items. Which category a PC-based SDR falls into, only time will tell.

That doesn’t mean I won’t someday own a Flex 5000 (or 6000 or 9000); maybe I will. Flex Radio Systems is every bit a great company as Elecraft, and their user base every bit as loyal. If I had the cash I’d probably own one now because I love the SDR concept. If someday it no longer works under Windoze 2036 or whatever cruel hoax Microsloth perpetrates on the masses in the future, oh well… out to the pile in the garage it’ll go, to be replaced by the newest model. But I won’t get rid of the K3 unless and until something else comes out that offers a significant improvement, and whatever may replace my K3 someday will sure as hell have knobs and buttons and be able to operate as a stand-alone instrument without a PC umbilical. These are my requirements; if yours are different, buy what you want.

And while others may take cheap shots at competing radios just to make themselves feel smart or superior to those who choose differently, I won’t do that.

(I will, however, continue to take cheap shots at Microsloth Windoze. It just plain sucks.)

During the BARTG test I had some weird moments after I QSY’d from 20m to 40m — DM780 would key the K3’s PTT (via HRD IP Server) but there would be no audio into the Line In port, and thus no RF output. Sometimes rebooting the K3 would work, other times quitting and re-launching DM780 did the trick. I’m not 100% certain of the cause but I’m leaning towards software rather than hardware.

Then I noticed low RF output at certain audio frequencies, and this only in AFSK-A reverse (USB) mode; no trouble in normal (LSB) AFSK-A mode, nor in DATA-A normal and reverse. The output power would be OK when the center frequency was set low on the waterfall (+/- 400 Hz, for example) but would drop off at higher Fc setings. And the cutoff point seemed to vary — sometimes I could get full 100W RF out at around 1500 Hz Fc (I typically use 1530 Hz as Fc for RTTY), other times the output would drop above 900 Hz and be effectively zero at 1300 Hz and above. After some messing around with soundcard and line input levels I seemed to have gotten it somewhat sorted out, but as I did all that in the middle of a contest while in semi-panic mode I didn’t take too many notes.

I did some basic tests today by transmitting RTTY diddles at 100W into the MFJ-267 dummy load/wattmeter while in AFSK-A REV mode; mic gain is adjusted for 3 flickering bars of ALC as per the advice of Elecraft. I got full 100W reading on the meter at 2200 Hz Fc, but it steadily decreased as I inched upwards — at 2300 Hz Fc the output was down around 60W, and by 2400 Hz the wattmeter needle barely moved. But when I switched from REV (USB) to NOR (LSB) I get full output right up to the top edge of the waterfall (2900 Hz Fc) — pretty much what I experienced yesterday during the RTTY test.

I then shut the whole system off for a while and repeated these tests an hour or so later to see if things changed from a “cold” state: starting out my output at 2200 Hz was down around 10 to 15W. The output then slowly rises as PA temperature (as measured by the K3’s built-in PA TEMP meter) reaching full 100W at 43 deg C. But after cooling off (PA: 35 deg C, front panel: 32 deg C) power output remains at full 100W! This is driving me absolutely bat-shit crazy.

I’m not really concerned that I won’t be able to transmit RTTY at high center frequencies as my operating style is to find and click on a signal in the waterfall, center it at 1530 Hz, then switch to a narrow filter setting; I’m more troubled by how the cutoff frequency changes, sometimes below 1530 Hz, and apparently is a function of temperature. It doesn’t appear to be a PA problem — the same power drops occur when bypassing the PA unit and running at 10W, and I’m getting full power in all other modes — so I’m going to guess it’s an issue with the DSP board and its handling of audio at the Line In port. More tests to follow, and when I have a better set of test results I’ll contact the boys in Aptos.

Update 26-Jan-2010: I believe it has been solved — the only things I didn’t check until today were the filter parameters in the CONFIG menu. Sure enough, I had FL3 set to 2.4 kHz even though the filter is actually a 2.1 kHz filter. Unsure how or why this caused the problem, but since setting it to the correct setting I am now able to get full output power at the mark frequencies indicated by the K3’s MARK-SH setting (2125, 1445, 1275 or 915 Hz). Not sure how the FL3 parameter got changed; perhaps inadvertently while running K3-EZ, or perhaps it was set improperly during my assembly and setup back in January ’08. In any case, all’s well that ends well. My apologies to Wayne, Eric, Lyle, Don, Greg, etc. for bothering them with what turned out to be user error. I will now sit in the corner wearing my “Dumb Ass” hat as penance.

The latest kerfuffle currently brewing on the Elecraft reflector concerns the “Noisy K3 receiver” and, predictably, the commenters have broken down into two opposing factions: the “Me Too!” group is posting comparisons with other receivers that supposedly have less background noise and less listening fatigue, and the “Not Here!” group which swears that their K3 is so quiet that they sometimes think it has been damaged.

Whether any or all of the complaints about background noise are valid, and/or whether these people have radios that are somehow defective or simply misadjusted is beyond my ability to discern. I’m not picking sides here, the guys who think their K3s are noisy may have real issues, and if so I’m confident Elecraft will address these issues as they have done with all others in the past. Perhaps we’ll all end up with better, quieter K3s in a few weeks as a result of this discussion.

That said, what really fascinates me is that some of my fellow amateurs apparently believe the RF Gain control to be an archaic, vestigial appendage left over from ancient days of vacuum tubes, and that it has no place or purpose in a modern receiver. To wit:

And:

Seriously? Not enough hands? No offense intended to these guys, fine gentlemen both, but we’ve long suffered complaints about how the K3 doesn’t have the all front panel controls one “needs” at his fingertips to tweak a signal to perfection. Now, a single RF Gain knob is too many controls to tweak in order to deliver a good sounding signal? And what N7WS is asking for falls under the general category of “Artificial Intelligence” — I think we’re going to have to wait a few more decades before we start seeing that offered in consumer electronics products!

The fact is, if you run the K3 or any other radio with RF Gain flat out, the result will be a higher level of background noise than if you “ride” the RF Gain. Whether analog or digital, a receiver’s AGC cannot magically discriminate a desired signal from noise. Instead, it will adjust the gain of the IF stages in response to the entirety of what it detects — that is, signal and noise. The purpose of the RF Gain control is to allow the operator to limit the range of the AGC to some degree in order to compensate for this lack of intelligence. RF Gain is like a transmission in a car, and just as an automatic transmission may work well some or perhaps even most of the time, it doesn’t always put the car in the right gear for every road condition. Similarly, the AGC doesn’t — and cannot — always deliver the optimum results under all band conditions. The RF Gain control is the radio’s stick shift. Use it.

Advancements in DSP technology have made it somewhat possible for a processor to detect speech or CW from random noise and perform the requisite voodoo to pass the wanted signal and suppress all else, but this technology still isn’t perfect. I don’t pretend to understand it all, but lot of math is employed to come up with what is still essentially a “best guess” as to what is, or isn’t, wanted. In my experience, it doesn’t always guess correctly; operator input is still required. The reason there are so many different possible settings for the Noise Reduction (NR) on the K3 is so you can choose what works best for you. But if you can’t be bothered riding the RF Gain a little bit, you surely won’t want to mess with the NR parameters.

Is my K3 unusually “noisy?” Honestly, I don’t know for sure. I don’t think it is; when I first got it I did comparisons with the JST-245, a rig which had a pretty damn quiet receiver. At the time I thought the K3 compared quite favorably. However, these tests were not scientific and the antennas used at the time were fairly crappy. Now I have a slightly better antenna… but alas, no more JST-245.

I did a brief A/B test with one of my NRD-515s on 40m SSB switching between both radios with the same antenna, each feeding identical NVA-515 speakers. It was a hands-down win for the K3 even with NR and AFX turned off. Tweaking both radios for best results, the difference in signal quality and intelligibility was pretty significant. Not exactly a fair fight, though… the NRD-515 is a 25 year old design.

Maybe I’d notice this perceived noisiness more if I had a quiet antenna and QTH. Unfortunately, I contend with a constant S7-8 background noise that I attribute to environmental factors (the QRN of suburban hell) and the fact that I have a vertical antenna, by nature more susceptible to electrical noise. In any case, I’ve never experienced how the K3 behaves on a quiet band. Under my typical conditions I can tweak the RF Gain, AF Gain and NR to maximize the quality of signals at or above the high noise level while reducing the background hash to a very acceptable level, but there is no single setting of controls that works on all signals. If I optimize for a relatively strong signal, I can reduce the background noise to practically nil but then weaker signals then become much less readable. Tweaking to separate the weakest signals from the noise is possible but that brings up the background noise as well — all the more so the weaker the signal and the closer it is to the noise floor. Every situation is different, so I’m constantly adjusting RF Gain and other controls to match the conditions much the same way I must downshift my Jeep when I climb a hill or drive through the twisties, or upshift when I reach cruising speed on a highway — no one gear works well all the time.

Once I find the best RF Gain setting for a particular signal, any noise that is still bothering me is handled extremely well by the NR (which, it cannot be overstated, is the whole purpose of having a NR function in the first place!). The K3’s NR has been greatly improved since trusty ol’ #216 arrived on my doorstep in January 2008. The original NR worked well for me as an SSB op, but the CW guys were not satisfied; so Elecraft changed the DSP voodoo to accommodate them. All of a sudden, I (and many others) found the NR didn’t work as well on SSB as it did in previous firmware versions, it made the output sound too hollow. So after we bitched and moaned about this, the boys in Aptos doubled the number of NR settings from 16 to 32, restoring the SSB-optimized NR settings and giving operators enough variety in NR level and aggression to satisfy everyone. I generally prefer very light NR, so I most often use the least aggressive setting in the 8-1 to 8-3 range to make copy comfortable to my ears; rarely do I use 8-4, but occasionally I will try the 7-x range on stronger signals. With the K3’s exceptional noise reduction I find myself adjusting NR more and RF and AF Gain less than I did in the pre-NR days with my JST-245, JST-135 and TS-930.

I hadn’t touched the AGC characteristic settings since the K3 was delivered, but today I decided to experiment with the AGC Slope and Threshold parameters just to see what effects they have. I found that the threshold (AGC THR) parameter makes a big difference in the amount of background noise amplified by AGC during periods of no signal. After a few hours of playing around the settings I ultimately settled on (for now) are:

Thus configured, and with noise reduction off, AGC set to Fast, and both AF and RF Gain controls set to 12 o’clock position, I’ve found my sweet spot for tuning around under typical conditions. When find a station, I may switch on NR and/or adjust the AF or RF Gain until what I hear sounds right to my ears.

What it all boils down to is, using the RF Gain isn’t a burden, nor is it rocket science — it’s how I’ve always operated a receiver. Along with NR, Notch, Width and Shift, it’s simply another tool at my disposal to recover the most intelligibility out of a signal. Reaching for the RF Gain comes as naturally to me as it does for the AF Gain or VFO. The idea that some ops feel put out by having to tweak the RF Gain control is beyond incredible to me.

This thought has been keeping me awake at night. Yes, I know I probably need psychiatric help… but that still doesn’t answer the question, now does it?

Radio manufacturers appear to be locked into a belief that radios must be horizontally oriented. I don’t get it — this takes up more desk space and offers no discernible advantage over a vertically-oriented rig. Why not flip radios on their side?

The closest thing we’ve got to vertical radios are some commercial rack-mounted systems, but even then, each of the individual components in the rack are horizontal. The cubish Flex-5000A comes close, it is almost as tall as it is wide, but is still technically a horizontal rig. (Actually, it has no knobs so it’s not a real radio anyway. Never mind.)

Desktop PCs used to come in horizontal cases; now they are all happily ensconced in tidy, attractive vertical towers. Has anyone complained? I don’t think so…

Tallness projects power and demands respect — you never hear people marveling over the world’s widest building, do you? I believe the first radio maker who ventures out into this brave, new design direction will come to rule the market.

You heard it here first, folks.