I think you would be pretty happy with the sync AM. It works very well, though under some conditions better reception can be obtained by using USB or LSB.
The drawback for SWL listening is that the SWBC bands are not segregated from the ham bands as far as the K3 BAND switching is concerned: the 31m SW band is part of the 30m ham band, 19m is part of 20m, etc. That means that if you dial in 15.120 MHz the BAND switch will remember this frequency as your last used "20m" frequency. So if you are using the K3 for both SWLing and hamming you will find yourself having to restore your ham band freqs from time to time. This isn't a problem; just saying that SWBC and ham bands are not integrated as nicely in the K3 as you might like. General coverage was a major factor for me in purchasing a K3 and I'm quite happy with it. Too bad we don't have the variety of SWBC and maritime CW stations that were around years ago. Compared to those times HF is pretty dead now. Wish I had this rig when I was trying to hear BFBS SIngapore on 49m way back then... never did manage to get a QSL card from them before they went QRT. (I had a HQ-180AC receiver too, which was no slouch...) 73, Drew AF2Z On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:18:25 -0800 (PST), Paul wrote: >Hi. > >Been thinking about getting a K3. Have been an extremely pleased builder-ower >of a K2-100 for several years now. Listening to it now, and it is a real >pleasure! > >To be honest, for HF hamming, the K2-100 (w/DSP module) is just fine for me. >The K3's addition of 6 meters, and more importantly for me, and ability to add >2 meters are a plus, but PROBABLY not enough alone to justify the hefty price >of ownership. > >What's going to justify the purchase for me, nor not, is the ability to use >the K3 as SWL tool. Knowing that a lots been written on the Reflector in the >past on this subject, I'd really like to have some opinions from owners of the >latest versions of the K3 on its performance receiving broadcast stations. >Specifically, I'm interested in the current state of the K3's receive audio >bandwidth, distortion, and other similar performance characteristics, and in >the performance of its Synchronous AM detection. > >One way of getting at this would be for me to know how the K3 would compare >performance-wise (especially audio performance-wise) to some of the more >popular SW receivers, e.g. the Drake R8 series, the Icom R-75, etc., or to >other transceivers lauded for their receive audio performance (e.g., the old >Kenwood TS-870). > >Thanks! >Paul >N6LQ >______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
