The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
Mike Whatley (WA4D)
on
October 10, 2007
View comments about this article!
Arguably among the most significant technological advances
in amateur radio equipment has been the software upgradeable device. Be
it firmware for a transceiver or new operating system features or the
programming of routine operational menus. This “Software Defined” functionality
has in turn led to the full on Software Defined Radio or SDR.
The proponents of the SDR concept are enthusiastic in their zeal to promote
this radical new model. The specifications of these RF devices are world class
and comparable to the best commercial grade ham gear available.
So why does the SDR model not excite more
hams? I suggest that the virtual interface of the
SDR via a screen is just too sterile for most.
Hams like knobs! (and keys and mics) They like
tactile functions. They like rotating, depressing, and flipping switches. And on
that (flip/press or turn) they instantly hear or see the result of their
manipulation. It is part of the "toy" factor of radio gear, part of the fun,
part of the mystique.
Manual interaction with technology is
heavily embedded in our culture.
A “flashback” for you old timers: Who could forget
Broderick Crawford as California Highway Patrol Captain Dan Matthews
calling headquarters on the radio from his squad car?
To operate communication devices meant the actor had to
manually engage the unit. From the cool wrist “Flip” action Captain Kirk of
Star Trek would display when opening the
“Communicator” to Spock’s serious expression when turning knobs on the “Tricorder”
analyzer. On Stargate SG-1 there are a plethora of “manually” operated
devices. From the Star Gate itself, to the handy talkies the crew uses when “off
world."
And this actor/technology interaction is often critical to
the script. In the classic film “Fail
Safe”, Henry Fonda as President of the United States talks to the Soviet
Premiere” over the crackling “Hot
Line” between Washington and Moscow.
The physical instrument is integral to the story.
Or in the World War II drama “A
Bridge too Far”… the British Brigadier played by Sean Connery laments that
the radios were sent with the wrong crystals! As his commo people manually
troubleshoot (unsuccessfully) to make the radios work!
These examples and many more are ingrained in our
visual culture and define our perception of what it is to “use” technology.
There is an area of ergonomic
study called human
factors psychology. It is concerned with the optimal design of human—machine
interfaces, including the design and placement of instrument panels and
controls. Usability studies abound. And while not yet fully accepted, the
virtual interface becomes more efficient with each new design. From avionics
(where the consequences of poor usability are far more perilous than in Ham
radio) to setting the temperature on a kitchen oven. “Virtual or Speech based
interfaces” will evolve and make our fondness for physical interaction seem
quaint in the future.
The trend
is clear. The march of the “Virtual Interface” has begun. Icom and
Yaesu’s highest end radios have sophisticated and dare I say “dazzling”
visual information displays. Standalone software applications that control
or program radios are also abundant.
The SDR and it’s attendant screen based interface will eventually prevail.
"Resistance is futile" ----- But I predict that for at least another
couple of decades, many Hams will fight the "Borg" like assimilation of
the virtual interface and stick with real knobs and even analog meters.
If only for the "fun"!
Mike Whatley
WA4D
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by ONAIR on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There is the basic question of how much one wants to actually be a part of the experience. Would you want to drive a high performance racing car that has a stick shift, or an automatic? A computer can be designed to stear a car, brake it, figure out where it's going and guide it, to the point where the "driver" will merely just sit in it for the ride! The future of ham radio can become one where we just talk to our radios and say what we want them to do, and then just sit back while the radio finds a station, adjusts the power, turns the beam, and perhaps even holds the conversation for us! How many hams would really want that?
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K6AER on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The slow acceptance of the SDR radio is not the sterile screen but the hesitance of most hams to be comfortable with interfacing computer technology. Still others like an all in one box but don’t realize a typical ham transceiver has lots of peripherals connected to it just like the Flex radio.
All of today’s radios are now DSP based. Some have the computer outside and some have the computer inside. It is interesting that as long as some manufactures have been making DSP radios they still don’t get it right every time. Some of the very newest offerings are having a hard time with DSP/AGC attack and delay times and are overly sensitive to pops, pulse noise and clicks on their AGC.
Also much of the ham population is aging and unwilling to learn new technology.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by VE3TMT on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The slow acceptance of the SDR radio is not the sterile screen but the hesitance of most hams to be comfortable with interfacing computer technology."
...and maybe the $$$
"Also much of the ham population is aging and unwilling to learn new technology."
...and perhaps some of them just don't want to. I am sure that for every ham who has the latest small fortune costing radio, there is one who prefers to sit back and operate his 30 year old transceiver. Like any hobby, advances in technology keep pushing new models into the marketplace. I'll admit, some amateurs may not have the computer skills to understand and operate a software defined radio, but there are just as many who have no interest in learning.
Max
VE3TMT
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by LNXAUTHOR on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
- i'd use SDR more if the interfacing and software used wifi and open source... otherwise, just more cabling and proprietary versioning of binary-only releases or software that only runs under a commercial operating system...
- also, it's very hard to make software easy to use, and many hams want 'plug and play,' not 'plug and pray'...
- but i still have fun w/my rx320 and Argonaut V - and will never have to worry about them not working with my computers today, tomorrow, or in the future - thanks, Ten Tec!
- here's a nice resource page of links to SDR projects, info, and hardware:
http://planete.inria.fr/SoftwareRadio/
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by G4GOY on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi
For me, I like the analogue aspects of radio and enjoy homebrew. I work as a software engineer, so am reluctant to get into SDR - even though I think it's the way forward.
73, John G4GOY
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AA4PB on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think SDR is great as long as it's built into a traditional box with knobs and tuning dials. I work with computers in my job so I'm not afraid of computer technology. Thus far however, I have no interest in operating a radio via a keyboard and mouse.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by G3RZP on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To my mind the problem is one of reliability. SDR is heavily dependent on large scale semiconductor integration: once one of those ASICS dies, it's almost impossible to repair the radio. ICs do die - having worked in the IC industry for over 25 years, I know that! OK, so the same applies to most modern tigs. Which is why I like an old fashioned analogue rig using small scale integration and leaded components where some sort of repair can be cobbled together if need be.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by TOYBOX on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I just don't like having to have a PC in order to operate my station. Especially a problem from a portability standpoint.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N3OX on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The SDR and it’s attendant screen based interface will eventually prevail"
Not if that's not what people want.
The SDR, yes.... we have so much processing power in our computers and it's easy to use it.
There's no reason why the whole thing couldn't take the form of a radio with knobs. The early adopters are the ones who care more about playing with SDR than they care about knobs.
That said, I could deal with a tuning knob (like has been an option on other PC-based radios) and keyboard keys. That's basically what I'm doing with my overly menu-driven FT-857D and it's a totally analog, stand-alone radio until some audio DSP! I use Ham Radio Deluxe and my computer keyboard to take the place of a lot of buttons that are hidden in menus.
Knobs are expensive, but they'll be offered as an option if software defined radios that use your PC are the wave of the future.
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KC0SHZ on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SDR is expensive for now. That keeps alot of us out.
SDR is also clunky in that it ties your transceiver to your computer. At least for those of us who like QRP, portability is a big factor for choosing not to go for SDR.
Also, its the realization that sometimes 20 meters comes in good with my tuner set at 48 and sometimes better at 52. I like having control of the various inputs and tuner so that I can make these day to day or hour to hour changes when needed, then easily change them back.
|
| |
|
mice and windows are just easier for programmers
|
|
|
by N9NFB on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
windows and mice are just easier for "most" programmers.
Doesn't mean anything more than that.
There is nothing stopping someone from making a front panel that looks exactly like a R-390 but all the switches and dials are connected to microcontrollers that connect to the SDR.
It is much cheaper to redo a software interface than a hardware interface.
|
| |
|
RE: mice and windows are just easier for programme
|
|
|
by N0ZLD on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm on computers enough as it is. I need a break and love to push buttons on my radio.
Cheers
N0ZLD
|
| |
|
RE: mice and windows are just easier for programme
|
|
|
by N3OX on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"QRP, portability is a big factor for choosing not to go for SDR. "
I dunno...
check out:
http://www.mini-itx.com/
All right, they're not exactly *QRP* devices, probably need 20W DC power or so to run the computer...
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by VE6CNU on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The big advantage to all those knobs and buttons on a real radio is immediate familiarity and feedback. Humans require physical contact as this stimulates the parts of our brains involved in learning and performing. One example of this is the type of video game that simulates auto racing. While we can use a mouse and monitor, the best games are those in the arcades that we sit in and have physical controls for our hands and feet. Similarly, most of us have grown up "driving" our radios, by twisting knobs, pushing buttons, squeezing paddles, and so on. Each radio has a different feel, and after a while, may seem like a personal friend with all of its individual nuances. How often have we taken a radio down off the shelf and remembered the Field Days or other good times (or hard times) it gave us? While SDR may be the way of the future, it's hard to believe that one day we will think fondly of that old, faceless, black box.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KI4VUP on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" ...and maybe the $$$ "
Price isn't an issue with SDR's. Check out the SoftRock SDR's - two band kit for $30, all parts inclusive, software is free. That's cheaper than a lot of monoband crystal rig kits nowadays.
Phil, KI4VUP
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a nice article and an interesting discussion. Ten Tec and Elecraft have been selling radios for years that can easily be upgraded with new firmware providing enhancements. For instance, I upgraded my Ten Tec Omni 6 to the "Option 1" by replacing a ROM chip. This provided DSP noise reduction and other new features. Nothing new about this-- this option was made available at least ten years ago.
Even the little Elecraft KX1 can be upgraded with new computer chips from time to time, and the newest Elecraft and Ten Tec models can be upgraded with new firmware downloaded from a web site.
Like many others, I like all the latest DSP enhancements in a radio with knobs and switches. I don't care for a virtual interface on a computer screen.
BTW, I smiled when I saw the picture of Broderick Crawford in the article above. Back in the late 60's, I worked in a circuit design group in the aerospace industry. Some of the support technicians that I worked with used to celebrate "Broderick Crawford Day" every October 4th, based on his frequent use of "10-4" in the TV program. One of the techs even wrote to Crawford, informing him that he was being "honored" in this way.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
Nothing 'Virtual' about it
|
|
|
by N9DG on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well first there's nothing "virtual" about a well implemented PC based SDR interface. Trying to "virtualize" the traditional knobs and buttons radio control paradigm is a dead end, and is largely a waste of time. This is the case when someone attempts to design a User Interface (UI) that is more or less just a picture of a radio on a computer screen. Many will say that such a picture of a radio on a PC is harder to use than real knobs are, - well, I'd be the first to agree.
The UI's that are on the right track are the ones like PowerSDR, Winrad, Rocky, and no doubt some others. The central theme to them is to present visually the makeup of a slice of RF spectrum that the user then directly acts upon. The panadapter and/or waterfall display is a much higher fidelity representation of the RF spectrum than a discrete digital frequency display and an S-meter. There is very little information with just those two items, and what is provided is confined to a very narrow span of frequencies. The real-time panadapter gives you information not only about the frequency you are on currently, but also a visual representations of 10's to 100's of kHz or more of spectrum, both frequency and amplitude. And with sufficient resolutions you easily spot weak stations. And then a waterfall adds some historic data about all the other activity happening on a band. And then with a mouse you can directly interact with what you see, many find it highly intuitive and simple to use. And FWIW these UI's are not the least bit "sterile", they are actually rich with information that is useful for working the radio spectrum, a discrete digital frequency display on the other hand is actually rather "sterile".
The historical "manual interaction" with communications devices in the past were out of technology necessity and the then technological limits of what could actually be done. Knobs and buttons for control were simply the best approach to take before there were alternative ways to interact with the radio. And in some operating environments they will continue to be so. Mobile operating comes to mind, though I could see voice commands having a distinct advantage there. The proliferation of functions and menu items on today's mobile radios today is not ergonomic, despite what the ads may claim.
So when the transition came from cat-whisker detectors and spark-gap transmitters to vacuum tubes and VFO's knobs and buttons were really the only feasible option for control. Well today there are other feasible options, just takes a little imagination and a willingness to try them.
Interestingly in aviation tying to simplify cockpit controls is often the main end goal, but yet in knobs and buttons radios there seems to be a desire to make them ever more complicated. The "dazzling" interfaces of the $10K+ radios are an ergonomic disaster and frankly an embarrassment. The knob and button counts on them only serve to stroke the ego of those own them. Kinda reminds me of the whole "tale fin race" in autos back in the 50's. If someone only wants to rag chew with their buds everyday on the same frequency why do they need 100+ knobs and buttons to do so? For them a dirt simple UI makes more sense. But if you are designing a radio around a knobs and buttons only approach then you are stuck with having to try and cover all use cases with a single control panel (UI). The end result is something that is a compromise for everybody. Every knobs and buttons radio built today suffers from this to some degree. PC based UI's can be as complex or simple as they need to be. And there can be as many different UI's for all the different use cases as there needs to be. One UI does not fit all, nor should it even try to. And the PC based SDR can also accommodate knobs when it really makes sense to do so.
BTW all of the examples of the human interaction with the "radios" in the article are of the single frequency, point to point, utilitarian coms, none of them depict the act of "surfing" the ether for the fun of it. Obviously those two use case cases call for very different UI's right?
|
| |
|
RE: Nothing 'Virtual' about it
|
|
|
by AK2B on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The allure of the SDR is the big beautiful panoramic display. Once you’ve seen a 96 KHz visual display of your favorite part of the band it’s hard to go back. To me, it’s not just the signals that pop up on the display but also the living, almost breathing, segment of the band itself. There is a lot going on sometimes that is just plain interesting to watch. The keyword here is “watch”. I know everyone is familiar with listening to the radio but watching the radio is also a great deal of fun.
I don’t own an expensive SDR. I use the cheaper single band Softrocks – for about $10 for receiving and $30 for a transceiver. I also have a few FireFlys. These are all very inexpensive ways to get a view of SDR technology. Personally, I prefer the best of both worlds so I’ve ordered a $10 Softrock to use with the IF output of my K3 when it arrives.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FireFly-SDR-transceiver/
Tom, AK2B
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W2DLC on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like the idea of a big visual display, and I'm comfortable with a mouse and keyboard, but the display and the computer still generates too much interference for weak signal work.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KK7SS on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To my mind, the problem with SDR is inherent in that we have
a) A wide band RF amplifier built with LSI technology
b) An interface (GUI) built in a higher level language such as Visual Basic or C++
c) An operating system such as Windows, and
d) A Second piece of LSI hardware called a computer.
In order....
a) If one surface mount component fails, the user usually does not have the equipment to repair it. Radio "Out of Service"
b) If you do not have a 'high end' computer then there is a high degree of signal procesing latency... Been there, Done that!
c) Hangs, Updates, Security issues, BSOD!!
d) Same problem as a)
I have owned a few modern radios.. IC-746, FT-847, TS-2000 and currently own an IC-7000, FT-817 and some other stuff.
But I've NEVER had to send my FT-101E anywhere for repair.... I can fix it. And it 'talks' just as loud
My $0.02 worth...
Dave G.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N9DG on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VE6CNU:
"The big advantage to all those knobs and buttons on a real radio is immediate familiarity and feedback."
On the other hand a panadapter or waterfall provides you with much information about a signal of interest before you get to it. With practice you can decide which signals to not bother with because of its look and behavior signature. Slowly tuning across the band you need to listen first, and then decide.
"Humans require physical contact as this stimulates the parts of our brains involved in learning and performing. One example of this is the type of video game that simulates auto racing. While we can use a mouse and monitor, the best games are those in the arcades that we sit in and have physical controls for our hands and feet."
Yes this is completely valid view for doing something that is mechanical in nature to begin with like driving a car. But when was the last time you walked or drove amongst the radio waves and used your hand to push aside the QRM? Or grab the specific signal of interest. My contention is that what most people "visualize" in their mind's eye is that the RF spectrum is a 3 dimensional continuum. So why not represent it that way? Panadapters and waterfalls today and those with 3D effects in the future will more closely match what most people (I think) visualize the RF spectrum as. Bottom line is that the RF spectrum is more of an "abstract", so is not directly comparable to mechanical activities. The use of mechanical knobs/buttons means to interact with the RF spectrum is in reality "unnatural", but was simply necessary because real-time graphics weren't an option in the past. BTW there are some interesting ideas being kicked around to use game controllers as means to control radios, essentially allowing you to "immerse yourself with the radio waves". Definitely has some intriguing possibilities.
"Similarly, most of us have grown up "driving" our radios, by twisting knobs, pushing buttons, squeezing paddles, and so on."
This is simply an inertia thing. Many people continue to do a lot of things inefficiently simply because that is what they are "used to" doing.
"Each radio has a different feel, and after a while, may seem like a personal friend with all of its individual nuances. How often have we taken a radio down off the shelf and remembered the Field Days or other good times (or hard times) it gave us? While SDR may be the way of the future, it's hard to believe that one day we will think fondly of that old, faceless, black box."
I think fondly of my first Pegasus all the time. I especially think fondly of how it really opened up my eyes to a different way of doing things. Even though by today's PC SDR standards it really rather primitive.
AA4PB:
"I work with computers in my job so I'm not afraid of computer technology. Thus far however, I have no interest in operating a radio via a keyboard and mouse"
I work with computers all day too. But when I go home and fire up the PC based radio I'm operating a "radio", not a computer, the computer just facilitates what I want my radio to do. The computer is the means, not the ends. It's just like many people work with electricity all day too, but I've never heard any of them say that the last thing they want to do is turn on a light switch when they get home.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WO0Z on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With all respect, I think people who haven't tried it are not really in a good place to criticize it.
This is one of those things that has to be experienced and for more than ten minutes, too. The PowerSDR demo mode is a good place to start, but "live" will really show you the tale if you can find somebody with one.
There are lots of unobvious advantages with the SDR approach (PowerSDR in particular) that really need to be experienced to be understood.
Some not so obvious advantages:
1. Complete control over filtering. Skirts can be as sharp or as soft as you want. At any offset you want. On CW, imagine being able to listen to the DX with a 50 Hz filter, no ringing, no joke. So there's a tuner upper near by? You don't hear him. I usually listen at 125 Hz to 250 Hz. It's a dream.
2. Embracing of visuals. For DXers, being able to "see" a pileup is a big edge over just listening to one. It's hard to describe, but you really know, much more quickly, what's going on. Oh, and I don't _ever_ have to widen the filter to find the DX. I can put him pretty much dead center in 125 Hz (and there's a function that cleans up the few Hz I'm off, too). I'm told by those that own them that this 'scope beats the heck out of anything that went before it. Since I never owned a scope, all I can say is, by itself it's worth several hundred dollars over a conventional rig with none or some piddly bars on a display.
3. Embracing of visuals part II. Remember how W9KNI recommended that every DXer slowly scanned the bands for signals? Well, if you can see everything, you simply don't need to do that. And, you get there before the pileup does more often. You'll see it at once if it is there.
4. Embracing of visuals part III. Ever seen two guys trying to find each other on 10 GHz with conventional radios? Ever seen someone notice a signal on the display, click on it, and simply start working the guy? Being able to see 10, 20, 30 KHz and more means that on challenging VHF/UHF/Microwave situations, you can actually find each other faster, maybe the difference between finding each other at all or not.
5. Want a feature? Ask for it. If it's sensible, suddenly it's part of your radio. It's software, so you don't have to buy a new radio to get improvements. My same SDR 1000 is way better today than it was when I first bought it in every respect. Not just the user interface, but important things like filtering, speech compression, audio equalization and more. You can change things you never thought changeable.
I could go on and on.
Some people really won't be able to embrace the SDR and its change of view. You have to be willing to let go of the knobs.
But, if you are, there are some tremendous compensating advantages, real and practical ones, that will greatly increase your enjoyment of ham radio. Or, at least it did for me.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W5HLH on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The biggest part of many future homebrew projects will be developing the software. And the next MFJ will be a start-up company selling filters, speech processors, etc., via download for SDR platforms.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K4AHO on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You Guys miss the point of Amateur radio. It's not about the technology, it is about communicating. The radio is just a interface tool, and always changing. The mystery is in using the propagation mode that nature provides. That doesn't change, just our understanding of it.
I also like the fact that CW is compatable regardless of the level of technology used on either end..
Jim
K4AHO
SKCC #1235
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To N9DG and WO0Z:
Thank you for pointing out some of the visual advantages gained by the SDR approach. You've provoked my thinking in this regard, and that's a good thing.
I do have a minor quibble with WO0Z's statement regarding sharp filtering:
"Some not so obvious advantages:
1. Complete control over filtering. Skirts can be as sharp or as soft as you want. At any offset you want. On CW, imagine being able to listen to the DX with a 50 Hz filter, no ringing, no joke. So there's a tuner upper near by? You don't hear him. I usually listen at 125 Hz to 250 Hz. It's a dream."
Such narrow filtering is certainly available in the more traditional radios; 125-250 Hz crystal IF filters have been available from INRAD, and my MFJ DSP unit (admittedly an audio unit) provides FIR bandpass filtering as narrow as 30 Hz.
I think your best arguments are the ones concerning the visual spectrum displays.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KE7IPY on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A lot of people assume that SDR is destined to remain tethered to a general purpose computer. That is not necessarily so. There's no reason why a radio itself couldn't contain all the hardware and software needed. For now it's true that you do need a computer in order to control the machines, but that's a stop gap. In time, I'm confident that SDR will find its way into stand-alone, lower power requirement radios. SDR is still very young, remember.
It'd be interesting to see who'll come out with the first software radio platform standard.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by VE6CNU on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading a lot of the replies, it is clear that SDR will be pursued by many and may indeed be the future of the hobby. By visualizing the spectrum in 3D and immersing ourselves in this environment we will almost instantaneously obtain profound knowledge of "what's out there". One analogy comes to mind. Imagine being able to scan the lake you're on for all the fish, including the rare, prize ones? Immediately you propel your GPS guided boat to the spot and bingo. Or did we miss the fact that it was a nice, sunny day with a gentle breeze and it might not be that important to catch a fish every time out? Between DX spotting clusters and advanced SDR technology (as outlined above), where will the satisfaction and enjoyment come from? Sure, many enjoy programming and improving algorithms, and that's fine. But to scan through each band and see what's workable in a matter of a minute or two seems to take a lot of the fun out of it (at least for me). What am I going to do the rest of the evening?
There's no question that technology will continue to evolve - and that those who don't keep up will eventually get left behind. But I also believe that we need to stop and smell the roses every now and then too. Our enjoyment has everything to do with our expectations.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not sure why everyone is concerned about serviceability of SDR rigs.
All of the new rigs, i.e. TS2000, IC7800, IC-7000, IC-706, FT-857, etc. etc. just to name a few, ALL use microcontrollers/computers, proprietary ASIC's and of course SMD's, so what's the difference??
RFI from computers can be minimized w/o a lot of trouble and today's computers tend to be much cleaner than the old clunkers. Yes, there are exceptions...
As some have also commented, the idea of controlling a radio with a keyboard and mouse isn't attractive to me either.
A better operator interface is needed, but the amateur market isn't exactly an attractive place when it comes to shelling out large R&D $$ for an accessory that most of us probably will never buy.
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA0ZZG on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We've been using computers in our radios far longer than most people realize. If the radio uses a synthizer to generate mixer injections, chances are it's run by a computer. I had to undo special programming in my Motorola Razr phone because saying "open channel D" to call home was spooking too many people. I also had to take out the wav file in my PC that said "I'm sorry Dave I'm afraid I can't to that." for the same reason.
Personal communications, in the past, were valued things. Now, it's become so easy, they no longer have the same value. I believe we want to go back to the way it once was.
Dave WA0ZZG
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WI7B on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Software-defined radio (SDR)is a fantastic development. It will eventually allow the direct programming of frequencies sets across the radio spectrum in a device with clear graphical user interfaces.
At present the price of a SDR for HF is not competitve with a typical amateur HF transceiver. Additionally, shielding requirements between processing units in the SDR and high power HF outputs may require specially fabricated and dedicated personal computing devices beyond those falling under Part 15 requirements alone.
Otherwise, I can't wait!
73,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N4KC on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, it's NOT an either/or situation! SDRs are not--nor will they ever be--mandatory. Nobody says you can't string together a bunch of tubes and transmit to your heart's content. That's one of the beauties of this hobby. If I want a totally-software-controlled radio, and if I can afford it, I can have it. If I want something with tubes and a hundred pounds of transformers inside it, and I can find the parts to make it work, I can have it.
I see far too many of the discussions on this and other forums deteriorate to "I don't want to do that so nobody should do that!" There's room for all of us. To each his own, so long as his own does not infringe on my own. Also, today's SDR hater may be its biggest advocate at some point.
One thing: when I have a nice chat with somebody on 40 SSB or 30 CW, I can't tell if he is using a SDR-5000 or an old Drake TR-4...until he tells me. Either way, I'll probably ask him to tell me about his station, its story, his likes and dislikes.
73,
Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WO0Z on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> At present the price of a SDR for HF
> is not competitve with a typical
> amateur HF transceiver.
I think that is actually a statement of entry price.
If you compare its features with other rigs, I believe you'll conclude that it is a very fine value. You get a lot for your money.
It's just that, at present, the base price is over a thousand bucks, even for the SDR 1000.
However, even then, more may be able to justify one than one might think.
The SDR 1000 was embraced by both HFers and VHFers in a way I can't recall seeing recently.
If you have both interests, then with a couple of transverters, you can make the SDR 1000 or the Flex 5000 serve all of your base station needs with one rig in a way that I'm not sure is possible with very many other rigs.
To be sure, not everyone can go this way. But, it might be within the grasp of more folks than meets the eye. I see a lot of pictures of folks in their shacks with multiple rigs (and who knows what else behind those).
To the extent this is you, there is an opportunity to "do it all" with one superior base station rig.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AA4PB on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SDR in its present state doesn't include the RF front end of the radio. The software can define different modulation techniques, bandwidths, etc. but it doesn't mean that you can select any frequency across the spectrum. If we ever get to the point where the antenna connects directly to an A/D converter then it will truely be completely software defined.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W4PA on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whoa! WA4D? The "DOG" is back?
I have to crack a smile. The DOG... going digital ?!?
Scott W4PA
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N7YA on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, i have to be honest with you...i may or may not look into this system, it wont kill me to try something new. But if i decide to remain with the old "stick and rudder" ham radio, no worries either.
But if i run across a signal on the air using an authentic spark station, a true-blue qrp setup or a high end, fully interfaced computerized system...what do i care? my mission in ham radio is to talk with other hams and make friends as well as trying to get as many countries as i can. I dont care what hes using or how he got his license, as long as its all legal and he operates with respect to the rules and his fellow hams.
But, you guys can do it however you like, it wont bother me one bit...i like a world full of variety. I would be happy to chat with any one of you, regardless of your transmit system. I just wanted to say that before this thread (like most of them) deteriorates into bedlam. good day.
73...Adam, N7YA
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"SDR in its present state doesn't include the RF front end of the radio. The software can define different modulation techniques, bandwidths, etc. but it doesn't mean that you can select any frequency across the spectrum."
>>> Not sure which SDR you're looking at, but Flexradio's Flex5000A has an RF front end - ready to plug n'play.
Buy the "C" version and all you need is a monitor - the PC is built in. Even 2 DVI interfaces for LCD monitors.....
http://emartshops.com/FlexRadio_Systems/Transceivers.html
I've heard them on the air and they sound great. I even heard one on AM driving a linear amplifier and was quite impressed with the transmit audio quality.
For now, too pricey for me but maybe someday....
.....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AC5UP on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Slightly related, but there's a persistent showbiz rumor that Broderick Crawford was 'motivated' to play the Highway Patrol part as he was well known to the CHP for chronic DUI... Help the CHP look good on TV and maybe he'd get a little slack at traffic stops.
You'll find some mention of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderick_Crawford in the trivia section.
At the time of the TV show he was past the prime of his career, but to my eyes was a good match for the role.
Aside from that, something should be said about the potential for the user interface of a software radio being infinitely customizable. Buy a conventional box with knobs and what you see is what you get, make it virtual and there's a chance you can tweak the rig into exactly what you like. Owners of the old Yaesu FT-901DM can relate to this as the VFO knob spun the wrong way by western standards. To an Asian accustomed to reading right to left it made sense, the rest of us had to learn to go the other way...
Used to be that drill bits and soldering irons were the home brewers' best friends... Now it's the keyboard and mouse. Both are tools, ya' know.
- AC5UP
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K6AER on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“SDR in its present state doesn't include the RF front end of the radio”
Yes it does. The SDR is a single conversion radio with the A/D converters taking the first IF output and the DSP doing the work of typical second conversion IF and product detectors in older radios. Today’s new transceivers are built very much like a SDR radios and share much of the same technology.
The big difference is your processor is tied to your computer and can be upgraded with computer advances unlike a fixed design of an all in one box radio.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KG6OMK on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The idea of "SDR" and a computer screen based user interface are NOT the same thing. One can have one and not the other. For example I could use some kind of "rig control" software on an old Icon radio and have a computer screen and mouse interface to a non-SDR. Some of the new "big three" radios ARE SDR even if they don't say it directly and they all have knobs for many functions
Also there are any number of people right now working on ways to build a front panel with knobs and switches and sliders that can "talk" to a computer. As yet this is very rare in ham radio but in the high end audio recording studio world it is common. (there are USB "mixer panels" that don't mix audio signals. They just send the slider possitions to a computer so the recording engineer does not have to deal with using a mouse. The idea is that you create a "control surface" with mechanical controls that use MIDI. So you can build a radio front panel that acts a little bit like a musician's MIDI keyboard. Same concept as a remote front panel on a mobile transceiver. Someother ideas are to simply use a musical instrument to control the radio Why not tune a radio using the white and black keys of a piano? Or more likely the jog/shuttle control of the video editing controller. Shape a filer with a set of sliders on a mixer board.
The real reason you see so many virtual controls is that they are expensive in both money and space. But really, we are in a new "Golden Age" where change and new ideas will happen rapidly
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by G3SEA on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes ! It is inevitable :)
The only constant is change. Even in Ham Radio ;)
KH6/G3SEA
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by ICR71A on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Up until about 1988, all of my vehicles had carburetors in them. They were relatively easy to repair and modify. For the better part of 25 years, every vehicle that I owned also had a manual transmission. In any of them there were no speed, C02, oxygen, or other sensors aside from oil pressure and engine temperature. No automatic braking systems, or computer controlled anything. Cars and trucks are now full of this stuff, and manual transmissions are special order and only available on a few models. I believe that anyone who has tried to effect a major repair on their vehicle in the recent past understands that service has moved into the province of the professional.
It is the same for every other bit of technology around us in the home--from washers and dryers to home entertainment electronics. Remember when televisions had user accessable controls to adjust the horizontal and vertical stability, and a knob had to be rotated to change channels--with a fine tuning knob also? All parts of the past.
A variety of logic circuits, ranging from simple gates to complex processors has taken hold in the amateur rig. Where 20 years ago a resonant circuit employing traditional RF design was omnipresent, operational amps now provide the same function with greater accuracy and control. These innovations have made rigs smaller, decreased power consumption, and yes, made them and their internal components "consumables"--designed to be repaired as a mainboard replacement or simply disposed of.
A poster stated that manufacturers will produce what we want. This is a true logical fallacy, for the manufacturing industry has been telling us what we want and need for nearly a century now. If what they make is all that is available, that is what you will buy. Radios are no different than automobiles in that respect.
The knob is a wonderful anachronism--however all of my home entertainment electronics lacks them--and ham radios are following suit. Whether a pushbutton or touch screen, these control interfaces are virtually controlling a circuit through logic. Logic based equipment is what our future is--and we can call it SDR or anything else.
Talking about dependability over the long term is a contradiction expecially in a niche market such as ham radio. In order for companies to make profit, users must consume. Consume means to "use up" and purchase more. This is planned obsolescence, the very reason that for most makes of rig parts are impossible to find just a few years after a rig was introduced and the next model comes out.
This sort of debate has the same sort of semantics attached to it as the EchoLink debate--that EchoLink is not ham radio. The fallacy seems to be that if the control operator is not directly in a control position in front of the rig--some "sacred canopy" boundary has been crossed. Whether the control operator is using software to control his rig, or is using that software to remotely control a station (be it HF or VHF+), he or she is still operating a station and communicating via radio waves.
Purists can always have boat anchors, and I have them. My main rigs are mid-1980s Icom gear that although not boatanchors are entering the realm of "classics." They permit me to use HRD to control a variety of filters and modes, and my computer soundcard enables digital modes and DSP of the audio product. So even with that gear I am deploying a primitive form of SDR.
The future is here boys and girls, and there ain't no going back.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by ONAIR on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Someday computers will replace the human brain, and then they can all chat with each other across the bands!
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N2EY on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some considerations about SDRs and interfaces:
1) One place where "analog" receivers have the edge is latency - the amount of time it takes the receiver to turn RF into AF. With analog receivers the dealy from antenna connector to headphones is usually only microseconds, but with SDR it can be much longer. This can be a real problem with modes like QSK CW or data modes that want fast TR switching times.
2) Human interfaces evolve over time, and we're just at the beginning in terms of non-tradition radio interfaces. We've used knobs, buttons and switches for decades because they were the only options, but computer control offers us other options. We should look at all of them.
3) Even though new interfaces are possible, they aren't necessarily the best. Cars still have steering wheels and foot pedals, even though other control systems are possible. Remember when light pens were a big deal in computer control?
What would be really slick, IMHO, would be to have the radio in one box with no controls on it, and a human-interface box of your choice, with a standard protocol to connect them. Change the radio and keep the interface, or the other way around. You don't have to get a new keyboard, mouse and monitor every time you get a new computer, right?
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
You don't need a dedicated computer for SDR
|
|
|
by KB1HTW on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While not available in a ham handy-talkie just yet, there are hand-held SDR based radios out there, serving our troops.
The PRC-148 is the first of many new JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System) radios being delivered to the DoD:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/thales-prc148-jem-the-first-tactically-deployed-jtrs-radio-02976/
It won't be long before it's cheaper for Icom/Yaesu/Kenwood/Alinco to migrate their HT's to an SDR-based design - heck, some current models may be SDR for all I know.
I'd love a FlexRadio Flex-5000 for my boat :)
|
| |
|
RE: get ready for SDC!
|
|
|
by VE3ENG on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Never mind SDR, i can't wait for SDC; software defined coffee maker!
Imagine controling your coffee maker with software like WinCoffee and Mac Bean....and not to mention the upgrades ver 1.001, 1.003..
At last, the perfect cup of SDC coffee next to my SDR.
73, James, Ve3eng
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W3OZ on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The really nice thing about amateur radio these days is that you can have what ever level of technology you want. From something just a little better than a crystal set to the latest digi-wigi cutting edge devices. What ever you want you can have and still enjoy the hobby.
My observation is that most people out there, actively engaged in any pursuit in life, are really only comfortable with what they know and do or use all the time. Too many hams disparage the way others are doing things in the hobby simply because they have never tried it and don’t want to spend the time to learn it either.
I know in my case I chased the DX bug for years using traditional CW or SSB. I never imagined that there were other parts of the hobby that I would enjoy as much. I especially never thought the day would come when I would connect my computer to the rig and like to work in that fashion.
Like it or not guys and gals, things are going to change. You can either decided that you are going to experience life as it comes to you and incorporate the changes in technology into your life or brand yourself as an old fart and just grump along until they put you in the ground.
We give lip service to wanting to bring young people into the hobby, but just look at us. We are talking about the merits of SDR rigs over traditional analog rigs. Give me a break for heavens sake; have you been living under a rock? Have you seen what is going on in Cell phones, PDAs, Blackberries, Bluetooth, computers, gaming systems and almost every other electronic device you can think of today. Do you think kids are that excited with a big ugly box with 8 million knobs and switches on it? You got to be kidding.
Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying you can’t afford something new. If you are alive, you can afford anything you REALLY want. It is all a matter of priorities.
As for me, I am going to modernize myself and my stuff as much as I have time to do. I do not yet have a true SDR rig, but I will within a year. I do have all my rigs connected to my computer and most of the devices connected to the rig are also controlled by the computer. I seldom have to even look at the rigs; in fact they are in a rack to the left of me. I don’t twist knobs and I can get to the menus via the computer much faster than having to push button after button and remember how to do it. Just one click and it is done. I am positive I can change frequencies much faster than anyone using a VFO knob.
But if you like living in the past and doing old things like you did 40 years ago, well bless you and I wish you the best in the past.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KX8N on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think a lot of resistance to SDR is not just the fact that it integrates computers more with radio, I think it's just a resistance to change itself (which most hams are VERY bad about). Most hams are used to operating a solid, sometimes heavy, well built radio. But lets say you could take something with the quality of a $10,000 HF rig, and shrink it to the size of a cell phone. I'd bet there would be many hams who would not touch it with a ten foot dipole, regardless of quality or price.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KC8YXA on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I still like the warm glow of a tubes but to use the new modes we have to. Look at the radios most of us are useing now there all CPU based. Dont get me wrong I love my old Tempo-1 and other older radios Im still looking for a Kenwood-820 with a low Ser# . Well thats my 2cents.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W7ETA on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the article with FB pixs.
Seeing the Highway Patrol pix was a BLAST from the past. I can't remember the last time I saw one of those episodes.
Next time I'm in the market for a "new" rig, I'll look at what is available. As it is now, I set the knobs, and leave them alone after that. Plus, the TS930Ss I have does everything I want it to. The Drakes I have are just plane FUN to operate, except in a split DX pile-up.
Best Wishes
Bob
|
| |
|
Discussing pros and cons of SDR
|
|
|
by AC7ZL on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is possible to build a traditional analog radio from discrete components, and interface it to a desktop computer such that any adjustments made to frequency, gains, filters, volume, and whatever, are set or adjusted by punching computer keys and clicking option boxes. Conversely, it is possible to build a software defined radio that is attached to a metal panel with knobs, analog meters, a slide-rule tuning scale, and if you wish, a cat's eye.
The matter of SDR and the matter of human-machine interfaces are two separate issues, not one.
I think there will always be a place for simple analog radio equipment for several reasons. These include relative ease of construction and repair, reliability, and low power consumption.
On the other hand, it is fairly clear to me that at some point in the not-so-distant future, any radio equipment of any complexity (including anything purchased commercially) will be software defined. Digital processors, RAM, and mixed-signal chips are getting smaller, cheaper, and more energy efficient every day.
Unfortunately, future radios built from these parts will be probably be considered disposable, not repairable. (Try replacing a BGA chip with tools available on the average home workbench.)
As to human interfaces, we are analog creatures who intuitively favor analog interfaces.
The "gas pedal" in any new car could easily be replaced with a numeric keypad, since it is a computer that actually meters fuel to the engine. The gas pedal remains, because it is easy and intuitive for us to associate the analog changes in the position of our feet to proportionate changes in vehicle speed.
Why did the computer mouse catch on? Code could easily be written to enable one to move the cursor by whacking at the arrow keys. Or, a window could be added to allow one to enter the coordinates to which the cursor should fly. Needless to say, these interfaces are counter-intuitive and would be ergonomic disasters. The mouse is successful because it capitalizes on our innate tendency to move our arms to point to objects of interest.
This is not to say that there is no place for a digital user interface. I think digital interfaces work best with regard to functions that are discrete (non-trending). The also work well with control values that are of a set-and-forget nature. Examples include setting cook time on a microwave oven, or the setting desired temperature in a digital furnace thermostat.
A well-designed radio of the future will almost certainly have SDR technology under the hood. The front panel will have knobs (actually encoders) for anything an operator is likely to tweak during normal use. A display or screen will have graphics capability to display display virtual analog meters and waterfalls. Everything else will be buried in a menu somewhere.
Pete
AC7ZL
|
| |
|
RE: Discussing pros and cons of SDR
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sorry, the $$$$ necessary for entry into the world of SDR are out of my reach. The same goes for D-Star.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K1DA on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Software radios are already turning up on the used market..apparently not living up to expectations. BTW the Connery "wrong crystals" remark - Hollywood
BS of course - line units going into that kind of operation do radio checks first.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KF4HR on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see 4 major issues with SDR's.
One, and probably most important. Hams (in general) resist change at every opportunity. Just to name a few; Spark to CW, CW to AM Phone, AM Phone to SSB, tube equipment versus solid state, CW licensees to non-CW licensees, Real EME versus WSJT EME, and analog to digital. It's history and more than likely, it'll be our future as well. I don't buy in to any of this, but it's a fact that some people have resisted change in our hobby every step of the way. It's the old, "Dhem darn new fangled gadgets wit der bell and whistles!" scenario.
Two, the fun of knobs and switches. No getting around this, most Ham's just like 'em. Maybe it makes us feel like we're operating the Space Shuttle or a console at the Houston Space Flight Center. Who knows...
Three, feedback. Besides a PC screen, it would be nice if when a parameter changed on the SDR, that it was indicated somewhere on the magic black box - indicating the change actually took place. Perhaps a string of well-placed fancy LED lights might do the trick.
Four, the price. The average Joe might think because a manufacturer doesn't have to pay big bucks to have a fancy front panel interface designed, and pay for all those LCD screens, meters, buttons, knobs, fancy rubber coatings for the knobs, panel printing, etc, etc. that the SDR radio might be less expensive than a standard type of radio. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Personally I think lowering the price is the 'only' way SDR manufacturers might be able to introduce more Ham's to SDRadio's, and increase their sales numbers. Lower the price to the point where Ham's actually have to make a hard comparison. Until then, I think SDR will be owned by only a few and remain a novelty to the rest of us; regardless how well they work.
KF4HR
|
| |
|
RE: Discussing pros and cons of SDR
|
|
|
by W6OP on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I work as a computer programmer all day. The last thing I want to do when I get off work is to have to "work" at my hobby.
I also don't want something with an operating system that is going to crash just as the DX comes back to me.
Pete W6OP
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by VE3TMT on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W30Z writes:
"Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying you can’t afford something new. If you are alive, you can afford anything you REALLY want. It is all a matter of priorities."
Hmmm Larry, let's see...
New roof summer of '06 $4700
New windows, spring of '07 $2300
Motor rebuild in my car $4500
New struts and exhaust for wifes car $575
Patio for gazebo in backyard '07 $900
High school ID for my son $10
Not to mention the $20K plus I spent renovating the house in '05. I guess you are right, it is all just a matter of priorities.
73,
VE3TMT
|
| |
|
RE: Discussing pros and cons of SDR
|
|
|
by WB4TJH on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If it ever comes to the day that the only radio available to me is a computer screen generated radio, then that is the day I will bid the hobby of ham radio good-bye and devote all my spare time to golf and flyfishing.
|
| |
|
RE: Discussing pros and cons of SDR
|
|
|
by ICR71A on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I hear that Colorado is good for both...
73 DE N4PRT
|
| |
|
RE: Discussing pros and cons of SDR
|
|
|
by N3OX on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Software radios are already turning up on the used market..apparently not living up to expectations."
Or people just want to sell their Flex-1000 to buy a Flex-5000
:-)
I'm going to start playing with a 7MHz VFO, a couple of mixers, some small amplifiers and some software... seems like you can have a real cheap SDR if you build your own front end, feed I/Q signals into a stereo sound card and use some of the free programs out there.
This is why SDR is cool, it's going to bring back hams working on their own gear again... but in software.
Great opportunity to get the young computer programmer/hacker crowd interested in radio, I think.
You want young blood? SDR could help.
I don't like radios without knobs either, but the interface on the current rigs is such a minor part of the SDR possibilities....
You can put knobs on a software defined radio. Don't let that distract you from the positives.
Dan
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W4AMP on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Who cares about sdr? I am just glad to see that the "dog" is still around.
73
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Radios like YLs should have knobs.
:-)
Seriously, SDR is definitely the future path and I'm encouraged by its early adopters.
I tested the Flex SDR1000 for 10 days in my shack and was impressed, although its RF dynamic performance was not as good as my TR-7. Have never used a 5000, and look forward to the opportunity.
When it can deal with the 1.2 megawatt SWBC station up the street from me as well as the TR-7 can, I'll be an adopter, too, I think. I love that gurus can continue to improve it daily, kind of like Wikipedia. Open source is the way to go, and it's unfortunate Ten Tec did not go that way. They should.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Discussing pros and cons of SDR
|
|
|
by W4VR on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Until the Japanese begin marketing SDR radios I don't think we'll see too many knob hungry converts!
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KI4DTB on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Let's hear it for knobs and analog meters, I've gone back to one. Doug KI4DTB
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N4VNZ on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Shucks, some of us done been there and got the t-shirt...20 years ago, many of us were interfacing crude computers (Vic-20's, c-64's, CoCo's, etc.) with our radios. It was called packet, and was the forerunner of the internet. Mine was a hacked-up Vic with a remote keyboard and a black&white tv for a monitor...homemade terminal program, to boot...Jeez, some of ya'll act like this is new stuff. SO WHAT if you control the rig via a keyboard???
I can see some of you out there sneering like Billy Idol just because you can use a damned computer...OOOOHHHH! What l'enfants terrible!!! Looks like the 'pooter done replaced the V-8 so you can show all us ole farts how big your d""k is...
Geezer bashing does not make you look cool...
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WQ8U on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You are NOT describing a future activity - it happens today in the shacks of the serious contesters and DXers. Finding the station, sending and receiving the stirle message "59,73, W#XX" and logging the "QSO" are all automated - as is the QSLing and log submission.
Computers can take all the fun out of ham radio if we let them - don't let it happen! Real hams talk to other real hams on radios - not computers!
73
Mac
WQ8U
Hillsborough, NC
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WO0Z on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Software radios are already turning up
>on the used market..apparently not
>living up to expectations
Not a bit. If you follow the Flex mail reflector (I think there are archives), you'll find that there are a few folks that try it and sell out. It happens. Some people really can't give up those knobs.
But, the majority of used SDR 1000s are upgrades.
The Flex 5000 is selling well.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W6TH on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
What a friendly bunch of hams we have here today.
Friendship is like peeing your pants,
everyone can see it,
But only you can feel the true warmth.
.:
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W3OZ on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a great topic and I am glad to see so many different ideas. I just wanted to add something because I think some have missed the point a little. SDR rigs are not anymore expensive then new non-SDR rigs, where have you gotten the idea? I bought a new Icom ProIII at Dayton in 2005 paid $2,700 for it. That was $300.00 off list price. I see a brand new SDR 5000 is selling for less than that now almost 2 ˝ years later. Many of the new rigs run for more than that and like one guy said you can get an SDR for less then $100.00 brand new. What other NEW rig can you get for that? Ya Ya I know you have to have a computer, but I got a new Dell for a little over $300 so still not what I would call expensive. A lot of us have computers around the shack that would work dedicated to an SDR rig so there may be very little more to outlay.
Some guys seem to think that you MUST use a mouse with an SDR rig. Well that is not true either. There are all kinds of devices that interface with these rigs. I use one that is just a little knob that you turn to the right to go down the band and to the left to go up the band. Gee just like a VFO knob, but smoother. There are other external boxes you can add that have all kinds of knobs switches and lights so you could feel real cozy.
And to VE3TMT been there done that. I have 3 daughters who graduated college. One of which got her masters’ degree at an Ivy League School at over $35,000 a year. For which I elected to mortgage my home to pay. I have all those same things you mentioned fail and need replacement. But still it is a matter of priorities. If you wanted a new rig more than those other things well, you would have one. Get a tent, ride a bike and dump the family. Hay it’s only an idea but if you made the decision to spend your money that way you did I guess it had a higher priority to you then a new rig. Myself I am rich, I have Social Security. That is why I am exercising my priority to sell some of my other equipment to buy the new SDR but this is my priority now. Whether you think you can or can not either way you are right. It is just a matter of priorities in life.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K3TJ on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As the first person to bring an Army MMCS to PA using MSYS, I know people resist change. That was many many years ago using an Icom 761. And it took a long time for them to change.
Today they demand it works better and faster. Times Change.
For voice, I stick to a Collins KWM2A, 312B-5 and 30L-1. I like a simple radio that hears almost as well as this new stuff that costs $10k or more.
But then, what do I know, I still keep a paper logbook.
Respectfully, Ed k3tj
In the interest of full disclosure, I did also buy a FT1000MP for cw and I snagged an IC 706 for the car.
DX IS
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AE5I on October 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article, Mike!
I think you've made a good assessment of the issue.
You are definitely correct about good ol' analog rigs with dials and knobs and switches being a lot more fun for some of us. How MANY of us, I can't say, and the number may dwindle as time goes by....
In my case, I'm not a bit afraid of technology, but just prefer rigs without menus when I'm just operating for fun. It's just nice to have all functions right in front of you all the time and not to have to dig down through a menu structure trying to find the control for this or that. Now, in an emergency situation, if you were having to go quickly between two or more different frequencies on different bands and that sort of thing, then a computer controlled rig can be really handy.
My main station rigs are all tube type separates (xmtrs and rcvrs) and as long as I can keep `em running, that's probably the way it'll be.
I do have an SGC 2020 for when I need to work quickly, though.
Nice article... Thanks!
Tom AE5I
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K5VY on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yaesu has provided the best of both worlds! BOTH the FT-2000 AND the FTdx-9000 series have a large number of knobs and switches on the front panel.... It's a toss-up as to wheather they are "analog" or "digital" in their operation/function. But, the software definitions of their operation is obvious. The upgrades are practical and easy. These radios are expensive and certainly not for everyone. But, as we learn more, use them more, looking to the future is kinda neat!! I'm an "Old Guy" (70+ yo) and I do tend to resist change like most of the others of my generation. However, these changes are what will most likely make Amateur Radio a lasting and satisfying hobby, one way or another, for us all. SDR is here to stay for sure.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AA4PB on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My understanding of SDR is that the modulation and demodulation is done by software. By that definition many of the newer radios are SDR even if they have a front panel with knobs and even if they do not have user upgradeable FLASH memory. SDR does not necessarily mean you must use a sound card in a PC to do the modulation/demodulation.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N3OX on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"SDR does not necessarily mean you must use a sound card in a PC to do the modulation/demodulation. "
I think maybe it *does* mean that you need to use a general-purpose CPU running "software" to do it though.
I'd be inclined to call DSP running on specifically designed signal processing chips FDR... Franklin Del... wait, Firmware Defined Radio.
Fine line of course...
I also think there's an aspect of real-time user customization to the SDR philosophy...
You take your radio from being a regular SSB/CW rig to a binaural thing feeding I/Q channels into either ear, to a spectrum analyzer just by going into a menu somewhere.
Dan
|
| |
|
It's all about the "S" in SDR
|
|
|
by N9DG on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA4PB:
"My understanding of SDR is that the modulation and demodulation is done by software. By that definition many of the newer radios are SDR even if they have a front panel with knobs and even if they do not have user upgradeable FLASH memory. SDR does not necessarily mean you must use a sound card in a PC to do the modulation/demodulation."
In the strictest sense of most definitions for SDR that I can find, this is indeed true. But from a more real world practical perspective this is debatable. And it is not so much a question of using external CODECs or PC's that is the real issue here. The real issues are:
1. How much of the radio software definability is actually constrained by the non software only circuitry that precedes the ADC/DSP/SDR?
2. Does the manufacturer have a genuine interest to continuously expand and refine the "S" in SDR of their radio? If not why not?
K5VY:
"Yaesu has provided the best of both worlds! BOTH the FT-2000 AND the FTdx-9000 series have a large number of knobs and switches on the front panel.... It's a toss-up as to wheather they are "analog" or "digital" in their operation/function. But, the software definitions of their operation is obvious. The upgrades are practical and easy."
Arguably this is not the case per the first part of this post of mine. The FT-9000/2000/950/450, IC-7800/7700/7000 etc., TS-2000/480, Jupiters/Orions/Omni VII's etc. all fall in the vicinity of being 25% SDR / 75% HW "definition" radios. The K3 is about a 35/65 split with useful provisions for supporting external HW & SDR. The FlexRadio SDR-1000 and Flex-5000's are in the 70% / 30% ratio range where they are mostly "S" (Software) and are not nearly as constrained in their future possibilities by the HW. And perhaps most importantly the Flex models have an extremely active software development effort/team behind them. The other 25/75 ratio radios don't even come close in terms of SW development activity for various reasons.
|
| |
|
Big 3 SDR's
|
|
|
by N9DG on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4VR:
"Until the Japanese begin marketing SDR radios I don't think we'll see too many knob hungry converts!"
This would be most unfortunate. And given the design architectures of the most recent round of new models from the JA radio manufacturers I simply do not see anything being >50% SDR coming from them anytime soon.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a wait -n- see attitude.
I simply love my Kenwood TS-950SDX. I will enjoy the brave HAMS that will noodle around with SDR.
If an SDR experimenter kit was out for under $100........ Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W4FFM on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some of the discussion here has been about the user interface (either directly or indirectly), whether to use knobs or a keyboard and mouse. So, I'd like to throw out some ideas just about the user-interfaces (ignoring for the moment the major part of this discussion, which is about SDR vs analog radio).
My own most common interaction with varied interface devices and (sort-of) radio are the keyboards I use and internet radio and sound cards. Most of the enhanced keyboards I have use a two-button volume control marked "+" and "-" respectively (come to think of it, some of my stereo components use the same approach), but my favorite has a little knob (with detents). I find the knob a lot easier to use accurately than the +/- buttons to adjust the volume. The same thing on my Prius... there is one set of volume controls on the steering wheel which is a +/- button, and another on the dashboard which is a knob... the same feelings about them.
I think that when 'scanning' across a range of values analog controls are more easily and accurately used. Keyboards are far and away the best interface for entering static values (much easier than up/down buttons or analog knobs), thus the 'direct entry' capabilities of many modern radios.
Attempts to design GUIs that imitate analog controls (think the CQ-100 GUI) are very difficult to use accurately... turning a knob with a cursor usually just leads to that... curses (sorry, couldn't resist).
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I also agree with WB2WIK/6. No SDR front end comes close to a TR-7 or a moded TS-950SDX.
If your in a high IMOD/BDCST area....SDR will not work well.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W4FFM on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think that the original posting addressed just the user-interface rather than SDR vs "analog" (which is really just analog controls)
OK, now to address the SDR vs Analog issue... I don't think that there are any modern rigs that are *not* software-defined, to a certain extent all of them are (the upgrade of my TS-570 to a 'G' version is a software upgrade).
Initially, the whole idea of SDR was to shift much of the work of the radio to the desktop/laptop computer (which was infinitely more powerful than what was contained within the radio's box). That would allow a company to market a less expensive, but more sophisticated and capable radio that just required a hook-up to the user's already-available home computer.
One advantage to SDR is easier upgrades. To use my previous example of the Kenwood TS-570, the radio itself has to be shipped back to Kenwood for the uograde rather than just downloaded and installed, which would be the case for an SDR.
I suspect that even if we do end up being restricted to SDRs that analog interfaces will be available, witness the control wheels, pedals, and throttle controls that are available for home computers which run flight simulators and car simulator games. I wouldn't be surprised to see inexpensive analog interfaces become available for the SDR, allowing the home computer to lapse back into its role of providing computing power for the rest of the radio and, hopefully, saving us Hams some money. Of course, the SDRs I've seen haven't been all that money-saving (buying the SDR TSB-2000 saves less than $200 over the 'analog' TS-2000).
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AB0WR on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
wa2jjh:"also agree with WB2WIK/6. No SDR front end comes close to a TR-7 or a moded TS-950SDX.
If your in a high IMOD/BDCST area....SDR will not work well."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm not sure where all this is coming from.
Doesn't the TR-7 just use a hot-carrier diode ring mixer as the first element in the receiver?
If that is true, then how good the TR-7 is depends mainly on what the noise contribution of the vfo is, how well balanced the mixer is, and the loss in the mixer. These will be the main contributors to what the dynamic range is and to the IP3 values the receiver has.
Conceptually a hot-carrier diode ring mixer will result in a noise figure of 7-8db while the Tayloe detector used in many SDR's is easily capable of a noise figure of 5-6db -- assuming, of course, that the vfo noise contribution is equivalent to that in the TR-7.
The IP3 figure for the TR-7 is what? 0db?
A Tayloe detector in an SDR should be able to exceed this easily.
The Tayloe detectors may not have the dynamic range of the TR-7 but that is easily fixable with an RF attenuator in the SDR. I don't know if the SDR's you have looked at have such.
I strongly suspect the difference you see between the two is NOT due to the front-end but is due to other parts of the implementations. Shielding of the radios plus the details in the following stages, e.g. DSP filtering and audio stages in the SDR versus the analog IF and filters plus audio in the TR-7.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
mil spec Vari-l or minicircuits matched shkotkey double balanced mixers are used inb the TR-7.
Yes...The TR-7 is ultra sheilded!
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I found the SDR-1000, unusable at my NYC QTH. I used two VFO's on the TR-7.
1)The internal PTO
2)An after market DDS
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Re the TR-7: For a 29 year-old design, it's pretty good.
Sherwood Engineering's data (available from Bob Sherwood on request, and some is on line) indicates the TR-7 noise floor to be -134 dBm, 100 kHz blocking to be 146 dB, and "dynamic range wide spaced" to be 99 dB, all of which are figures of merit that are better than almost everything else ever sold into the amateur radio market including the Orion-II, the Elecraft K2 and the SDR1000.
I haven't seen any Sherwood data on the SDR5000 yet, I don't think it's been posted.
In looking over the Sherwood report, I see the "100 kHz blocking" data at 146 dB is actually the highest number posted for any receiver ever tested, including modified ones.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I guess its all in what someone likes. I dont have a problem with an SDR. Id like to try one someday. Some people who work with computers all day want no part of them when they come home so I can see their point. My present rig is menu driven and I have no issues with that at all. In fact I love it. Some folks are happy with an old tube boat anchor. Its all good. Whatever you like use it and enjoy. But just because what someone else uses isnt your cup of tea thats no reason to slam them for it.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AK2B on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH wrote:
“If an SDR experimenter kit was out for under $100........”
As I mentioned in my last post you can do it for $10. The Softrock Lite receiver kits are not toys and work with the same software (PowerSDR) as the Flex radios. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/ is a very active group with participation from some very talented and helpful amateurs.
You will have to do some soldering of a few SMD’s but it is easier than you might think. There is help on the forum for that if you need it.
When you’re finished building, hook up an antenna, connect the stereo audio out to the line-in of your sound card, apply some power, set up the software and you’re in business. By the time you’re done, you will have learned a great deal about SDR technology and had a little fun in the process.
By the way, don’t assume just because the price is so low that you’re getting junk – far from it. These little receivers work quite well and the quality of components are top notch. Don’t ask me how Tony (KB9YIG) does it – it has to be a labor of love.
Tom, AK2B
|
| |
|
Software Defined Radio - a definition
|
|
|
by KB1HTW on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quoted from the GNU Radio website, referring to a definition of SDR by Joe Mitola of the MITRE Corporation:
"A software radio is a radio whose channel modulation waveforms are defined in software. That is, waveforms are generated as sampled digital signals, converted from digital to analog via a wideband DAC and then possibly upconverted from IF to RF. The receiver, similarly, employs a wideband Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) that captures all of the channels of the software radio node. The receiver then extracts, downconverts and demodulates the channel waveform using software on a general purpose processor."
Despite what previous posters have said, all of the signal processing doesn't have to be done by a general purpose processor. To do sophisticated modulation schemes, like say, the TTNT data radio the Air Force is looking at, you have to have high speed DSPs.
And you can certainly make a software radio that looks exactly like an old fashioned analog ham radio on the outsite - with knobs and switches - even an analog frequency dial if you want. The point is - SDR can be whatever you want it to be.
The GNU Radio project ( http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/ ) harkens back to the early days of amateur radio. Instead of features being locked up in your radio by the manufacturer, because the software source code is released under the GPL you can now tinker with it yourself. And if you happen to run Linux, you have one of the world's best software development platforms available for free. You don't even have to buy Visual Studio from Microsoft. We're back to being able to things ourselves rather than just buy what the manufacturers deem to sell us.
|
| |
|
RE: Software Defined Radio - a definition
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Software Defined Radio - a definition Reply
by KB1HTW on October 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Quoted from the GNU Radio website<
::I can't help it, I have to ask: What's GNU?
|
| |
|
RE: Software Defined Radio - a definition
|
|
|
by N3OX on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I can't help it, I have to ask: What's GNU"
Gnu's Not Unix
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N0AH on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'd rather see the research technology focus on RFI issues versus HD spectrum screens- Then maybe the low bansds would breath again instead of being surrounded by today's wonder bread of home entertainment gizmo's.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N3OX on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'd rather see the research technology focus on RFI issues"
With software defined radio you could potentially train your noise blanker to recognize and better eliminate the noise from all the neighborhood TVs.
It's a technical challenge, and this sort of thing needs some pretty sharp engineers to tackle it, but the nice thing about PC based SDR is as soon as someone does this, you can probably download it and use it.
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KD8K on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I haven't seen any Sherwood data on the SDR5000 yet"
Its not been posted, but is available by email from Rob. Its 96db IMD at 5 and 20Khz, 123db Blocking at 100Khz. Phase noise 123db at 10Khz.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K0RGR on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, I think a lot of hams are excited about SDR, but like me, they have met certain obstacles.
I am working on ordering a couple of the SoftRock kits right now. I finally have a PC at home that should do the job. If I find some more money hiding somewhere, I may have to look into these used FlexRadios...
I saw a demo of the FlexRadio some time ago, and I was blown away. I'm afraid it would be so much fun to play with the receiver, that I'd find little time to actually get on the air! That's not a good thing! But I'm a sucker for a good receiver, and SDR certainly has one. Yes - I will want something else for Field Day with much more dynamic range - maybe I should be looking for a good TR-7, though the TR-4 wasn't half bad, either.
When I build the 'ultimate' hamshack, I expect there to be a FlexRadio or something better in it.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AF6AY on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As usual, there's lots of confusion on just what SDR is about. It is NOT JUST THE CONTROL END...or the alleged "lack of knobs and adjustments."
Like it or not, we've had computer-digital control embedded in LF to UHF radios for almost a quarter century. Those aren't called "SDR" and no one seems to dislike the two-decade-old radios because they have microprocessors in them.
My general coverage receiver, an Icom IC-R70, very definitely uses a microprocessor to both control the tuning PLL system and indicate (in human terms) the frequency. It does that on-line with no visible pause in the display or audibile clue. That old Icom uses a three-loop PLL to set every frequency. They hadn't gotten around to using DDS yet back in the early 1980s. That old microprocessor's speed is fast enough to also handle the coupling between front panel and internal hardware for other functions. No audible or detectable interference from that microprocessor either.
My Icom 746Pro is newer, design only about two years old. It does more with its microprocessors (dual) and will do digital signal processing of both audio input and output as well as filtering the IF (true "brick-wall" response shape). Not only that, it has a "bandscope" as a sort of junior-grade Panadapter for seeing the RF activity on a slice of the spectrum around tuned frequency...plus other functions. It is not strictly an "SDR" but it is getting close to it with all the DSP built-in. Kenwood and Yaesu competitors have similar models and functions...but, visually, I prefer the black on white display of all the settings.
The original Panadapter always was a bummer to use despite the uniqueness of having a peripheral spectrum analyzer. That was back in the 1950s. Three-inch CRTs are okay for the near-sighted but I would rather have a display that doesn't require taking off my glasses to observe. Far-sighted folks generally didn't like it from what I've seen. A "bandscope" doesn't present a true picture either but none of the Big 3 pretend it is a "true" spectrum analyzer. It's still close, though, and one can see whether or not a signal is there on either side.
Mostly what I see in here on the negative comments about SDR, other than not knowing exactly what it is, is that IT GOES AGAINST WHAT THEY LEARNED IN THEIR YOUTH. Back then radios HAD to have knobs and big fancy dials. Looked impressive as hell to family and friends, increased a "rep" as a "radio expert"...:-)
Just about everyone in the USA has seen a PC screen today. They aren't amazed and awed by lots of knobs and dials sticking out of the front panel as in old radio.
When one gets into the guts of the hardware behind the front panel, there isn't a lot of difference in the functions therein. Big difference in how the control coupling is to wherever the hardware function resides. So, where is the REAL DIFFERENCE? For the last decade plus newer amateur radios have been "digitized." Each one has at least one digital processor inside it. Did anyone "lose" any function? No, most have GAINED.
Tsk. The Army's now-old AN/PRC-119 SINCGARS, first operational in 1989, had more DSP in it then than any, including highest-end ham transceiver. Over 300,000 of them have been built since then. NO tuning knob on its front panel, just a touch-screen. Some lovely engineering of the guts of it enables pre-set frequency control and net operations, with or without the frequency-hopping capability. Harris is now working on a contract for a successor, one that is SINCGARS compatible. Like it or not, "SDR" has been growing for years. We should get used to the fact.
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N3OX on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way, if you need a tuning knob:
http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/powermate/
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess some are waiting for a Harris Falcon 5 to come down in price.(Hi-Hi :)
Point is well taken about excellent experimenter kits for direct digital detection being available.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess some are waiting for a Harris Falcon 5 to come down in price.(Hi-Hi :)
Point is well taken about excellent experimenter kits for direct digital detection being available.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AA4PB on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
where is the REAL DIFFERENCE?
------------------------------
As far as the human interface is concerned the real difference is that in most cases humans interact much more easily with a hardware control (even when it internally generates a digital signal). For example, it is much easier to adjust the volume with a hardware control than it is to move a slider on the screen with a mouse. I think it is more that just what we have become accustomed to. When functions are available on a hardware control that you can see its quicker to make an adjustment than it is to search through several levels of menus on a screen to locate the function - especially true when the function is one that you don't use on a regular basis.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>The March of the 'Virtual Interface' Reply
by N0AH on October 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I'd rather see the research technology focus on RFI issues versus HD spectrum screens- Then maybe the low bansds would breath again instead of being surrounded by today's wonder bread of home entertainment gizmo's.<
::A lot of that is in the hands of the operators, especially with DSP rigs (SDR or not). My DSP rig has adjustable transmitter bandwidth from much too narrow for "phone" all the way up to 3.9 kHz. It "brick walls" at every single BW adjustment and the signal falls over a cliff at the preset number, but the operator has the ability to select that number and it can be way too wide. Ditto modulation tailoring: I can set my "low end" to be 0 Hz. Silly, but true.
DSP establishes parameters and performance, SDR is only a method of interfacing with DSP to tell the rig what to do. The loose nut behind the microphone can still make mistakes and make wonderful technology sound like crap.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface' Reply
by KD8K on October 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I haven't seen any Sherwood data on the SDR5000 yet"
Its not been posted, but is available by email from Rob. Its 96db IMD at 5 and 20Khz, 123db Blocking at 100Khz. Phase noise 123db at 10Khz.<
::Nice numbers, although it's interesting that not a lot has changed in 30 years. The TR-7 posts 146 dB blocking at 100 kHz, about 23 dB better than the SDR5000. The TR-7 posted phase noise -116 dBc using 30 year-old TTL technology for its reference oscillator. I'll have to try an SDR5000 and see how it handles a 10v out of band signal (9.975 MHz) while scraping for weak ones on the low end of 30m...
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K3EY on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whoa! WA4D? The "DOG" is back?
I have to crack a smile. The DOG... going digital ?!?
Scott W4PA
------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
I am glad someone remembered the doggy. He was very good at stirring the pot. Now he is doing the same via this venue, from VA to Ca he abides.
This guy kept me entertained many nights on 75 meters, we even had a few qso's back when with my old call.
Glad to see you're still kicking and still the same Mike. I always enjoyed the way your unique mind works getting attention. I remember the night Joe Walsh called you out from his bus:)
And Scott...I hate your policy but have nothing against your company. You should lighten up my man.
Curt/k3ey
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA4D on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dawggone you Curt. Between you and Scott, I'm gonna be exposed. Shhhhh! Don't tell anyone you saw me!!
BTW....for what it's worth, I learned a hell of a lot from this discussion. And the articulate and substantive remarks even changed my mind (or perhaps "opened" it a bit) to the myriad of possibilities in the "Virtual interface".
Cheers,
mike whatley
wa4d
altadena, ca
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N3EVL on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA4PB said: "where is the REAL DIFFERENCE?
------------------------------
As far as the human interface is concerned the real difference is that in most cases humans interact much more easily with a hardware control (even when it internally generates a digital signal). For example, it is much easier to adjust the volume with a hardware control than it is to move a slider on the screen with a mouse. I think it is more that just what we have become accustomed to. When functions are available on a hardware control that you can see its quicker to make an adjustment than it is to search through several levels of menus on a screen to locate the function - especially true when the function is one that you don't use on a regular basis."
I agree to some extent that tactile feedback from some controls is desirable however, having operated my SDR-1000 for well over a year, I can honestly say I have not missed the conventional knobs and buttons one little bit! The thing I like best about the PowerSDR interface is that it provides functions and features beyond those associated with a conventional front panel. Admittedly, the state of the art has a long way to go as there is only so much that can be done on a window but, even in its present early stage of development, this interface performs well and does not, for example, suffer from the overloading of button functions that is typically done on a hard front panel (where there is limited real estate and buttons must do double or triple duty or commonly used functions are assigned to menus). PowerSDR is currenly lacking in that it can't easily offer a means to do some of the new and exciting things that the underlying SDR technology now makes possible. That, however, will likely change as the software evolves into its next iteration. Next week or next month, my interface to my radio and many of its inner workings will likely have changed for the better (and for free) and there's no reason to believe that trend won't continue.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W6PMR on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I watched the filming of "Highway Patrol" when I was a kid in the San Fernando Valley in the 50's and early 60's, also watched the filming of "Lassie" right down the road.
That being said I must be turning into an old man who dosn't like anything new because I just do not want any radio that requires a computer to use!
The idea of updating the performance/options by software updating sounds cool but,.....having to stare
at a monitor and click a mouse to use the radio is a total turn-off. Sorry SDR fans but there are a lot of guys like me. I've said it before on this site but it begs being said again, If I HAVE to use an SDR radio,
I'm going back to collecting coins.
I just hope it's not in ALL of our futures! Paul.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N5EAT on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only way I'd buy a true SDR is if I could plug a monitor and keyboard into it. I don't like the idea of a radio being tied to an external computer. If the box i'm using is mostly computer - that's fine. It should support a keyboard and monitor. It should have it's own operation system and a command structure of it's own completely independent of any external processing options.
This would keep the radio highly portable. I think Ten-Tec has the rig/computer hierarchy in the right order - remote login and use of the radio from an offsite computer. You can do that with other rigs as well, but it appears that Ten-Tec is perfecting that.
In a decade or less there will probably be a software defined rig I'll buy. Right now there is just too much hardware involved for me to be jealous of how good they sound..
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KC2WI on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It doesn't bother me at all that the innards are digital, but the user control interface has to be more than a computer screen, keyboard, and mouse.
I just don't see any attraction in operating from a computer screen and keyboard. There is something to be said for the tactile feedback of knobs and switches.
Plus, I want my radio to be self-contained, not tied to a computer.
I love my new IC-746Pro and IC-7000 "digital" radios. In virtually all respects, they are much better than my old Kenwood TS-440S, which was a fine radio in its day.
The 7000, out of necessity as a small mobile rig, has lots of menus and functions. The 746Pro has most of the important traditional knobs, although some dedicated switches are replaced by multi-function buttons. In either case, the amount of control is superior to the old radios and the LCD displays provide much more useful information.
Possibly a well-designed (and large) touch screen (such as the slick control panels a la Star Trek TNG) would work, but I much prefer a real, physical control panel with knobs and switches/buttons for the main functions like main tuning, volume, PBT, etc.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KU2US on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
OK: You got a fancy computer rig. The screen shows all the bells and whistles. You use the mouse to operate just about everything. Your hard drive crashes. Bye-Bye to computer, Bye-Bye to ham rig. Enough said. I will stick with knobs.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N3OX on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Your hard drive crashes. Bye-Bye to computer, Bye-Bye to ham rig."
Way cheaper and easier to fix than if that happens to the CPU in your conventional rig.
Go to Best Buy. Buy new hard drive for $65. Reinstall operating system, reinstall radio
vs.
Wait a month and spend $500 in labor and parts to get your rig working again.
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I may be as "techno geek" as the next guy and I am enthused about the future with SDR. Having said that, I also love the simple radios and turning knobs. I have used many types of radio in the past 40 years. I own two IC706 series radios now. I love them BUT I also went back to a Swan 100MXA just for the simplicity of the radio. I LOVE to remember the days of the big Hammarlunds and those KNOBS. There is something for everyone out there no matter what you desire. I have a mix of some but I think a SDR is not in my immediate future just because I enjoy what I have and they didn't cost an arm and a leg. And they still are sort of "touchy feely" radios.
Frank
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K7LRB on October 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good points, Dan and Frank. HOWEVER, it appears that most posters here believe we have to make a "choice".
When I want to go "retro" I fire up the HW-16. Lots of fun!
If I want something with a little more "beef" I fire up the Swan twins. Lots of fun!
If I want something "modern", albeit somewhat dated, I fire up the Icom 735 or the Kenwood TS-930. Lots of fun!
If I want to use the computer screen to run the radio I fire up the Kachina 505DSP. Lots of FUN!
The point is I can do whatever I am "in the mood" for, and so can you.
Is an SDR-5000 in my future? SOITENLY!
The operative word here is FUN!
73,
de Larry
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W7NWH on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Knobs and buttons are nice why give em up? JL Cooper makes some really nice control surface options. Not cheap, but nice. I like this one.
http://www.jlcooper.com/pages/mcs3usb.html
It has a weighted VFO knob (jog/shuttle), lots of buttons to program per function. Do you use Ham Radio Deluxe? They even have software that let's you program it with 3rd party applications.
For all you contesters that need a few more buttons and knobs here's the step up.
http://www.jlcooper.com/pages/mcs3000series.html
Need to control three transceivers at once, three rotators and mode/filter selection on all three radios? Either hire an octopus or get one of these things.
http://www.jlcooper.com/pages/mcsspectrum.html
Don't give up your knobs! That's why these boxes exist. If I had to edit video all day using a mouse and a keyboard I'd go nuts!
From the website-
"With the variety of configuration and expansion options, their applications are limited only by your imagination!"
When I purchase my first SDR radio, I'll use a JL Cooper box for my "surface" in the shack. And no I don't work for em, just think they make cool stuff.
W7NWH
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KB4QAA on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Having attended the TAPR Digital Communications Conference last week in Hartford; "I have been to the mountain and seen the burning bush".
I've followed military software defined radio development for years at work. But now, they are a viable reality for us hams. I've been on the fence for several years about replacing my 1990 vintage TS-450, but it is only a matter of a very short time before I stroke a check for an SDR.
Get your hands on a Flex5000. Once you hear the performance that perfectly tailored filters make; the clarity of their spectral display, and the ability to tailor the controls and display, you will be impressed. Sherwood Engineering says the Flex5000 has the best receiver sensitivity available. Best of all is the continuing active development of the PowerSDR software.
The High Performance SDR (HPSDR) group is the driving force in SDR development now. They are laying the groundwork in modular, open source SDR development. Kits/components are available through TAPR, and it should be a matter of before the next two boards needed to get on the air are available. Oh, did I mention the same PowerSDR software used on the Flex5000 will work here too?
Many of the concerns/detractors statements here have already been addressed and are no longer valid. I agree that a mouse and keyboard do not have the attraction of a nice faceplate. Heck, I think my TS-520 radio is just about perfect ergomically. But, if you are heavily involved in digital modes, or want the highest performance for contesting, then SDR's are where it's at, and offer future improvement.
73, Bill
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W6RMK on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Re: i'd use SDR more if the interfacing and software used wifi and open source... otherwise, just more cabling and proprietary versioning of binary-only releases or software that only runs under a commercial operating system...
The Flex-Radio Flex5000 and SDR1000 both use open source PowerSDR, which is readily downloadable. Versioning is done with SVN, which is also opensource. Probably your only legitimate problem would be that it's Windows based, but there's an effort (in fits and starts) to port it to other platforms.
- also, it's very hard to make software easy to use, and many hams want 'plug and play,' not 'plug and pray'...
This is not unique to hams.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W4FFM on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HA! No sooner do I mention that I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes up with a "buttons-and-knobs" I/O device then W7NWH gives us the URLs to just that. <G> Thanks John!
I mentioned earlier that I thought that knobs are easier for manipulating a continuous spectrum of values, and keyboards are unsurpassed for static inputs... but really, people can adapt to either rather easily (I remember when I had to go from a mouse to a trackball due to some wrist problems... I cursed that trackball for a few days, but came to use one just as readily as a mouse).
I do understand the point about not having their rig hooked up to a computer... I think that's what folks are talking about when they say "SDR"... even though most of our modern rigs are SDRs but the computer is inside the box. There are advantages to both (I rather like the idea of upgrades that *I* can install).
So the choice is there: How do you want your SDR? In a standalone rig/box, or one that has to be hooked up to an external computer? I like them both, and just have to consider what I'm going to use them for when I decide (wouldn't want to have to run both an SDR and a computer in a mobile situation, and probably not in the field either).
Oh, and I do love the "hollow-state" rigs... I have a collection of old Atwater-Kent vacuum-tube broadcast band radios (from before they were able to use AC... had to have big old lead acid batteries) as well as a Hammarlund HQ-170a receiver... the glow of the tubes and the mellow sound they put out is a wonder.
I agree: "It's all good."
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I too would feel better about SDR if......
1)The sheilding was mil spec.
2Each SDR radio was 100% stand alone with open source code.
3)Some real knobs....please :) Just VFO, volume, and a few user defined controls.
Check out the Harris site for govt./embassy spec SDR HF transceivers. Cost.....If you have to ask....you cannot afford it!! :)
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W4FFM on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Aw Mike... you can't quote government prices to determine what something would cost us mere mortals... I can't afford a $500 hammer either. <G>
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N8FNR on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For all of you that want a standalone SDR here you go;
http://www.flex-radio.com/Products.aspx?topic=F5Kc_details
Just add a keyboard, mouse and a Contour ShuttlePro
http://www.flex-radio.com/Products.aspx?topic=F5K_accessories and you have a complete rig.
I had a fully loaded TS-850SAT that I loved and swore that I would keep it forever but it had a IC failure. Got it fixed by AVVID but still worried about the life expectancy of the rig. Started searching for something to replace it and narrowed my choices to the SDR-1000 and a K2. After doing a lot of reading I decided on the SDR but was still skeptical about the SDR concept and having very few physical controls. However I grew to love the rig so much that I quickly sold the TS-850 and an FT-100D that I never cared much for. After the Flex-5000 came out I put the SDR-1000 up on ebay and used the proceeds for a Flex-5000 that should arrive next month. I will never go back to a “regular radio”.
For anyone that would like to see what the Flex-5000 interface looks like go to; http://www.flex-radio.com/Products.aspx?topic=powersdr1x
BTW, one of the most incredible things about the rig is the filters. I have used the 25hz filter and there is no ringing, just a single CW tone and no background noise. And no AGC pumping.
And once you use a panadapter you will wonder how you ever lived without it.
Another nice thing is that you don’t need a soundcard or interface for any modes.
73
Zack
N8FNR
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N8FNR on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In regards to my last post I forgot to mention that you need a monitor too!
Zack
N8FNR
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WB4BTL on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike!
Let me go track down Lenny, N8AD! I haven't heard you on the air since 1987. Those old boys on Mid-Cars (7258) still haven't recovered from the Sunday conversations. They're still trying to give you signal and weather reports!
To heck with your article, because I don't know the difference between analog and digital. I'm just happy to hear what I can, and I'm glad that you're still around... I'm still working with VDOT to get the "DOG" monument erected at the Seminary Road exit off I-395!
John
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N9VV on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At the DCC Conference in Hartford CT,
Frank AB2KT and Bob N4HY, presented several
exciting new visual representations for
Ham software. Some of the most promising
visual displays are exploiting the use of
3D cube models and page flip models.
If you are interested, please check out
Compiz-Fusion, Beryl, and the new Metisse
window management systems.
Here are a couple links to whet your appetite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0a2KFtApdM
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uplw5tlB1ag
this has been a great discussion to follow.
de ken n9vv
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AF6AY on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA4PB posted on October 11, 2007:
"where is the REAL DIFFERENCE?
------------------------------
As far as the human interface is concerned the real difference is that in most cases humans interact much more easily with a hardware control (even when it internally generates a digital signal). For example, it is much easier to adjust the volume with a hardware control than it is to move a slider on the screen with a mouse. I think it is more that just what we have become accustomed to. When functions are available on a hardware control that you can see its quicker to make an adjustment than it is to search through several levels of menus on a screen to locate the function - especially true when the function is one that you don't use on a regular basis."
..................
In general I agree with you, but a few points:
Volume controls ("AF Gain" to purists) are often-used and also very common to BC band radios used by unlicensed, plebian "civilian" listeners. Frequency tuning is a manual control since it seems easier to use than constantly typing in numbers or moving a mouse to change the cursor on an LCD screen. Much of all those very common controls were worked out by simple trial and error over decades. It could be called de facto standardization.
Automobiles that we use today all have a very standard set of controls besides the steering wheel...including the stick-shift variety needing a clutch. It wasn't that way in the beginning of autos. Anyone who has driven an old Ford Model T would understand that...close to what we have today but just enough difference to make it hard to use. One could learn it well enough to become familiar with non-standard controls (I'll judge that from having driven a Model T only once as a teen-ager) but the "modern" arrangement is easier to use. "Modern" in the sense that they've become quite standardized over at least seven decades.
There's a parallel in aviation with today's "glass cockpit," lots of very serious looking "pro military" guages replaced by easier-to-read, bigger visual displays which were designed for deliberate ease, speed of observation and meaning (in flying seconds can really make a difference), and coordination of the user as a pilot. Much of that deliberate design falls under the category of Human Engineering...which could also be labeled simply common sense in adapting hardware to human use.
A lot of the older, analog-only hardware in radios was (sort-of) standardized. Not necessarily for the best, but rather became common through minimizing the mechanical control linkages to things like variable capacitors mounted well behind the front panel. DIALS of the mechanical kind became a Big Thing esthetically to impress many who would then pay for esthetics more than the limited accuracy such Big dials could offer. With a big-enough LCD screen, amateur radio transceivers could have both a Big Dial, either sliding hairline type or a rotary style PLUS an accurate numerical display reading 6 to 8 digits. As a parallel, the much vaunted (and somewhat myth-encrusted) R-390 came along, Big Dials were a Big Thing...very "pro" looking, sort of a "horsepower" display on the front. The R-390 had just five little numerical digits and was a combination bandswitch-and-VFO thing. Not esthetic to the Big Dial folks but - in its intended useage (NOT as an amateur receiver) - very practical.
The jump of ready-made receivers/transceivers into the computer-age-style of controls went just a bit too far. It was a golly-gee-whiz, very "with-it" spirit but done with too much emphasis on the high-tech esthetics. The designers didn't think of the Human Engineering aspects very much. That will eventually work out, I think, with a compromise achieved. Some of that already exists today in off-the-shelf radios...but some of them need some better grounding in the Human Engineering aspects of nearly everything in a single LCD panel display.
When the first plasma and LED frequency displays came out (a quarter century ago?) there were complaints from the Big Dial crowd of not fitting with their esthetic sense of How To Tune. Now it has become standardized and every rig seems to have numeric displays of frequency accepted as a Standard Thing.
When AM BC receivers were new, some of the first ones were TRF with every RF amplifier SEPARATELY tunable. Lots of fun for knob twiddlers, but inconvenient as heck for trying to tune in a fixed-frequency broadcast station. The multi-section ganged tuning capacitor solved that, became very Standardized in all superheterodyne receivers. Much more convenient to use. Now, with some better engineering and more clever adaptation of new technologies, we tune superhets ONLY with the LO frequency. No need for all those ganged variables now.
Technology in radio marches on...although there's some stumbling along the way. We just pick ourselves up and continue on...
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N9DG on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AF6AY: "When the first plasma and LED frequency displays came out (a quarter century ago?) there were complaints from the Big Dial crowd of not fitting with their esthetic sense of How To Tune. Now it has become standardized and every rig seems to have numeric displays of frequency accepted as a Standard Thing."
I do find it kinda ironic that the panadapter/waterfall metaphor is more similar to the large slide rule tuning dial of yesterday than it is to the digital readout of today.
I was just getting into ham radio when the whole analog dial vs digital dial debate was going on. And that was also the same time period there was an ongoing debate over the suitability of transistors vs. tubes as well. The outcome of those debates are all quite clear today, very few, if any seriously want to go back there for other than recapturing the past for the fun of it reasons. I can't help but feel that the whole SDR and graphic centric UI's vs. traditional UI's debate is in the exact same place today…
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've seen SDR do some pretty neat things, at least from the demo's that I have seen. It's definitely on the cutting edge of technology - which is good for the hobby. While I don't think I'll be buying an SDR-1000 or SDR-5000 anytime soon, the $30 kits by Tony Parks is a cheap way to find out what it's all about. Heck, you can even get the $9 receiver and play around.
In all honesty though, I too enjoy fiddling with the knobs of a radio. Whether it's some of my antique stuff or my IC-746 it's defintely more enjoyable. Still though, it's nice to see new technology out there and people embracing that technology. It's definitely healthy for the hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am not against using SDR. I use a PowerMate with Ham Radio Deluxe with my IC-706MkIIG and enjoy the upgrades that are constantly made. I have used HRD with my Ten-Tec DeltaII and two versions of the IC-706, but there are times when just "SIMPLE" is good. That is why I like the Swan.
I have been a "teckie" since I first started to repair and maintain Central Office telco equipment in 1965. I have seen them go from old mechanical equipment to digital and I have engineered almost all you can think of. I have owned many computers and lost count of the radios. Since I spun the knobs on a Multi-Elmac & Hammarlund in 1953, I've owned Ten-Tec, Kenwood, Icom, Swan, Heath, etc. So I am not alarmed or afraid of the digital world we live in. I love seeing it grow and develop. But for me the enthusiasm for SDR is not matched as it was with the "touchy-feely" radios I have owned. I don't know why so I can't say.
Maybe after I go to all the sites that are listed here I will feel differently. But there is something in the "FEEL" of radio that seems lost when you look into a monitor and there it is. As good as they are, they still have a coldness I didn't notice with the "regular" radios. In time I suppose I will go to a SDR and embrace it as I have all the others, but I am not just ready to do that yet. I guess I still like "getting my fingers into it". No matter. Whatever turns us on is good. The great thing about our hobby is that it STILL offers something for everyone regardless of the expertise or interest. SDR for tomorrow, what I have now for today. I am happy!
Frank
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K3PZ on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
{[At the DCC Conference in Hartford CT,
Frank AB2KT and Bob N4HY, presented several
exciting new visual representations for
Ham software. Some of the most promising
visual displays are exploiting the use of
3D cube models and page flip models.
If you are interested, please check out
Compiz-Fusion, Beryl, and the new Metisse
window management systems.]]
The hardest thing about my new Flex SDR-5000 is turning it off. This is absolutely a fantastic radio. I still have my love for my old tube gear. When I get tired of my SDR-5000, I'll just fire up my FT-102, TS-830S or any or my old Swan 500CX tube radios. Ham radio has so much to offer which is the beauty of it all for us. Please do NOT run from the new SDR technology, embrace it. Go to a hamfest and see a demo of this radio. You will be throughly impressed. It is NOT just a radio. It is also a piece of precision test equipment.
Paul Zora
K3PZ
www.k3pz.com
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by NL7W on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I remember the Dog... "The Dog" has gone digital?
Ha Ha Ha!
God help us all!
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K3YI on October 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Agreed, the hardest thing about the Flex5000 is turning it off!! As I had said in my review, I thought having a computer screen radio was just cheesy or perhaps generic.
But I have to say the functions are far from generic. I went back to my Pro-III and felt like the screen was to small to look at. It felt like the rig was out dated or something. Sounds exaggerated right! All true. The fact is, a SDR radio has so much to offer, it is well worth looking at even if one still says no. The Power SDR has a great range of filters for receive and transmit. It has a recorder for true play back. We all know about the fantastic Pan adapter! The rig has a very low noise floor and receives terrific. I actually have a studio mic plugged directly into the back of the rig without any padding. I don't even use any transformers to remove any ac hum. I don't have any ac hum! As far as the knobs, I had thought about buying the IC7800 before buying the Flex. Since the Flex I haven't really given it to much thought except for this review! I am looking forward when Flex Radio comes out with their second receiver to add to the Flex5000! I believe and hope this will be quite interesting! (Diversity!) (Hope I said that right!)
I have to say, just keep a very open mind before passing any quick judgments. The Flex5000 is lots of fun and excitement!
Seriously, don't take life so seriously! But be sure you take Ham Radio seriously.....with some serious fun times!
Jump in, the "RF" is fine.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W4ZV on October 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK wrote:
##################################################
Re the TR-7: For a 29 year-old design, it's pretty good.
Sherwood Engineering's data (available from Bob Sherwood on request, and some is on line) indicates the TR-7 noise floor to be -134 dBm, 100 kHz blocking to be 146 dB, and "dynamic range wide spaced" to be 99 dB, all of which are figures of merit that are better than almost everything else ever sold into the amateur radio market including the Orion-II, the Elecraft K2 and the SDR1000.
I haven't seen any Sherwood data on the SDR5000 yet, I don't think it's been posted.
##################################################
Summary of Rob's measurements:
IMDDR3 from 2 kHz up is 96 dB
BDR from 2 kHz up is 123 dB
Phase Noise is 123 dB (Flat)
You'll find IMDDR3 highly touted on Flex's website because it's among the best but no mention of the other two (because they are *not* so good). Indeed BDR is about 20 dB worse than most other high end rigs. BDR is the best metric if you have a nearby neighbor (ham or broadcast station) with a strong signal.
73, Bill W4ZV
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
nobody has mentioned class D high power RF amps implimented with SDR.
RCVRS have been covered very well. Some of us have been spoiled by using analog rigs that made commercial specs.
To hear a TR-7/r-7 working a crowded band is my defacto standard of performance. Drake did make commercial/mil. variants of both rigs. Design very close. The commercial TR-77 used a DDS instead of a PTO.
I would like to compare an SDR-5000 with a Harris Falcon 2.(Not fair many will say!!!)
I do not see Direct digital detection(front end) making ham rigs with exceptional results in the new ham sdr rigs.
Great thread. Hope it keeps the free exchange of opinions.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KE5MXA on October 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
i like knobs and switches..not menus. I am still considered a young one at 35.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lotsa-knobs are nice. However sometimes, I do wish I could "Gang" a few knobs to operate as one function.
On my TS-950SDX(many knobs), I wish I could adjust notch and PBT at the same time. Proc in and Proc out could be ganged for best levels(10db rf comp and ALC at half scale.
Of course this is a no-brainer for SDR. Alas...one of the finest rigs made.....is a ROM defined radio visa-vi control panel.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N1BHH on October 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Mike, good job! I'm happy to see real diversity in ham radio. Knobs, buttons, switches, you name it. I like them all. People are gonna be discussing the merits and the non-merits of computer controlled and computer based radios for years. Just like the folks that want to talk about why CW shouldn't be eliminated. People just don't understand, the requirement was eliminated, not the mode. People won't be required to have flex radio, it's just there if you want it.
70Nerds
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N5XM on October 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
They'll pry my knobs from my dead, cold hands...
I'm reminded of a couple of great knobs from my younger days, but that's another story, hi!
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by W4RDM on October 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WOW
I would much rather have a Software Define Radio by Hams than a Firmware Designed Radio.
My Flex radio is a living radio
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N3OX on October 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'm reminded of a couple of great knobs from my younger days, but that's another story, hi!"
The Brits who visit this site might take this the wrong way
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N7YA on October 14, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
if they did, im sure that would cure Cheap Ham Syndrome.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 15, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4RDM. You are right. The TS-950sdx is considered Kenwoods best rig. The DSP and most of the rig are hard wired. However some with talent did expand upon the progamming fuctions.
There is of course an RS-232 port on it. So one can have a virtual face plate.
Shame about the 950SDX is that much of the radio IS firmware defined. Every circuit gets some input from its many CPU's.
The "Black box" on the bottom of the sdx uses a 100khz D/A for RX. The TX IF DSP D/A and A/D is done at a 455khz IF.
THE REAL SHAME.....THE TS-950SDX HAS TX AND RX SPECS THAT KICK BUTT.(ALL MODULATION IS DIGITAL) IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO MAKE A TS-970SDX(TOTAL SDR) HOWEVER KENWOOD CHUMPED OUT!!
At this time, I would rather have the brut performance of the 950SDX and Drake TR-7/R7A over the nifty factor of true front end to speaker SDR.
However, I will not refuse a Harris Falcon III.
Wanna lend me $150,000+++ for my SDR dream rig.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA4SCA on October 15, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I started out programming computers with punched tape, and then cards. The Windows GUI just isn't the same, but somehow I have adapted, and so far have not had any attacks of nostalgia for the old days when surfing the Internet. My ham equipment has followed a parallel path from a Globe Scout 65A and HQ-110 to a SDR rig. I have adapted.
There are I think 3 obstacles for the virtual interface being more widely accepted. One is that some just don't want to change from the familiar, and in most cases don't need to. Second, SDRs are limited in choice, and are high end in terms of both cost and performance. Third, they are to date rather cumbersome. Most conventional rigs could go to a Field Day site, but thinking about taking an SDR radio brings a smile to the face. Give it 10 years, and we will have something like a laptop computer, but with a rig in there.
|
| |
|
The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by KG4WXP on October 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a 30 year old ham, I have grown up on both computers (ever since I was a kid, in fact...think Commodore 64!!!) and radio (especially shortwave & utility dx listening). I think that the fusion of the two is an exciting thing! It's a tactile all in one interface that puts two of the things that I love together, nice and neat.
From a younger ham's perspective, this could be a good thing - - most of the kids nowdays (think teens and 20s,) love computers and are even more adept with them than I am considering they are more commonplace now than ever.
You want a great way to get kids interested in amateur radio? This is it, folks.
Now, the problem with it, in my opinion, is the price!!! What teenager or 20 something is going to be able to afford one of these rigs? They are a bit overpriced, even in my opinion. I would have got one, but I said screw it and elected to get an IC-718 instead....
That being said; taking one of these bad boys into a classroom of kids and installing it in a computer, throwing up a makeshift antenna and demonstrating it could very well spark a good deal of interest.
Chris
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K8QV on October 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Also much of the ham population is aging and unwilling to learn new technology."
I'm an old ham (but not the OLDEST) and in my experience at least, there seems to be a misconception among many new/younger people getting into ham radio. The "old hams" that I know eagerly embrace new technology.
The misunderstanding I think is that ham radio is about radio. If simple, reliable communication was the only goal we would all just get iPhones and be done with it. Any cell phone can communicate easily to anywhere in the world. Any chatroom can do the same, some with video and conferencing as well. Ham radio is about doing something yourself, over the airwaves, using RF. Computers have enhanced the functionality of almost everything, including ham radios. That's a good thing. The question is, are you interested solely in easy communication, or are you interested in using a radio? As I said, the modern alternatives to ham radio provide better, more reliable, and cheaper communication on a worldwide basis. But radio has a mistique that is fascinating to many and should not be relegated to "outmoded" status any more than sculpture is outmoded because we can create holograms. The race car analogy was a good one because some people still want to actually do something on their own to achieve the result. Not because it's the easiest way to the goal, but a fun thing that provides a feeling of accomplishment.
Personally, I work all day on computers and am aware of the awesome possibilities they present. For a change of pace, radio is also a fulfilling experience but no less valid.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AF6AY on October 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8QV posted on 18 October 2007:
...........................................
""Also much of the ham population is aging and unwilling to learn new technology.""
"I'm an old ham (but not the OLDEST) and in my experience at least, there seems to be a misconception among many new/younger people getting into ham radio. The "old hams" that I know eagerly embrace new technology."
"The misunderstanding I think is that ham radio is about radio. If simple, reliable communication was the only goal we would all just get iPhones and be done with it. Any cell phone can communicate easily to anywhere in the world. Any chatroom can do the same, some with video and conferencing as well. Ham radio is about doing something yourself, over the airwaves, using RF. Computers have enhanced the functionality of almost everything, including ham radios. That's a good thing. The question is, are you interested solely in easy communication, or are you interested in using a radio? As I said, the modern alternatives to ham radio provide better, more reliable, and cheaper communication on a worldwide basis."
............................................
Huzzah! An objective appraisal of today in US amateur radio! :-)
As a 'new' radio amateur who got his first amateur license about 51 years after his first commercial radiotelephone license, I mainly observe people's knowledge from those I've worked with for half a century, a few of which were licensed radio amateurs. But, on viewing written communications from old-timers and short-timers alike, plus their attitudes, I would say that 'new/younger' folk are more right than wrong.
A few (fortunately) have mindsets such that they want to recreate the 'pioneer' days of amateur radio, the days that stopped before they existed. They wish to glory in that as if they were one of the pioneers. That's disturbing to those of us who are existing in the reality of today. Now some of those may just wish to stop time and do as they did when they were young...which is not possible exept in their imaginations.
I don't care to go with them.
.............................................
K8QV: "But radio has a mistique that is fascinating to many and should not be relegated to "outmoded" status any more than sculpture is outmoded because we can create holograms. The race car analogy was a good one because some people still want to actually do something on their own to achieve the result. Not because it's the easiest way to the goal, but a fun thing that provides a feeling of accomplishment."
All hobbies are done for personal satisfaction, for enjoyment by the self. That's how it should be. A few get too caught up with it, though, and insist that all should follow Their way, enjoy things as They enjoy them. That sort of mindset is a detriment to almost any human endeavor.
...............................................
K8QV: "Personally, I work all day on computers and am aware of the awesome possibilities they present. For a change of pace, radio is also a fulfilling experience but no less valid."
True, but amateur radio is not the only 'radio.' I've worked in that 'other' radio for a living. That was fulfilling for me and I knew it when I chose that area of work. I too 'work' on a computer much of each day and also 'play' on it in communicating with others whom I know personally. I'll also use my little pocket programmable calculator, a new HP-35S alongside a still-working (on the same battery set!) 7-year-old HP-32S II. Beats the heck out of looking up 5-place transcendental function tables...and has since the first HP-35 (not programmable) made its debut 35 years ago. I got one of those then, too. :-)
When my amateur license was granted, I bought practically a whole station from AES, Las Vegas. Quite a few were overtly resentful that I did so, as well as being openly resentful that I passed Extra without doing some ridiculous apprenticeship thing over many years. Why? I'd spent over a half century doing radio communications already. Amateur radio isn't really so different than 'other' radio. Their personality problems demanded that others conform to what They wanted/desired/imagined. Ten years after retirement I had a comfortable income (planned ahead of time) and could afford to do so. My wife did not object. She counted as most important of ALL critics to me. I didn't buy a 160m to 2m Icom to 'win awards' or 'collect wallpaper' or enter 'radiosport' contests. I bought it to have personal fun with once in a while. I bought that model because I appreciated the internal engineering, could understand it, admired the workmanship and compactness, general design. I don't delude myself that I am 'part of some greater thing,' or carrying on some 'tradition' of olde-tyme radio, that 'tradition' maintained forever. :-)
All electronics is constantly changing. Radio is a subset of that. I feel fortunate in living IN a major change time of that technology, to experience much of it hands-on. Marvelous technology! In fact, all things around me involving any sort of technology have changed remarkably in my 75 years of existance. Love it! Wouldn't have it any other way. Some call that "instant gratification." Let them, they want to remain Luddites and do so many things (slowly, very slowly) by hand, fine. It's their choice, but those shouldn't make nasty to those who won't do their kind of 'work.' They aren't the Ultimate Judge of All. But, we can't seem to change their judgemental minds! :-)
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K8QV on October 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Len, I'm not sure about your point as you were dissecting my post. I replied in response to the statement that old hams resist new technology. In my experience that isn't true. My intention certainly wasn't to sanctify "olde tyme" radio, but to explain the attraction it has to some who aren't familiar with it. Very few would want to return to the olden days with crowding and band condx the way they are now. Computer design and enhancement of our radios is a welcome advance. True, some old guys hate and/or fear change, but I also see so many new hams who may never have actually sent any RF into the air condemn and villify the modes and techniques so many enjoy. Some of us thrill to the mouse, and others like to twist knobs. If it's fun (and not illegal!) I say do it!
- Chris
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<< they want to remain Luddites>>>>> LMAO!!! HARDLY!
Some of us simply do not want to be stuck with an emerging technology in a PRIMARY RIG.
Remember the first DSP rigs with NO ROOFING filters.
The Ten Tec Pegasus was a dog!!!!
I will wait a few years before I buy.
I will build a few cheapo SDR RX's for now.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N9DG on October 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH: "Remember the first DSP rigs with NO ROOFING filters.
The Ten Tec Pegasus was a dog!!!!"
Actually the Pegasus does have a roofing filter. It is just a wide one like most all other up-conversion radios have been. And the Pegasus performs quite well for its price point. But it is simply not a radio that you go into a big HF contest with where there are tons of big signals. But then it wasn't really target for such use either. And on 40 and 80M with good antennas you'd better have the attenuator turned on and back of the RF gain till the band noise is just moving the S meter. Once you do that it really is a pleasant sounding radio. I find that it is much nore pleasant to listen to than the IC-706 or 765 are because it doesn't have all those AGC/audio IMD artifacts like the 706/765 do.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N9DG on October 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH: "I would like to compare an SDR-5000 with a Harris Falcon 2.(Not fair many will say!!!)"
Not even a relevant comparison I would say. It's like comparing apples to hamburgers. Would the Harris come out on top while crawling through mud and somebody's shooting at you, no doubt yes. But would the Harris really be very useful at all when you are in your comfy shack looking for that elusive DX to pop up somewhere over a wide span of spectrum? Comes back to the notion that one UI, hardware, software or otherwise simply can't cover all user bases.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No, its comparing chili-dogs and an "Orange Julius"
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AD7DP on October 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problems with acceptance of SDR are two fold. First is the group that wants to belittle anyone who doesn’t jump on the latest craze and the second is imagination. In the early 1980s, when computer word processors first appeared in the work place, there was the same reluctance to accept them. Older secretaries that had used typewriters for tens of years didn’t want the new fangled word processor. Why?
The typewriter is a very limited device. It didn’t matter how active an imagination or desire to do something different the user had, they were restricted to the limited capability of the typewriter. Basically they were told to shelve their imagination and use the typewriter. Hence, as the years went by they became comfortable not using their imagination.
After years of being unable to use their imagination to improve the function of the typewriter, we found they couldn’t just turn their imagination back on and exploit the possibilities of the word processor.
Well, after years of only being told to shelve their imaginations and just do what the knobs and switches allow you to do, the average ham has become comfortable with not using his imagination to improve the function of his radio or the advancement of his hobby. It is hard to move anybody from their comfort zone.
Leave them alone and let them read the mail, eventually their curiosity while energize their imagination.
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by K3VW on October 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Mike, good to hear you are still " radio active ". I thought maybe the ECARS group ran you off. Remember how you used to berate the " old Guys"? Now I are one! BTW, this your "old" buddy from Brandywine, Md. & P.G. County, Willy ( WB3GCG). Keep up the good articles on SDR radio's, the way of the future! Willy-K3VW
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AF6AY on October 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AD7DP posted:
"The problems with acceptance of SDR are two fold. First is the group that wants to belittle anyone who doesn’t jump on the latest craze and the second is imagination. In the early 1980s, when computer word processors first appeared in the work place, there was the same reluctance to accept them. Older secretaries that had used typewriters for tens of years didn’t want the new fangled word processor. Why?"
"The typewriter is a very limited device. It didn’t matter how active an imagination or desire to do something different the user had, they were restricted to the limited capability of the typewriter. Basically they were told to shelve their imagination and use the typewriter. Hence, as the years went by they became comfortable not using their imagination."
"After years of being unable to use their imagination to improve the function of the typewriter, we found they couldn’t just turn their imagination back on and exploit the possibilities of the word processor."
...................
Hurrah. One of the neatest analogies presented in regards to New Ideas! One of the best I've seen in a long while. [been there, seen that reluctance, in the workplace and also in some hamshacks]
...................
AD7DP: "Well, after years of only being told to shelve their imaginations and just do what the knobs and switches allow you to do, the average ham has become comfortable with not using his imagination to improve the function of his radio or the advancement of his hobby. It is hard to move anybody from their comfort zone."
"Comfort zone." A very succinct way to put it. I like that, too.
...................
AD7DP: "Leave them alone and let them read the mail, eventually their curiosity while energize their imagination."
Er, we differ a bit on that. Some just plain refuse to budge from what I've seen. They get locked-in to Certain Ways and that is it. <shrug>
I've seen folks get unglued on the transistor and integrated circuitry after they've become accustomed to vacuum tubes. "That's not radio!" was the common comment. I've seen folks come all apart about SSB AM when it became popular in amateur radio of the 1950s. "That's not radio!" was the common comment. Then I've seen folks with reluctance to accept numerical displays on everything from multimeters to radio dial replacements. "That's not Real electronics!" was the common comment. Now we've got fully 'semiconductorized' transceivers with linear PAs that can handle just about any mode with numerical readouts of frequency and function and it is the thing of now. Still, there's a lot of folks who insist and insist that their old rigs were 'much better' than the new models. :-)
We've had Software Defined Radios slowly creeping into communications for a couple of decades, so far back that the buzzword acronym 'SDR' didn't exist yet. It has been a slow change. Example of the prehistoric beginnings is the replacement of mechanical switching of quartz crystals by diodes in civil avionics, documented in ARINC papers. Then the introduction of the first practical PLLs for precise tuning frequency control, both in the late 1960s. Military electronics needs helped bring about both DSP (via sonar applications) and DDS (via EW and frequency-agile comm radios) to civilian use in the 1970s. The first microprocessors of the late 1970s ushered in the Personal Computer...which is now an established appliance of communications to non-radio, non-radio-licensed civilians. By the early 1980s general-coverage HF receivers were SDR-like in structure, no bandswitch to be found (octave bandpass filters switched by diodes), no variable capacitors to be found in them. My sturdy, still-working Icom IC-R70 has a three-loop PLL for precise manual (or computer controlled from outside) tuning to quartz crystal accuracy down to 10 Hz increments. Yaesu and Kenwood had similar models. USA designs tended to hold to a manual-tuning, stable VFO of the analog kind of tuning. Transmitter power amplifiers were gradually changing to the all-mode, untuned, transformer-coupled linear type using high-frequency-cutoff power transistors. The two-component L-section automatic antenna tuner appeared, capable of correcting VSWRs up to 20:1 or more; it had been operational with the USMC as early as 1955 in the AN/GRC-19, the essential RF detector innovated by Warren Bruene of Collins Radio (variations of that still in use today). The microprocessor IC, with added D/A functions known as a microcontroller, has become a workhorse behind the front panel in most large transceivers as well as multi-function handhelds for VHF to UHF, internal memories capable of holding the last control settings. It just took over all the older mechanical couplings' need and enabled more-compact electronic guts. That brought prices down. One didn't need to be a quasi-ME to package whole transceivers.
We can't neglect the ubiquitous cellular telephone. Sure, it needs the telephone infrastructure, but each cell phone is a low L-Band handheld transceiver with enough frequency agility to automatically switch from cell to cell without the user having to do anything. 1 to 2 GHz technology in tiny packages was 'unthinkable' back in the 1960s. Now it has become a consumer electronics market thing, costing less than $100, only slightly more for the digital camera in it, now a common thing. My wife regularly uses a tiny FM broadcast receiver which is totally solid-state (the only argument to that being the tiny 'Liquid' Crystal Display) along with noise-cancelling earphones bought off-the-shelf at low prices, both using rechargeable batteries. Those things would be 'unthinkable' in the 1970s, only the stereophonic sound capability then possible. We were both into film photography back in the 1950s but digital imagery has overtaken film and we can do full-color 'developing' on our personal computers without having to go to a camera shop or the drugstore for 'one-hour photos.' Electronics technology advances made that possible, including automatic physical motion correction, a sort of 'DSP' feature analogue.
We've had virtual brick-wall audio filtering done entirely by A-to-D, digital processing, D-to-A for audio for over a decade. That has crept up from audio into IF ranges now and we can get analogues to the old piezoelectric and magnetostrive 'crystal filters' with an added plus of adjustability of bandwidth just by changing some of the microprocessor program constants. The ubiquitous PC has had 'sound cards' for over a decade, capable of functioning as external DSP for audio, changing audio to 'waterfall' displays (even very low frequency input signals), or functioning as music synthesizers or voice synthesizers. With an external or internal sampling unit, we can get oscilloscope analogues, dual channel, auto-range-setting with capability of storing the 'scope displays in PC memory. Yes, there are automatic-setting CW decoders too, although the desire to make them functional even in presence of strong noise is damned by the ex deus machina stubbornness of some. It IS possible, technically. It is an absolute no-no in the radio amateur groupings. :-)
Combining all of the electronics technology we already have into one package is merely some engneering tasks and seeing that there is a market for it. Those that have pioneered into 'SDR' adopted the buzzword acronym for marketing purposes. We've had it already in the military in the form of the SINCGARS family of field radios, the Harris Falcon series actually one of the latecomers. Over 300 thousand have been built by ITT Fort Wayne, IN, first ones operational in 1989. Detractors say "it isn't good for ham radio!" and that may be true for hobby purposes. The SINCGARS family works in low VHF but it does frequency hopping ten times a second and uses digital audio plus digital data and can be 'hopset' to any random pattern of frequencies to allow several nets operating in the same frequency range without any mutual interference and with great robustness against jamming. USA amateur radio forbids any encirpherment. It doesn't forbid using new technology to operate within the regulations.
The mindset of some forbids the adaptation of 'new' things in the hobby. It is an UNcomfort zone for them, unfamiliar, mysterious, unknown. It is insecure, uncomfortable, must be avoided. Others must lead the way. Eventually enough will take to newer technologies and that will become standard. Then the cycle begins again since electronics technology shows no sign of stopping its evolution. :-)
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N2EY on October 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AD7DP writes:
"The problems with acceptance of SDR are two fold. First is the group that wants to belittle anyone who doesn’t jump on the latest craze and the second is imagination."
Agreed - on both counts! But there's more to it.
"Older secretaries that had used typewriters for tens of years didn’t want the new fangled word processor. Why?"
One reason was that the newfangled word processor took
quite a bit of learning/training in order to use. For
most things being done at the time, it was easier and
faster to just use the typewriter.
Another was the fact that early word processing could require an incredibly expensive machine (for the time) and so there couldn't be one for each employee.
There's also a built-in reluctance to use something
that could eliminate the need for your job.
"The typewriter is a very limited device. It didn’t matter how active an imagination or desire to do something different the user had, they were restricted to the limited capability of the typewriter. Basically they were told to shelve their imagination and use the typewriter. Hence, as the years went by they became comfortable not using their imagination."
Not at all. Their imagination and creativity went into
the *content*, not into the *appearance*.
"After years of being unable to use their imagination to improve the function of the typewriter, we found they couldn’t just turn their imagination back on and exploit the possibilities of the word processor."
Some could, some couldn't.
And note this:
Most people today still use the standard QWERTY-based keyboard, even though it was designed for the limitations of early mechanical typewriters that
no longer apply in any way. Alternative keyboard
layouts like the Dvorak have only captured a tiny
part of the user base, despite the fact that they
are demonstrably faster and easier to learn and use.
"Well, after years of only being told to shelve their imaginations and just do what the knobs and switches allow you to do, the average ham has become comfortable with not using his imagination to improve the function of his radio or the advancement of his hobby. It is hard to move anybody from their comfort zone."
Do you use a QWERTY-based keyboard?
How about others reading this? Do the authors of
long diatribes about military and commercial radio
use other keyboard layouts, or do they stick with the
familiar comfort zone of QWERTY?
One reason the virtual interface isn't more widely accepted is that it's still pretty new as such things
go.
Another is the learning curve. A knob or switch tells its function and setting directly.
Most of all, there's the need in most cases to have both a computer and a radio connected and working.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N2EY on October 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AF6AY writes:
"The mindset of some forbids the adaptation of 'new' things in the hobby. It is an UNcomfort zone for them, unfamiliar, mysterious, unknown. It is insecure, uncomfortable, must be avoided. Others must lead the way."
Len:
Do you use a virtual interface for your Icom amateur radio transceiver, or do you use the knobs and switches provided by the manufacturer?
Have you made any significant modifications to your amateur radio transceivers?
Have you built any amateur radio equipment since being licensed a few months ago?
Do you use a QWERTY-type keyboard with your computer?
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AF6AY on October 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY interrogated on 25 Oct 07:
"Do you use a virtual interface for your Icom amateur radio transceiver, or do you use the knobs and switches provided by the manufacturer?"
Yes and no.
...............................
N2EY: "Have you made any significant modifications to your amateur radio transceivers?"
Not even an insignificant 'modification.' I only have (now) the singular transceiver. According to about a month of testing (approximate) in my workshop it works as specified. I don't possess $100K of calibrated test equipment to do a thorough job of it...although I am quite capable of doing that in the lab. My HP-606 signal generator was a gift from Allan Walston, W6MJN. It had to be repaired and calibrated long before I was granted an amateur radio license.
Icom, Yaesu, Kenwood all have good equipment that works (if not shipping-damaged) right out of the box. AES, Las Vegas, packed my order carefully. It was undamaged. The IC-746Pro internal time-base was correct to +/- 100 PPB accuracy according to my own frequency measurements. I'm experimenting with doing ten times better accuracy without using GPS timing.
WHY do you ask?
If ready-built electronics works according to published specifications and it was a decided purchase at the time, WHY 'modify' it?
...............................
N2EY: "Have you built any amateur radio equipment since being licensed a few months ago?"
Yes and no.
Why is that your 'necessity?' The FCC doesn't require I build anything. Neither does the ARRL. It doesn't seem to be a requirement of e-ham.net either. Yet you've always intimated that one is 'not good enough' in ham radio until they've Built One All By Themselves.
You (conveniently) forget that I've been branded a 'beginner,' a 'know-nothing' about radio, oops, that's AMATEUR radio, a very different thing than Other (hack, ptui) radio? Now, how can a BEGINNER possibly succeed in building a complete station all by themselves. BEGINNERS don't always have 'elmers' (mentors) to come in and guide their hands and hold their heads to the straight-and-narrow Amateur Way. No one 'elmered' me on either my license test preparation nor in putting up my station or its antennas. [that despite promises made over on rec.radio.amateur.policy...:-) ]
................................
N2EY: "Do you use a QWERTY-type keyboard with your computer?"
No, my current keyboard is made by Microsoft. Well it has the MS logo on it. :-) I have two others made by other companies. My wife has a similar keyboard on her computer. All of them are standard 'PS2' compatible and produce a compatible ASCII code which is standard for personal computers, at least here in the US of A..
Oh! You mean the KEYBOARD ARRANGEMENT! Yes, of course it is the 'querty' orientation.
Back in 1947-1948, in Middle school (so far back in prehistory of mankind that we called it 'junior high' back then) I took a course in typing. It was recommended as a useful skill. It also was populated by young women students who were very interesting to me at the time. Mechanical typewriters. Inked ribbons and cheap paper. NO KEY MARKINGS! We students had to drill and drill and drill and engrave the proper keystroke movements in our motor nerve systems through hours of rote learning. Then we got speed drills copying straight text. After two semesters, practically all of us could cruise along at 60 WPM. 'Qwerty' keyboards. Standard in all offices and everywhere a typewriten record was necessary at the time. Had been since before World War II. The teleprinters from Teletype Corporation had the same basic key arrangements (although a few were variations for the upper-case-only letters at the time).
In 1953 the Models 15 through 19 of Teletype Corporation products were standard in the US military. Wonderful mechanical engineering in them in my opinion. 60 WPM tops, from an internal governor. The keys would 'kick back' to the finger tips if one tried to go faster than 60 WPM. My 'beginner' typist classes served me well and I easily adapted to synchronizing fingers to the maximum rate. I didn't need to punch a paper tape to send the twice-per-shift frequencies list from my military-assigned transmitter station out the order-wire to Control and to Frequency Standards (at the receiver site). Very useful that typing class back in 'middle' school. [besides getting acquainted with more girls...]
When the more modern Teletype terminals got into the workplace, it was no problem for me. They could crank along at 100 WPM maximum and I could burst-type to that maximum without looking at the keys.
Basic 'querty' key arrangement. I'd already gone through two mechanical typewriters with 'qwerty' key arrangements (sold both of them) and upgraded to an IBM Model 60 'electronic' typewriter (it had better balls, larger, more type choices) with film ribbon and second ribbon for instant erasures (new thing then). Like the Selectric from IBM (smaller type balls), the 'electronics' from IBM could handle the fastest typists and all had the 'qwerty' key arrangements. So did my Apple ][+ personal computer and the salvaged keyboard unit for its predecessor, my own home-built personal computer. The Atari ST I got next also had a 'qwerty' key arrangement as did the IBM work-alike PC that was its replacement.
'Dvorak' key arrangements? One can get small translator programs which electronically 'alter' the key arrangements to that or anything else. Some are built-in to Operating Systems, such as Windows has for non-English key arrangements. Is it 'better?' Not for me. I've become so used to the 'qwerty' key arrangement after 60 years of typing on lots of keyboards that I could care less about 'more efficient' (alleged) key arrangements. Some non-English-language keyboards have some distinct key arrangements from the 'qwerty'. For example, I don't do too much writing in Swedish and can't possibly go fast in that although my ears-and-brain take it all in no problem. I can still cruise along typing straight text doing 60 WPM, maybe some burst-typing at 100 WPM. Not a problem with straight text. Besides, my WordPerfect 8 suite, like its competitors, offers an on-line spelling checker (good for Halloween times to differentiate between 'witch' and 'which').
WHY did you ask? [as if we, victims of your Inquistion a la Torquemada didn't know? :-)]
AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by AF6AY on October 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY posted his wise words:
AD7DP: "The problems with acceptance of SDR are two fold. First is the group that wants to belittle anyone who doesn’t jump on the latest craze and the second is imagination."
N2EY: "Agreed - on both counts! But there's more to it."
.......................................
Which you will now try to thoroughly disassemble following. :-)
.......................................
AD7DP: "Older secretaries that had used typewriters for tens of years didn’t want the new fangled word processor. Why?"
N2EY: "One reason was that the newfangled word processor took
quite a bit of learning/training in order to use. For
most things being done at the time, it was easier and
faster to just use the typewriter."
'Newfangled?!?" Well, yes, beginning in 1979 or so, the installed base of CP/M OS computers wasn't big (but they existed, even in multiple workstation-like time-sharing installations). However, the entrance of the IBM product from Boca Raton in 1980 lent a chachet of 'respectibility' to personal computers as 'office machines.'
N2EY: "Another was the fact that early word processing could require an incredibly expensive machine (for the time) and so there couldn't be one for each employee."
Tsk. ''Incredibly' expensive?!?' That depended on the office budget and how well the business was faring.
CAD (Computer Aided Design, later changed to Computer Aided Drawing) was already catching on in aerospace with 'even-more-incredible' prices. A splinter group from Boeing in Washington state was marketing a drafting machine which could do perspective plots from any two views of conventional drawings. It cost about $50,000. It had very useful features. It was just too much in advance of its day and eventually had to fold (or be absorbed by another, can't remember the details). Got a nice book on the subject of perspective written by that company's president plotting during a demo (some time around 1977). A 'full' IBM PC of 1980 cost, at most, $5000 1980 dollars. The $2000 extra was largely for mass memory storage. It is wayyyy short of what we can buy today for about $600. Some places, like Fry's out here, offer package deals that include an LCD flat-panel monitor for $600.
N2EY: "There's also a built-in reluctance to use something
that could eliminate the need for your job."
That's a psychological limitation held by individuals. It was de rigeur in aerospace of 1980 that any engineer Shall NOT Do Their Own Typing! That's a Job For The Secretaries! :-) For presentations via Vue-Graphs (prehistoric device before PowerPoint), I would do my own typing at home just to save my time in explaining it to group secretaries who didn't like to take directions from engineers on How To Do Typing when it wasn't all text and in memo form. :-)
That all changed very quickly in the next decade. My Chevrolet dealer had a couple PCs in the Service Department in 1982. I bought an '82 Camaro there in 1981. That Camaro had an internal microprocessor unit to aid the engine performance, the second year (?) of such standard devices in Chevrolets. Now it is difficult to find any small office that does NOT have a PC to use in their business. Automobiles now have internal, integral 'computers' to help control a LOT of different things besides carburation.
AD7DP: "The typewriter is a very limited device. It didn’t matter how active an imagination or desire to do something different the user had, they were restricted to the limited capability of the typewriter. Basically they were told to shelve their imagination and use the typewriter. Hence, as the years went by they became comfortable not using their imagination."
N2EY "Not at all. Their imagination and creativity went into
the *content*, not into the *appearance*."
In my line of work, EQUATIONS have always been a standard form of expressing imagination and creativity and, certainly, content. NO standard typewriter of 1975 could do mathematical equations without a LOT of special work by the typist in doing half- and quarter-spaced line shifts and very few standard typewriters (other than IBM Selectrics) had character sets to accomodate things like Greek letters. 'Appearance?' Yes, definitely for mathematics because that symbolism had been standardized many decades prior, but for readability in grasping the math, not for making it 'shine' in some advertisement.
The 'Varityper' was a very special-purpose typewriter which was 'incredibly expensive' in the 1960s and 1970s, relative to ordinary office typewriters' cost. One text I have ('Microwave Filters, Impedance-Matching Networks, and Coupling Structures," by Matthaei, Young, Jones, McGraw-Hill 1964) is entirely made up of 1096 pages of Varityping. In those, the many, many equations necessary throughout the text are done in the 'standard' manner, are readable. Understanding them depends on the knowledge of the reader, but they don't have to virtually 'decode' an equation done on a standard typewriter.
A printed page is a form of communication. Typewriters had the ability to present word and number communication clearly and unambiguously, without requiring each reader to 'decode' handwritten words and numbers. Such handwriting was 'standard' before the first typewriters but it was HIGHLY varied in style and legibility, sort of like a distorted transmitter output in radio in some cases.
N2EY: "Most people today still use the standard QWERTY-based keyboard, even though it was designed for the limitations of early mechanical typewriters that
no longer apply in any way. Alternative keyboard
layouts like the Dvorak have only captured a tiny
part of the user base, despite the fact that they
are demonstrably faster and easier to learn and use."
Some people still insist on using on-off CW keying mode for their amateur communications, even though talking goes back before recorded human history. :-)
After 60 years since my middle school typing class, I can still cruise comfortably at 60 WPM copying straight text, all the time using that alleged terribly old, antiquated 'inefficient' qwerty key arrangement. I can do that for communications with radio people or non-radio people alike. We English-language natives all speak the same language.
On my first 'IBM' PC I had WordPerfect 5.1 which included an equation editor. I upgraded to WP 8 which had a much better equation editor with easier to use math symbolism. It produces 'standard' equations which are better than the old Varityper's output. The rest of the text handling can make an inkjet printed page look as good as anything typeset by hand or via Linotype. In addition, the selection of typefaces is enormous, better than any manual print shop. Neither word processor needs any additional peripherals or add-ons, just one software suite for them or their competitors in the word processing software market.
....................................
AD7DP: "Well, after years of only being told to shelve their imaginations and just do what the knobs and switches allow you to do, the average ham has become comfortable with not using his imagination to improve the function of his radio or the advancement of his hobby. It is hard to move anybody from their comfort zone."
N2EY "Do you use a QWERTY-based keyboard?"
Does it matter? :-) Does Jimmy Miccolis, N2EY, use a DVORAK key arrangement?
Does that 'dvorak' keyboard help the on-off CW keying of N2EY's station? :-)
N2EY: "How about others reading this? Do the authors of long diatribes about military and commercial radio
use other keyboard layouts, or do they stick with the
familiar comfort zone of QWERTY?"
'Long diatribes?!?' What, for telling it like is? :-)
N2EY: "One reason the virtual interface isn't more widely accepted is that it's still pretty new as such things go.
Back in the mid-1950s the Collins Radio designed R-390 communications receiver had NO Big Dial. Just 5 little numbers for the tuning frequency. Very new at the time. Previous receivers for the military or commercial market had Big Dials for Appearance or sellability; the Hallicrafters SX-62 was a prize example of a Big Dial radio (worked pretty good, too). Now the R-390 is a prized possession of some, considered an 'ultimate' by many of those.
N2EY: "Another is the learning curve. A knob or switch tells its function and setting directly."
An LED, plasma, or LCD display panel can 'tell a function and setting directly.' In addition, the display can show other information, such as a bar graph or analog meter simulation as part of a large, central display panel. Most, if not all, of modern ready-made transceivers can 'repeat' their display screens to a PC input for an even larger display (or printout if that PC has a screen-capture program).
Having a mechanical coupling to a pot or variable capacitor way inside a cabinet does not make it 'better' or 'more accurate' or whatever. It is just the old way it had to be done before the microcontrollers came along. My 'ancient' IC-R70 sits alongside my IC-746 and most of its controls are electronically coupled to the circuitry, either directly or through the single microcontroller inside. I would classify it as a progenitor to the SDR. That R70, like its contemporary radios, has knobs or switches 'telling its function.' The newer IC-746Pro still 'tells functions' of its knobs and switches plus telling MORE information on its central, easy-to-read display. That 746 and contemporaries I consider an immediate predecessor of the SDR. Others mileage may vary.
N2EY: "Most of all, there's the need in most cases to have both a computer and a radio connected and working."
Is it? My IC-746Pro works very nicely all by itself, no 'computer' necessary. There's a couple of computers already inside it. 160m to 2m. Yaesu and Kenwood offer comparable models. I can get or make simple computer interfaces for most of those. I don't have any need for that now.
The DZ Company in Loveland, CO, once designed and marketed their PSQ-100, the 'PSKUBE.' It had a PC inside it and was intended to be a beginner's kit for an HF transceiver using PSK31 mode. Nice easy-to-read display, came with a ('qwerty') keyboard. A bit boxy esthetically, no pizazz to its appearance but fully functional in PSK31 mode. The display can show both incoming and outgoing text as well as other things. Looked to have some very nice engineering to it, putting everything in (essentially) one box. It didn't sell well so it was taken off the market. The instruction manual was available at their website, free download. DZ also makes a top-of-the-line HF transceiver kit called the 'Sienna.'
To the died-in-the-wool CW fanatic who lives in 40m, the PSKUBE would probably 'not be real radio.' <shrug> To each his own. Some MUST stick with the old modes regardless. Fine. Let them. But, for St. Hiram's sake, quit trying to hold the rest of us back in the past.
AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: The March of the 'Virtual Interface'
|
|
|
by N2EY on October 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY: "Have you built any amateur radio equipment since being licensed a few months ago?"
AF6AY: "Yes and no."
What have you built?
"Why is that your 'necessity?'"
It's not. I'm simply asking if you have built any amateur radio equipment since being licensed a few months ago, and what it was you built.
AF6AY: "Yet you've always intimated that one is 'not good enough' in ham radio until they've Built One All By Themselves."
Where have I said anything like that, Len? Show us
an example of where I "intimated" that.
AF6AY: "I've been branded a 'beginner,'"
In amateur radio, you *ARE* a beginner, Len. You've
only been licensed as a radio amateur for 7 months.
Nothing wrong with being a beginner. Or a novice, newbie, or inexperienced.
AF6AY: "a 'know-nothing' about radio, oops, that's AMATEUR radio,"
Who said that? Wasn't me.
AF6AY: "Now, how can a BEGINNER possibly succeed in building a complete station all by themselves."
I did it - as a teenager. And I wasn't at all unusual in doing so.
AF6AY: "BEGINNERS don't always have 'elmers'
(mentors) to come in and guide their hands and
hold their heads to the straight-and-narrow Amateur Way."
Elmers don't have to be right there with you. My
Elmers were books.
AF6AY: "No one 'elmered' me on either my license test preparation nor in putting up my station or its antennas. [that despite promises made over on rec.radio.amateur.policy...:-) ]"
Who promised you help, Len? Did you ask them for
help when you needed it?
N2EY: "Do you use a QWERTY-type keyboard with your computer?"
AF6AY: "You mean the KEYBOARD ARRANGEMENT! Yes, of course it is the 'querty' orientation."
But that's a very old arrangement. It dates back at
least 133 years, and was designed around the
mechanical limitations of early typewriters.
You're using a "user interface" that's over a century
old.
AF6AY: "I took a course in typing. It was recommended as a useful skill....'Qwerty' keyboards. Standard in all offices and everywhere a typewriten record was necessary at the time. Had been since before World War II. The teleprinters from Teletype Corporation had the same basic key arrangements (although a few were variations for the upper-case-only letters at the time)."
But not anymore. Not for many years.
AF6AY: "'Dvorak' key arrangements?...Is it 'better?' Not for me. I've become so used to the 'qwerty' key arrangement after 60 years of typing on lots of keyboards that I could care less about 'more efficient' (alleged) key arrangements."
You're using a user-interface that's at least 133 years old and designed for a completely different
purpose and around limitations that no longer exist.
Yet you criticize others for not accepting the latest
thing, for 'living in the past', preferring a radio
with knobs and switches instead of menus, etc.
Seems like a double standard to me.
AF6AY: "WHY did you ask?"
Because it seems, from you lecturing about the need
to change, adapt, progress, embrace new technology
and mindsets, etc., that you would be going for the
latest new thing, rather than sticking with an old,
antiquated nineteenth-century user-interface and
skill. But it turns out that's not the case at all.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
EchoLink
Ham Radio Love Story
'I Am Signal'
Radio and Electronics, Fading Away?
Separate Transmitters & Receivers?
Other Editorial Articles
The SB Project
Hamming It Up, The Early Years
Managing Ham Radio Estate Sales
How to Spot a Scam
JARL Ham Fair 2009
|
