Elecraft K4

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W6RZ, May 16, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: QSOToday-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KE0EYJ

    KE0EYJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sure, and I agree .... but a Nylon VFO ? Did they seriously think this would hold up to portable operation? Based on reports in the Facebook group, it's not.

    Wouldn't have cost them much to go with the same VFO as the KX3.
  2. N2EY

    N2EY XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Optical encoder.
  3. KE0EYJ

    KE0EYJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, correct.
  4. K0UO

    K0UO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I'm an Icom man but I am reserving one. I've been through three K3s and now on the K3S which is better. But they don't have the "feel " of the current popular Japanese radio. To me and I've had all the radios, the 7300 is still the best bang for the buck at under $1,000 now.
    It looks like the K4 has the panel layout and styling of the Japanese radios with a modern ergonomic feel.
    But I think the final price is going to be quite a bit higher than the 7610.
    With all the new modern SDR radios the human ear can't detect the difference of any of the top 10 current radios.
    So it boils down to personal preference and what you want to pay for.
    I'm sure the K4 and all its versions are going to be good radios but I'm not sure about value and price. My main interest is in diversity receiving, using big Rhombic and V beam antennas and ths K4HD has that option, "If you can't hear then you can't work them".
    W4NNF likes this.
  5. WN1MB

    WN1MB XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Slowly read, thoroughly chewed, and digested that excellent tome twice. I'm not sure which read was more difficult! A real meat and potatoes read I rate right up there with Thoreau's Walden.
  6. WN1MB

    WN1MB XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Price and user servicability.
  7. WD4IGX

    WD4IGX Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I think that's the last thing the manufacturers likely want you to be able to easily do.
  8. NL7W

    NL7W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

  9. SM0AOM

    SM0AOM Ham Member QRZ Page

    This would be a most welcome addition to the evaluation toolkit, and using SDR technology it is very easy to implement both at the transmitting and in the receiving ends.

    However, there is a problem with the practical use of such a facility, the SNR at the
    "receiving" end is usually not sufficient to make any meaningful observations of adjacent channel performance.

    This graph, from an RSGB report about man-made interference, shows that the vast majority
    of amateur radio users operate using low SNR:s,
    and only quite close-by stations may present an SNR large enough to permit the measurement of IM products.

    Nevertheless, such a feature that could permit both two-tone, white/coloured or notched noise (NPR) adjacent channel measurements, preferably with some form of standardised and (semi-) automated evaluation procedure would be a very nice and long-overdue addition.

    It would also permit large-scale evaluations, which allows making statistics.

    WD4IGX and N2EY like this.
  10. AA5CT

    AA5CT Ham Member QRZ Page

    re: "However, there is a problem with the practical use of such a facility, the SNR at the
    "receiving" end"

    Put thinking cap on and ask yourself: "How does WSPR do it? Or, for that matter, how does FT8 do it? And now, FT4."

    Think outside the box, Karl-Arne. This isn't 1975 where the HP 141T mainframe and its series of compatible of S/A plug-ins (like the 8553B) reign supreme anymore.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page