|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
Anthony S Rick (AA9OC)
on
April 18, 2008
View comments about this article!
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
Over the weekend I happened to stumble upon some QST magazines from the 90s that I had stored in the back of a closet. After paging through a few and noticing advertisements from distributors such as Amateur Electronics Supply, one thing stood out immediately. Today's Amateur Radio equipment is much more affordable!
Interested in an entry level HF transceiver? In 1996 you could pick up an ICOM IC-707 10-160M transceiver for $759.95. Just need a 2M Handheld? $229.95 will get you the Kenwood TH-22AT. Compare these transceivers to the IC-718 and or THK-2AT at $549 and $139 respectively sold today. For some more comparisons, below is a table of a few HF transceivers available in 1996 and their modern equivalent listed by price. I also included pricing adjusted for inflation (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi).
A few interesting changes in the Amateur Radio market can be noted from the table above. First, most of today's transceivers include 6M and many more features such as DSP at a lowered price—especially when compared to the equivalent price adjusted for inflation. Secondly, the big-dollar market satisfied by transceivers such as the IC-7800, FTDX-9000MP and the Hilberling PT-8000 seems to have newly immerged from the 90s when no manufacturer sold a transceiver above the $10K mark.
So if money it tight, 2008 is not a bad time to begin tinkering with Amateur Radio. I would be interested if anyone can comment on earlier price trends as well—particularly from the tube era. Also, what about performance per dollar? Will $1000 buy you better core performance such as receiver close signal BDR or a transmitter with improved IMD?
*Pricing as referenced from Amateur Electronics Supply catalogs of 1996 and 2007.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W7ETA on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK.
ICs are cheaper than tubes; and require less energy to run than tubes do.
SM components are less expensive than "normal" components; and they are less expensive to assemble than "normal" components.
Plastic is less expensive than steel.
The price of coax, keys, paddles, microphones, headphones, meters, match boxes, rotators, towers, cement for towers, wire, land, housing, taxes, shipping, electricity, QSLs, postage, etc have increased.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by TANAKASAN on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Drop an FT-101 off your desk and it will probably bounce.
Drop an FT-2000 off your desk and it will probably never work again.
The equipment today may be a bargain but it's a damn sight more fragile. Maybe you really do get what you pay for.
Tanakasan
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KA3JLW on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is both true and well known; it is a corrallary (sp?) of Moore's law.
I analyze technology pricing as part of my job - and the pricing of a product line over time essentially looks like the line a slinky would trace as it goes down a flight of stairs. Each new product picks up on the pricing of the last and moves downward with it.
I was QRT for 20 years and it is interesting (and shocking) to see the differences then to now. Back then, I owned a Kenwood TS-820s, which sold for maybe $2000 or $3000 new (I think), although at the end of it's sell cycle. I just bought a TS-2000 for about $1500. Include a COLA or Inflation adjustment and the difference is huge - you now get the same line of radio (not the best, but not the worst) for 1/4 the real cost. And obviously, there are more features.
But honestly, not as huge as in PCs. In a way, the limited sales numbers of amatuer equipment are preventing prices from being even lower. But that's OK, at least they are lower.
And as for dropping it - that may be so, but doesn't mean it is a bad deal. If I could go back 20 years and pay 1/4 the price of a radio, and the only drawback was "if you drop it, it won't work" - I would have. And I would have nailed it to the desk. And if it fell, I would buy and new one - and still have only paid 1/2 what the others had who paid full price! I'd take that deal.
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KG8JF on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How true this thread is. My father was a ham, albeit non-active during the latter years of his life. His excuse was that the stuff was just too expensive. It probably was in absolute terms. But when compared to the CPI(consumer price index) it is cheaper. His station during the last half of the 50s probably cost him between 1000 and 1500 bucks in 1950s money. I went to the Oregon State Univ website and found their cpi calculator. In 2002 dollars that old gear was woth over 8 grand......It just seems expensive
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4LGH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The price of ALL electronics get cheaper every year!
This certainly includes the Amateur radio field as well. VLSI construction, plastic verses metal, printed circuit boards verses hand wiring. And lets NOT forget being built "off shore"!
So you want some older compairsons? Late 60's early 70's Drake 4B line. The R4B sold for $495 and the T4XB was about the same, throw in the matching MS-4 speaker and lets not forget the power supply for the T4XB and you had about $1250 in your radio! Now how much was $1250 in 1970, as compaired to today? However
my 4B line works as good today as it did 38 years ago!
I don't think my FT-2000 will be working 38 years from now, but then neither will I.(grin)
Actually the prices of the IC-7800's, FTDX-9000's and such are probably about right as far as inflated pricing goes, but not for me. My FT-2000 will probably be the last new radio. Don't get me wrong, the FT-2000 is a super radio, and I really enjoy it, but I am a big Vintage radio guy.
For me its just more fun dipping/peaking and keeping the VFO on frequency. Now thats real radio! (grin)
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KF4HR on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Secondly, the big-dollar market satisfied by transceivers such as the IC-7800, FTDX-9000MP and the Hilberling PT-8000 seems to have newly immerged from the 90s when no manufacturer sold a transceiver above the $10K mark."
The above statement does not factor in inflation.
I have to laugh when I hear people in total awe over someone paying $10,000 for an ICOM IC-7800 transceiver, or similar prices for a top-of-the-line rig. All things considered, are these prices unlike top-end equipment of yesteryear? Let's see...
Back in 1955 the Collins Gold Dust Twins (KWS-1 & 75A-4) sold for approximately $4,000 (transmitter/receiver pair). Correcting for inflation, that works out to be ~$30,530, in 2007 dollars.
If you research the original price any of the top-of-the-line ham rigs of yesteryear (Collins A-Line, Collins S-line, FT-1000D, TS-950SDX, etc), then adjust those prices for inflation it'll give you a new perspective on current equipment pricing. Give it a try: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
And just imagine what it would cost to reproduce the capability of say... an ICOM IC-7000 back in the 50's or 60's (again, adjusting for inflation); 160M through 70cm, 100 watts, all mode capability, and the other bells and whistles (SWR monitoring capability, adjustable filters, etc).
Modern equipment truly is a bargain.
KF4HR
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2UGB on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with the first two comments. I'll stick with my Kenwood hybrids.
Actually, the OHR series of QRP kits are solid. And, although no longer in production, the SG-2020 was built like a brick.
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4FID on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I had a KWM-2A a few years ago. Always wanted one and could finally afford it. LOVED it. New the xcvr and necessary power supply in the mid 60s were what -- 2 or 3 killobucks? Which would equate to ???? in today's dollars. A nice used one is in the 1.5 killobuck area today. Now I have an IC 746 PRO. It works as well as and I enjoy is as much as the KWM-2A. It takes about the same "footprint" on the desk. Both worked flawlesly although the jury is still out for how well the 746 will be working in 40 years. Neither has manufacturer support in its old age -- Collins is out of the ham business and Icom will only support the 746 for a few years after its sales cycle -- so I'm on my own if either one breaks in its old age. So I am equally happy with it -- maybe even like it a touch better since it's frequency agile; plus the variable filters and built in keyer are slick features. It cost 1.5 killobucks in today's dollars. So for the same $$ do I like a new, modern, more feature rig or a 40 year old classic rig?
I've had a ton of fun with both ............ but no doubt the old gear was way more $$/feature than today's gear.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K0BG on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's a different slant.
When the FT-101 and TS-520 were first introduced, you could actually work on them fairly easily. Just about any amateur could replace and neutralize the finals (instructions were in the owners manual), and the factories included schematics. About 1977, Icom came out with their IC-701; the first really decent, digital, all-solid-state transceiver. It heralded the end of the separates (stand-alone transmitters and receivers), and the start of complexity. Although Icom saw fit to include schematics and even board layouts with the IC-701, it was almost impossible for the average amateur to work on it, which it needed a lot of.
Jump ahead a few years, and the Icom 706 appeared, along with a few Yaesus and Kenwoods that used surface mounted devices. The separates had long since vanished. Schematics were no longer included, and if you wanted them you had to buy a repair manual, some of which cost well-over $100. Even with the special equipment required, replacing surface-mounted parts was difficult at best. In any case, it wasn't work for the faint at heart.
Nowadays, almost all consumer electronics are throwaways (at a minimum is board replacement), as repairing them is more costly than building a new one.
So what has all of this change done to us amateurs? Well, even if we didn't plan on it happening, it has made appliance operators of all of us, with precious few exceptions.
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KB2DHG on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, maybe just maybe compairing the prices of rigs back then were a bit more expensive per-say BUT they were much better built, easer to use, in that I HATE the small multi function buttons, relying on memory chips, and not too much on durability. The earlier rigs were easer to operate, easer to read, and as we get older that does become a problem. I also like the older rigs because they can be trouble shot and fixed at home with basic meters and tools.
Give me an Old Collens, DRAKE, Heathkit and those wonderful FT 101's and Kenwood.s ts 830's and my beloved Icom 745 which is still on the air today working flawlesly since the first day I purchased it in 1987!
I rather a steel casing than plastic, nice big dials and buttons and not having to deal with pages and pages of instructions of how to figure out the many functions of each micro sized small buttons.
You want GREAT CHEAP Radio equipment, go get an ond Kenwood,Yaesu or Icom from the 80's or treat yourself to The DRAKE 4 0r 7 lines even the old heatkits are good rigs. They are easy to fix and give great performance! they are found on most auction sites or call HAL from land/ air communications, he has an invatory of every dam amateur radio equipment ever produced!
Just my personal opinion!
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N8IK on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I bought a Texas Instruments SR-50 calculator in 1974 for college. They retailed for $169 - that's $780 in 2007 dollars. It was expensive at the time but worth every penny to me. Plus it looked way cooler hanging on my belt than a slide rule :)
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The price of ALL electronics get cheaper every year!
This certainly includes the Amateur radio field as well. VLSI construction, plastic verses metal, printed circuit boards verses hand wiring. And lets NOT forget being built "off shore"! "
I'll bet that the cost of the SMT lines and the facilities required to run the SMT lines are pretty constant. "off shore" generally only lowers the labor content.
But compare a Yaecomwood XYZ with 6 circuit boards, total SMT time is maybe 1/2 hour. Compared with how long did it take to hand wire a Collins S Line?
Soon we will see a Yaecomwood in a FPGA/ASIC, radio on a chip and a PA all on one PWB.
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AK2B on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The cheaper and cheaper ham radio gear becomes the closer it gets to being a throw-away appliance like your old toaster oven. Most modern rigs use such highly specialized components that after a manufacturer decides to no longer support it they are doomed to land fill. Fortunately, there are a lot of hams who have taken it upon themselves to resurrect many of the older tube radios to pristine condition and these are the ones that will end up in our museums – still working. They will not be in museums just because they are old; many of them like the KWM-2 and others will be there because they are really beautiful to look at.
Tom, AK2B
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W5ESE on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's one you'll enjoy.
Icom IC-230. synthesized 2 meter rig. 10 watts out.
New price 1975 in the US: $489.00
What cost $489.00 in 1975 would cost $2034.81 in 2007.
2008
Icom IC-2200H synthesized 2 meter rig. 65 watts
List Price: $216.00
Enjoy the new stuff (and the olde stuff).
73
Scott
W5ESE
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AD5VM on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I came across an old Tandy computer magazine from 1977 the other day. The TRS-80 personal computer from radio shack ad was amazing! The bottom line unit had 8k of ram and no storage, it only cost $499.00.. not bad right? Now the top of the line unit only had 64kb of ram and an incredible 1.8 MB of external storage via three floppy drives! The price? $8737.00.....1977 dollars!! A quick check on the online inflation calculator put that at over $32,000.00 in today's money!
Can you imagine having one of those sitting around? Somewhere theres at least one person who bought one on a high interest Rat Shack credit card and is still making the minimum payments today for a computer that would be dominated by the processing power of a musical greeting card! The good news is that he could probably get a couple thousand dollars on ebay for it from a collector.
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AD5VM on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I work in the semicon industry and an older co-worker who has been in the business since the beginning brought in a circuit board from way back in the day... I think he said it was from 1972. The board was about 2ft by 2ft square. He said the price was well over $10,000 back then. It is simply a 28K memory board. It doesn't use IC's for the storage, it used about a million tiny toroids and hair thin magnet wire all woven in a cris cross pattern. Each toroid was about 1mm in diameter and had a vertical and horizontal wire passing through it. The magnetic field of each toroid could be reversed by passing a current through the appropriate wire in the right direction. I looked at it under a high power magnifying lens and couldn't believe what I was seeing. He said it was sewn by hand.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N3JBH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Alan you said it best when you said this.
"So what has all of this change done to us amateurs? Well, even if we didn't plan on it happening, it has made appliance operators of all of us, with precious few exceptions."
There still some things left we can all make. But i doubt building radios like what is out there now is in the skill sets of the common ham.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N4KC on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love the old rigs, too, but how can you say they are built better than today's gear? That's like saying a new Toyota Camry is not as well made as a 1968 Ford Mustang because the typical guy can't work on the modern, computerized car like he could the simple, straighforward Ford.
I fully expect my TS-2000 to be working twenty years from now -- unless I drop it off the desk! But at least I can find new output transistors for it if they go bad. My old Swan used 8950 tubes. I don't think I'd find new ones of those.
The premise of the author is absolutely correct. Based on today's buying power, modern amateur gear is less expensive. And, if you compare feature to feature, it's an even bigger bargain, even if it lasts half as long. But the old stuff is still fun to use, work on, and hear on the air.
Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.n4kc.blogspot.com
(An open blog dedicated to rapid technological change and its
effect on life, society, and ham radio.)
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by NG0K on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In 1975 the US Dollar vs. Yen was around 300. Today it's 100. So according to this comparison the US dollar has 1/3 of the buying power it had in 1975.
Does that mean a $219 Icom 2m mobile rig feels like it cost $657 to our pocket books?
While amateur radio gear has come down in price, along with a lot of other consumer electronics, our buying power is not what it used to be, not to mention ever increasing taxes and general cost of living.
73, Doug
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N4KC on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, and one more quick point. The thrust of this article is true for all electronics. My dad made his living for a number of years as a TV repairman. How many TV repairmen are left?
My old Sony flat-screen CRT set was ten years old and still going strong and had never been worked on when I donated it to charity. Did 1960s sets work that well? No sir! Were they easier to work on? Sure. You just changed a tube or a flyback transformer and you were back in business. Now you toss the set and buy another and still come out to the better.
Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.n4kc.blogspot.com
(An open blog dedicated to rapid technological change and its
effect on life, society, and ham radio.)
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KI4ENS on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"it used about a million tiny toroids and hair thin magnet wire all woven in a cris cross pattern. Each toroid was about 1mm in diameter and had a vertical and horizontal wire passing through it. The magnetic field of each toroid could be reversed by passing a current through the appropriate wire in the right direction. I looked at it under a high power magnifying lens and couldn't believe what I was seeing. He said it was sewn by hand."
That's core memory and was the mainstay of memory for quite some time. The Space Shuttle actually used it in the early days of the program. Core memory had a couple of interesting features. It maintained its state after the power was cut. It also is resistant to radiation (hence the late use in the space program). I have a 32K board in my office from a 1972 PDP11/45.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N3QE on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Comparing to the Swan that used 8950's in the finals and coming to the conclusion that tube gear is no longer maintainable is simply faulty logic.
There were plenty of rigs from the 50's through the 80's (even early 90's) that used 6146's or variants in the finals... and those are readily available today. The sweep tubes don't fare so well in availability but they still are available (if you're willing to pay the $!) but a number of folks have converted their equipment over to 6146B's or more-readily-available-today tubes.
Some of us have a heavy, innate, long-standing bias against the usage of sweep tubes in the finals of ham equipment, compared to readily available industrial/commercial tubes.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by WA7NCL on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The home builders of yesteryear would have liked to be able to afford pre-built gear. They built it because they had to.
The term appliance operator is outmoded. Everybody is a system integrator now. Equipment, antennas, computer operating aids. Building an effective and well integrated station is still a challenge.
I look at the antennas and elmers forums on this site and see a great deal of construction and experimentation with antennas and setting up stations in difficult locations and situations.
Equipment is much better now.
If your income has kept pace with inflation, you've never had it so good. If it hasn't, you definately have problems across the board.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K5UJ on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love how these type articles make the "good old days" crowd attempt to claim that the old gear was better.
Myth: You can drop an old rig and it will be okay. Reality: You are more apt to drop it because it weighed a lot more. The h.v. transformer in it would insure the cabinet gets dented in. PA tubes probably get broken too.
Myth: The new gear is throw away gear. Reality: It is possible to repair the new gear, it just takes different bench techniques and tools. More important, the new gear is so much more reliable you'll probably never have to repair it if you use it correctly and eventually you'll get so sick of operating it you'll practically give it away to clear room for something new.
Myth: The old gear was better somehow because: (what I usually hear is that because it was all vacuum tubes it "sounded" better). Reality: The old gear sounded(sounds) awful compared to modern rigs and drifts. I can always tell I'm working an old 520 or 101 or Swan, Drake, you name it, because the tx audio sounds like a bad PA system or an extremely compressed cell phone and I have to turn on my RIT and follow the guy around. The truth is that the only thing the old rigs do well is evoke memories of old times we want to view through rose tinted glasses and there's nothing wrong with that but spare me the desperate attemt to claim a SB101 is really better than anything I can buy new today.
|
| |
|
I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by WZ1P on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I run an IC-7000 mostly in portable ops. This would NOT have been possible back in the 'golden day's' of ham radio. I talking about the power requirements, bands, features, portability and yes, the quality. I know that boat anchors have a big following but not in my world. The wonderful marvel of a full featured portable/mobile radio in a small package is a real delight. Just imagine pricing out those features and bands in a tube type and then attempting to lug them around. Geeezzzz....
73, Dan WZ1P
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by N3OX on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So what has all of this change done to us amateurs? Well, even if we didn't plan on it happening, it has made appliance operators of all of us, with precious few exceptions. "
Surface mount = good for RF, good for prices, hard to work on.
Re: appliance operating, I know what you mean, but I think we have a new opportunity in front of us.
Software defined radios have a chance to swing the pendulum back the other way. Yeah, you can't burn solder to make modifications, but you can write yourself a new filter...
Don't get me wrong, I like analog, homebrew, and a bit of soldering, but there's no way I want to work on SMT devices routinely in a hobby that's supposed to be relaxing, and my eyes are only 29 years old !!! I soldered a capacitor into my FT-857D to slow down the AGC and replaced the front end diodes in my MFJ-259B and that was nerve-wracking enough.
All I can say to the die-hard radio modification types who would rather be able to tweak their rigs than to be nostalgic is : learn to write software ;-)
73,
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by K2DC on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to agree with Anthony. My first rig was a TS-520SE. One VFO, no FM, no keyer, no WARC bands (not available yet), no general coverage receive, no memories, no filters, no tuner, no digital interfaces (nothing to hook it to then anyway). Its only "features" were a speech processor, VOX, and limited 10 MHz WWV receive.
I bought it in December 1979 for $600. In today dollars, that's $1570. You'd be hard pressed to find an assembled rig with so few features from anyone but MFJ at any price today, and how many would be that interested? Look what you can get now for the same amount in constant dollars.
I too will stick with today, and look forward to tomorrow.
73 All,
Don, K2DC
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by K6AER on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The nostalgia for old gear is greatly misplaced by selective memory.
I have had my license for 49 years and have been a RF engineer for almost 40 of those years.
This is what I remember about most of the older radios.
• They drifted a lot. And the classic cure was never to turn them off.
• You didn’t dare get within 4 KHz of the band edge with an analog readout with out a calibrator.
• The transmit SSB bandwidth was very narrow and generally covered 300 to about 2.4 K in audio bandwidth.
• The noise blanker would only work a very short repetitive noise pulses.
• Power supplies were in the speaker housing and the radios were about as portable as a 19 inch TV.
• Most transceivers had no QSK.
• The tubes produced a lot of heat and that meant lot’s of IF noise. Minimal discernable sensitivity was a problem.
• IF filters tended to be mechanical and the selectivity was poor. Typical dynamic range was not much better than 70 dB at 10 KHz.
• The T/R relays would get tarnished and the receiver or transmitter would get flaky requiring several PTT cycles to have the receiver come back.
• Microphones were high impedance and very susceptible to RF.
• Hum was always a problem on transmit.
• Poor RF output control if any. That is why the amplifiers had a ALC output.
I could go on and on but you get the idea. This is just like comparing a 40 year old car to a new vehicle. Not even close.
And as the author had noted compared to prices from long ago the radios are much cheaper.
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by W6TH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
What cost $489.00 in 1975 would cost $2034.81 in 2007.
Is this because our dollar is only worth maybe 25 cents or less today?
.:
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K5BZH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thought I would ask, is anybody out there hankering for a Spark Gap rig?
73,
Jim, K5BZH
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N9DG on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K5BZH: "Thought I would ask, is anybody out there hankering for a Spark Gap rig?"
I think it could be fun to do once just to see if you can. No doubt the FCC and all the other users of the VLF/LF spectrum would think otherwise though.
But then on the other hand I would never try claim it to be better built than newer radios of today either. And I also wonder sometimes how well some modern high-energy ignition components could be made to work spark gap transmitters.
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by AK2B on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think anyone is arguing the benefits of new radios over the older ones. I think the nostalgia comes from the fact that many hams today are old enough to realize we've gone from the day when a radio was built by humans and not robots. It's obvious that a robot can build it faster, cheaper, and more reliably. It's obvious that newer radios don't need us like the old ones did in order for them to stay on the air. It's also obvious we don't build like we once did because it simply isn't necessary. Some hams like old radios because it is our heritage and choose to preserve it. A lot of them fear our roots are turning to ruts. Who knows?
Tom, AK2B
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by K5BZH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Truthfully from the operating standpoint, with the exception of the menu side of it, I prefer the new radios. The QSK is really nice. The displayed accuracy of the frequency from the synthesizer. The frequency stability. The slow tuning rate. The steep skirts. This list could continue.
Like many others, I like piddling with the old stuff too. Somehow I make time for both.
I am nutty enough that I have recently proposed that the ARRL offer and Auld Lang Syne Worked All States to anyone that can work all 50 states using a homebrew regenerative receiver or a heterodyne of the S-38 class in conjunction with a homebrew crystal controlled transmitter having no more than 35 watts output. Gentlemen, there is a challenge, but it could be done.
Regards,
Jim, K5BZH
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by N3DF on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I wrote an article on the relative value (adjusted for inflation) of ham radio equipment published in CQ in 1981. QST published a similar article (written by someone else) about ten years ago.
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by K5BZH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What if anything has sold for more in real money on the ham market than the Collins KW-1?
Regards,
Jim, K5BZH
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don't be so certain some rigs of "yesteryear" aren't really superior in many ways to most modern stuff.
For example, my 30 year-old Drake TR-7, which I purchased new in 1978 and still own, actually outperforms the majority of 2008-vintage HF transceivers in many respects. In the Sherwood Engineering "Receiver Test Data" reports, for example, the stock TR-7 has the highest recorded performance figure for 100 kHz blocking dynamic -- of all receivers tested, including brand new ones. It's also "par" with the best on Noise Floor, Front End Selectivity, Dynamic Range Wide Spaced, etc. In 30 years many new receivers were designed and built, and they don't surpass this 30 year-old piece of gear on these fronts.
I've bought, used and sold (in the meantime, while still owning the TR-7) the IC-761 and 765; the FT990 and FT1000MP; the TS-940S, 950SDX and 850S (which I still have); the OMNI-VI+; the Jupiter (which I still have); and other gear...it comes and goes, and the "keepers" remain, for various reasons. I borrowed an SDR1000 for six weeks and used it quite a lot but didn't buy it, mostly because it couldn't handle the strong SW BC signal from a 1.2 Megawatt station close to me (KVOH) who operates just below the 30m and 17m bands around the clock. Not too many receivers can actually handle that, but the TR-7's completely immune to it.
Most of today's stuff is a terrific value, but it's not all necessarily "better." It's just priced well and the performance:cost ratio is amazing.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, the new rigs cost less than the old ones, once you adjust for inflation.
The problem is not the cost of a ham rig, it's the cost of a lot of other things.
For example, compare the cost of a house where you can have a decent HF antenna today, with a similar house of the past. Not just the price of the house itself, but the taxes, insurance, upkeep, emergy, etc. Adjust for inflation and compare costs.
Or do the same for a basic economy car. Or health care, a college education, or many other things.
What we've seen is incredible reductions in real cost of some things (computers, ham rigs, cell phones) but big increases in other things over the same time period. Too often, the things that have risen in price faster than inflation are the necessities.
That's the problem a lot of hams face today.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by K5BZH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Don't be so certain some rigs of "yesteryear" aren't really superior in many ways to most modern stuff."
I agree that in some ways a lot of gear designed and manufactured years ago performs outstandingly well. A receiver designed in the middle fifties, the R-390A, quickly comes to mind. I admit this isn't a ham receiver, but some of the gear designed for ham use in the early years does a great job too.
When you stand back and look at the complete picture though, it is hard for yesteryear's product to be as stable, have as good of tuning resolution, etc.
Yes, I can still dig down in the mud and find signals with some of the old clunkers that would shock some of today's hams. In some situations I would almost bet my National HRO-5TA1 would pull stuff out some of the newer rigs wouldn't.
The real truth is that if I had to give up my old clunkers or the new stuff (I want to keep some of both if possible), my old clunkers would go.
Regards,
Jim, K5BZH
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4VR on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Good article for a change! I bought a National NCX-3 in 1965 for $700. Using an inflation conversion factor of .175 my $700 was worth $4000 in today's dollars. So, you are right...radios today are real cheapin price and affordable even by the the guy on welfare.
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by WD4AOG on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I enjoy the lower prices and modern bells and whistles, I long for the receiver quality we used to have before wide-banding became popular.
I used to own an IC-22S and NEVER had the problems with intermodulation and front-end overload that are common place these in today's VHF rigs. I know there is more RF out there today but I'd still put that rig's receiver, in its prime, up against any modern VHF rig's receiver today.
Wide-banding may have given us additional monitoring capability but it also made rigs cheaper to produce for the manufacturers and left us with less quality.
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KA5ROW on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain! I agree 100%. If you go back to the early 1960's and look at the price of equipment compared to today and adjusted for inflation, I can assure you that I would not be a ham today. New technology has made it possible for many of us to afford ham equipment today.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K5BZH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!"
The above statement is so true. I got my first ticket in 1955. At that time the typical novice had a Hallicrafters S-38C or S-38D for a receiver and a Heathkit AT-1 for a transmitter. The AT-1 was crystal controlled and ran 35 watts input, don't ask what the output was, especially on the higher bands.
The AT-1 needed a tuner, Heath sold one, the AC-1, that was a simple LC tuner for $15 (half the price of the AT-1). The AT-1 needed a crystal, in those days they sold for about $3 each. To avoid using two antennas, one for receive and one for transmit, a relay was needed.
Lets add these prices
S-38D $50
AT-1 $35
AC-1 $15
2 crystals $ 6
Relay $10
Total $116
In today's dollars it would be over $860. What could you get with $860? For starters it could very well be a synthesized radio. It would have at least semi-breakin operation, it would also work SSB. The prices of radios have came down a bunch over the years.
I'm not sure how folks afforded to buy 75A4 and KWS-1 stations, but if the truth were known, I don't think there were as many manufactured and sold as everyone wants to believe either.
Regards,
Jim, K5BZH
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by WD7Z on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't want to debate the cost of new ham radio equipment. The prices do seem fine to me. The price of a new IC-718 looks great. I do think the price of used equipment is higher than it should be. What does an Icom IC-706MII sell for new now? What is the lowest price they sold for used (with the old finals)? What do they sell for now on the used market? How about the used price of a IC-718 or MFJ 259b? I've bought old boat junkers for $50 and put $100 into them to make them work; sure. My only concern is if the high prices for used equipment is a major factor keeping a lot of people away from the hobby. Way back when, I got a great price on an IC-751 station. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be here. I don't know of any solutions for this one. A seller can get a pretty good price a lot of his used gear. On some things, he or she can get almost what they sell for or sold for new. I don't mind correction if someone would like to disagree.
I'm not going to drop my ft-101 on my desk. I have more respect for my radio and desk than that.
John WD7Z
formerly W7FRS
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'm not sure how folks afforded to buy 75A4 and KWS-1 stations, ..."
Regular folks couldn't "afford" Collins gear, as a rule. The pharmacist, dentist, doctor, lawyer, was the typical owner. Amplifiers were scarce then compared to now. The same "professional" class were the typical owners. As prosperity blossomed in America, ownership of higher class ham gear followed. In much of the rest of the world, homebrew was king late into the 20th century.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I still have my 75A4 which I acquired third-hand in 1973. I knew the previous two owners personally, although the original owner is a Silent Key now.
It's a wonderful receiver. I never had a KWS-1, but it's really an SSB-CW transmitter and what I'd really rather have is a Collins AM rig like a 32V series, to complete my "boat anchor AM station" which now has only homebrew transmitters, and they're not fancy.
My first Novice station was:
Homebrew 6V6 xmtr 15W, cost about $40 to build
NC-125 RX, used, cost $60
Dow Key DK60 coax relay, cost $18 new
40m folded dipole, about $15 total
Hy-Gain 18V vertical, $19 new + $5 for radials
Misc coax about $10
J-38 key, bought unused in military packaging for $2
Four FT-243 PR crystals, about $20
ARRL logbook, $.75 I believe
And ARRL membership, which I think was $10 or so
In 1965 dollars, a lot of money for a 13 year-old kid.
Probably equivalent to $500-$600 today. It was all total crap but I came home from school each afternoon and made contacts -- a lot of them.
I upgraded after about 9 months and had three logbooks (ARRL spiral bound) which contained 1,000 line entries each filled with contacts, almost all on 40 CW, plus some on 15CW and some on 2m AM.
Not knowing how anything worked, it all "worked great."
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K5BZH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"My first Novice station was:
Homebrew 6V6 xmtr 15W, cost about $40 to build
NC-125 RX, used, cost $60"
I'd bet with that rig at 13 years of age that you could tell some of us what "magic" really is.
Magic still exists but it isn't necessarily where most think it will be.
Jim, K5BZH
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W6TH on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Try beating these prices:
TNT self excited oscillator, including a # 45 vacuum tube. coil of wire on toilet tube of 35 turns, one variable condenser 500 mmfd, six inch block of wood for the chassis, tube socket and Fahnestock clips plus a complete built power supply from an old RCA Radiola broadcast radio.
All free from a garbage can of my neighbor.
My transmitter:
A three tube TRF receiver, home brew for about the same cost plus the price of three vacuum tubes numbers 27 at 1.00 each.
I would assume a total price of $11.00 and bet I can work the same DX today as any of you can.
I did work China back in 1938 on the 80 meter band with this set up with plenty of UK stations and throughout Europe.
This I call this ham radio, but today call it a kids game of winner take all.
73, W6TH
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain! Reply
by W6TH on April 18, 2008 Mail this to a friend!
.
Try beating these prices:
TNT self excited oscillator, including a # 45 vacuum tube. coil of wire on toilet tube of 35 turns, one variable condenser 500 mmfd, six inch block of wood for the chassis, tube socket and Fahnestock clips<
::Try beating this: I dated Betty Fahnestock in high school. Yep, she was the granddaughter and lived in Springfield, NJ, where I grew up.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AA5JG on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To show how much of a bargain the recent rigs are compared to even 15 years ago, I recently picked up a used Yaesu FT100D for $500. At one time this model was selling new for $689. A year or so ago I looked at an AES catalog from 1993 and decided to calculate how much it would cost to put together a setup that had the capabilities of the FT100D in 1993.
So here is a comparable setup, at the lowest possible price, with how much each piece cost in 1993:
Kenwood TS50 HF transceiver $1039
TCXO 144.95
500hz CW filter 98.95
JPS NIR-10 DSP filter 349.95
12 volt supply for NIR-10 16.00
MFJ 407B delux electronic keyer 64.95
Yaesu FT690RII 6 meter transceiver 669.95
Mirage A1015G 150W 6 meter amp 329.95
Tone Encoder 41.00
Yaesu FT290RII 2 meter transceiver 569.95
Tone Encoder 41.00
Yaesu FT790RII 659.95
Tone Encoder 41.00
Total Cost $4066.60 (not adjusted for inflation)
This figure would be comparable today to the Yaesu FT857D which goes new for $700, but the CW filter and TCXO would have to be added, as they were standard for the FT100D. You would also need quite a bit of table space to put together the above station also.
73s John AA5JG
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KD6NEM on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I must agree with all the comments- todays rigs certainly do more for less. Consider how we can now purchase an IF DSP rig covering HF-6m (FT-450) for in the mid $600's! No filters to buy ever, just plug & play! The door is open, and one wonders what we'll be seeing from ICOM very soon- a ruggedized manpack styled IC-7200 likely with even better performance than the new Yaesu for just a bit higher price tag is my guess. Higher end rigs are gaining more & more bells & whistles. All very, very well. It IS a great time to be a ham! I believe the day is upon us when any HF rig lacking IF DSP will very soon be fading from the market since they cost more to do less. Their era is done.
But one significant thing seems to be overlooked here. <stepping up on soapbox> I seriously doubt that we'll in twenty years be admiring anyone's 2009 model year "classic" rig regardless of what was paid for it. We'll still have our Drakes, Collins, & even Heathkits still gracing our desks, but very few of today's rigs could possibly be alive even twelve years from now. Many won't make much over half that far. They are indeed from the era of disposable electronics, and even those who wish to preserve their modern rig will throw up their hands in futility! Given the low price and the fun of keeping something new around it won't be much of a big deal for most. But if you are planning to soak ten grand into an ultra-mega rig you may want to think twice. As someone else first reported here in eHam, this RoHS boondoggle will needlessly rob you of the opportunity to keep any new rig more than about a decade at best. Fine pitch SMT + lead free solder = early failure. Google "NASA & RoHS tin solder" if you are skeptical. Meanwhile, I do not mean to proclaim that the sky is falling. My purpose is to ensure that we go into this with our eyes open to enjoy the new rigs with enthusiasm, yet with reasonable expectations for lifespan. Suddenly they don't seem like QUITE the bargain we thought, do they? Nevertheless, they DO remain a good deal, just don't plan on a new rig lasting forever. So long as you plan on a new rig every 8 to 10 years, you'll still be happy. On the other hand, maybe, just maybe the poor engineers, chemists, and physicists who had this mess foisted upon them will actually figure out a way to keep lead free solder from killing our rigs. That would be sweet indeed! (I'm not taking this bet!) To me, that is the one area where taking one step "backward" would actually be one huge step forward.
Stu KD6NEM /AE
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K9MHZ on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is true in the American market. It's NOT true for the rest of the world. The manufacturers do some big price cutting and go for volume sales in the U.S. market. Every foreign dealer that I visit....Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo.....simply can't believe what we can pay for new equipment in the U.S. This has been this way for quite a while, even before the dollar's big drop in value against other currencies.
Even bigger discounts happen at Dayton. If you can, you've GOT to go....you won't believe how the manufacturers, via their vendors, slash prices to move more gear at the show.
We're a lucky group, guys!
Best,
Brad
K9MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AA5JG on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"one wonders what we'll be seeing from ICOM very soon- a ruggedized manpack styled IC-7200 likely with even better performance than the new Yaesu for just a bit higher price tag is my guess."
That Icom 7200 is sure one ugly looking rig. Yikes!!
73s John AA5JG
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by G3RZP on April 18, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Go further back and look at the price of a surplus BC348. Then convert to 2008 dollars.....
Not all old rigs are that bad. I still use a 25 year old FT102. It's very good on phase noise, the infamous relay problem is easily fixed with a few resistors and capacitors, and the IMD performance is adequate. Reports on transmitted audio quality are excellent and it's fixable!
Modern rigs with a dedicated ASIC somewhere in them aren't fixable if that ASIC goes and there's no stock left. That's similar to the position with many of the 1970's oscilloscopes that used tunnel diodes. Tunnel diodes have a finite life,(shorter than many tubes!) and I don't know of anyone making them anymore.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4LGH on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD6NEM said.."I believe the day is upon us when any HF rig lacking IF DSP will very soon be fading from the market since they cost more to do less. Their era is done."
While I do agree that the new radios are a bargin, and that they DO have a lot more BELLS & WHISTLES, one must keep in mind that thats exactly what they are..BELLS & WHISTLES. Creature comforts, not necessarly making a better radio. DSP has done a lot, but still has a long way to go, if ever replacing good mechanical/crystal filters! DSP still has a lot of its own inhernent noise, and will inject unknown sound artifacts into its stream. Analog filters are very clean, can have very sharp edges and will be with us for a long time. Once they get DSP really good, they will come back out with a NEW radio offering analog filtering again, just as they have done with the "new" passband tunning features. Passband tunning is NOT new. Remember all that glitters is NOT gold!
But yes new radios are cheaper then ever, especially @ this time of the year! So go out and get you that new radio you've bee wanting, but keep your vintage gear handy.
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by G3RZP on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If DSP filtering is so good, why is there a tendency to fit narrow (3kHz) crystal filters before the DSP? Of course, when we can do a 24bit ADC with better than 30MHz analogue bandwidth, it may become unnecessary to use crystal filters. On the other hand, crystal filters don't consume power, which can be advantageous in some low power applications.
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K0PD on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
One of the best Articles i've seen on E Ham.One thing i would like to point out is that it seem's like were even more dissatisfied with the newer radio's. I base this on all the nit picking i read and hear all the time.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2UGB on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I always get a little confused when "old" dollars and "new" dollars are used in comparison shopping.
Most of today's hams were not raising families back in the 1950's so it is difficult to speak from actual experience on the matter. Just how difficult it may have been.
I think so much "stuff" out there in the malls did not exist back then, so it was never an issue. And so much of what is considered, necessary today, really isn't, if some thought is given.
As for the transceivers themselves, I can see the equipment pros and cons of both periods.
I have an SG-2020 built like a tank with a minimum of menus. I hate menus, especially the really burried one's. The SG rig manages to avoid the really deep-dish variety.
I think the Oak Hills Research line of QRP rigs, do-it-yourself or sub-contracted out are really good, solid transceivers. For those who are QRP operators, and for those who want a menu-free radio, they can't be beat. And, they are not small, which I appreciate. And, the cabinet is real metal!
That is my station, the SG and a couple OHRs. Ok, I have a rarely used FT-817. But only for CW with a straight key on a couple bands, so a few of those menue functions are never engaged.
Anyway, at my age and S.S. income, my new rig purchasing days are over.
73 and enjoy whatever you have...and each other...so much more important than "things".
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K6CRC on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The good news about this thread is that, unlike the general public, hams seem to understand basic economics. If a 20 year old rig works, then use it. If you have the money, then buy the $10K rig. If not, a used IC-718 is fine, and few will hear the difference.
Hams are hit with continual inflation differently than computer users, as we have a small, non-business user market. Comments were made about how expensive computers were in the 80s vs now in inflation adjusted prices. The difference between a computer and a radio for me is that I can justify upgrading my computer every 18 months because it is just a business tool. It is easy to put a price on reliability and usefulness. My notebook computer fails, I have a BIG problem. My rig fails, OK I am off the air for a week.
When buying my first ham rig, the decision was different. No business purpose, no depreciation on my 1040. Bought a lower end rig that served the purpose. I also was able to sell it for only a small (inflation adjusted loss) to another new ham when I upgraded (buying a lightly used rig).
Everyone makes different economic decisions of course. I know someone who is so over-extended that he will lose his house soon. But, his wife just HAD to go to Hawaii, and that new pickup looked SO cool, he bought it.
If you have teenagers, this all sounds familiar. I see it, I want it. I will worry about paying for it tomorrow! It is tough to bring up responsible kids in this world when many other parents, and indeed, most adults are ignorant and irresponsible with their money.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KE7FD on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If a new ham (or not) were looking for a good solid HF rig w/o giving away the farm to get it, look at the Icom IC-735. Very solid rig and now can be had for not much moola. They lack a lot of the frills or the problems of todays rigs.
IMHO,
KE7FD
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AD7KC on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a really good article and exchange. For me, buying a new radio (or used), is/was like walking through a mine field. I used the same set of standards I use for most things – reliability, ruggedness, durability and will it do what I want it to (and what the manufacture says it will).
In this regard, Are the ‘newer’ radios really a better ‘deal’ as the old ones? I don’t have the money to throw around, like a lot of hams do (evidently). So what I buy needs to last. Specially as I go into retirement (fixed income).
So, are these ‘bargains’, really bargains?
I don’t care about ‘software’. Outside of work, I don’t use it that much. The idea of having to ‘replace’ software constantly – I find disturbing. The ‘menus’ don’t bother me all that much.
Will these ‘bargains’ be there, for me, when I need them? Time will tell, I guess.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K9MHZ on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Icom 718 and Yaesu 450 are two examples of rigs that will become the "my first station" memories of the future. What a fine pair of radios for new people. Remember that for newer generations of hams, the perspective of history begins when they're first licensed, not when we were young and first licensed. I look back fondly at the picture of my Heath DX-60 station and later Tempo One station, and likewise new hams will do the same with today's entry-level rigs. The difference of course is that they've got so much more technologically available to them. That's a good thing.
Best,
Brad
K9MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N5YPJ on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Definitely a bargain!
Yes it is more fragile and not as (if at all) user serviceable but it's much more affordable than before and does so much more. Plus with the internet it's so much easier to find gear and get hands on reviews of it. Stuff I would have had to pound many a ham fest floor to get 20 years ago.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AF6AY on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K5UJ observed on April 18, 2008:
"I love how these type articles make the "good old days" crowd attempt to claim that the old gear was better."
Heh heh heh, I agree. [I started in HF comms in Feb '53]
..........
K5UJ: "Myth: You can drop an old rig and it will be okay. Reality: You are more apt to drop it because it weighed a lot more. The h.v. transformer in it would insure the cabinet gets dented in. PA tubes probably get broken too."
Heh, those claimants have never worked Environmental Testing with shock, vibration, and the good old 10 g Drop Test. :-) [I did that for a living for 2 years when things were "built rugged" back in the late 1950s]
Comparison: Much-touted R-390 military receiver circa 1950s versus Icom R70 circa beginning 1980s. R-390 is a nice piece of MECHANICAL engineering "built rugged" to military specs but the electriconics specs just barely make it...it was one of the first "set (to frequency) and forget" HF receivers and thus had legends grow around it. One needed BOTH hands (and
strong arms to lift one), which I did on the Autotune (R-391) as part of my civilian work.
The IC-R70 is smaller, can be carried by one hand, yet the cast-aluminum 'chassis' with fully-enclosed sides can withstand as much physical abuse as the R-390. All solid-state with 50 KHz to 30 MHz tuning to +/- 10 Hz resolution absolute, it has BETTER sensitivity than any R-390 ever built, easily on-par (if not better) than the much-touted Collins PTO.
Note: When that PTO made its debut in the 50s, 'VFOs' were all-analog and seldom frequency-linear; along with quartz crystal control of the first local oscillator it had very respectable frequency settability and made an impression on all its users. But that was a comparative one OF ITS TIME, compared to older receivers OF THAT TIME. What was not common AT THE TIME was up-conversion in the first mixer via a PLL or DDS first local oscillator locked to a single quartz standard...that would become commonplace three decades later. The up-conversion would mean almost nil image response when using broad bandpass filters in the front end.
While not touting Icom, they were one of the first to use diode bandswitching and eliminating one of the irritating things about rotary switch contacts: Normal corrosion of contacts from exposure to air. My all-tube Heath SB-310 went unserviceable due to that, even after the third switch 'cleaning' using a pro cleaner.
..............
K5UJ: "Myth: The new gear is throw away gear. Reality: It is possible to repair the new gear, it just takes different bench techniques and tools. More important, the new gear is so much more reliable you'll probably never have to repair it if you use it correctly and eventually you'll get so sick of operating it you'll practically give it away to clear room for something new."
Fact: The amount of average ham 'repair' of older gear consisted almost entirely of TUBE REPLACEMENT...unplug the obviously non-glowing little tube and replace it, hardly ever bothering to check what effect it had from different internal tube capacity on an oscillator or RF amplifier circuit of old front ends. :-)
Tube replacement isn't some kind of rocket science. A few drug store chains (Sav-On in southern California) had 'tube testers' for customer use back in the 1970s...and customers weren't exactly PhDs in TV set repair. :-)
My early 1980s IC-R70 is still running, still to specifications as of last year and a full work-up on sensitivity, selectivity with a calbrated HP 608. I bought it at a local HRO and no one on that store's staff could explain how that triple-loop PLL worked, not even by block diagram. [I got a 'Duhhh' moment from them then] I finally got (not from HRO) an Icom Manual that did explain it enough to convince me to purchase it. A quarter century is pretty good service life with NO repair, I'd say. :-)
.............
K5UJ: "Myth: The old gear was better somehow because: (what I usually hear is that because it was all vacuum tubes it "sounded" better). Reality: The old gear sounded(sounds) awful compared to modern rigs and drifts. I can always tell I'm working an old 520 or 101 or Swan, Drake, you name it, because the tx audio sounds like a bad PA system or an extremely compressed cell phone and I have to turn on my RIT and follow the guy around. The truth is that the only thing the old rigs do well is evoke memories of old times we want to view through rose tinted glasses and there's nothing wrong with that but spare me the desperate attemt to claim a SB101 is really better than anything I can buy new today."
Fact: According to what I read in all these venues, whatever anyone has (or had) will 'blow the others away' regardless of make, model, or age. :-) Disturb that imagery that so many have and one invokes their Wrath. :-)
On transmitters' sound, FEW Hams have heard their own voice (or keying) received and recorded by another...let alone checking their own Tx into a dummy load and recording it via a separate receiver. Many become uncomfortable hearing their own voice and manner of speaking, putting off such self-testing. They let their ALCs handle 'gain riding' and brag about their (expensive, 'studio quality') microphones. Microphones aren't the thing despite all the sales pitches from Heil Sound. Neither will gold-plated keys from Name manufacturers make anyone a good morseman on CW.
On receivers' sound, the only one I've heard that could be said to have superior audio is the old Hallicrafters SX-28 with a good bass reflex speaker enclosure. The SX-28 had push-pull 6V6s (?) and could repro a broadcast transmission with good fidelity. Small speakers in today's amateur equipment lack widerange, reasonably-flat audio response.
Human senses may degrade with time but human memories of old glory remain, higher than high-fi with all the rose-tinting possible in old mnemonic neurons.
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K6CRC on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
a ham sez"Human senses may degrade with time but human memories of old glory remain, higher than high-fi with all the rose-tinting possible in old mnemonic neurons"
So true. I have designed and built a lot of homebrew tube and solid state audio stuff. I recently listened to a $50 25W amp in a junky plastic case. I was based on the TriPath PWM digital amp module, and ran off a wall wart. Into a pair of Klipsch corner horns, I heard the best sound I can recall. I could hear flaws in the recording of a specialty CD that I never realized were there. Blew away everything else I had - better than the Marantz 8B I recently sold. Amazing.
I am sure that many hams went through the same experience when they first played with a DSP system.
I still like the glowing of my tube amp playing Mary Black, or Fleetwood Mac, but I cannot say it has the best sound. Technology marches on...
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W9ZXT on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a TS 520 I bought for 200.00 a couple of years ago, with VFO 520 and external speaker. Everything works perfect. I also have a TS 820 I bought for 200.00 with a MC-50 Mic about 6 months ago. It also works perfect. I don't know if these are considered "good" deals to anyone reading this. Some probably have never, or will never, own one of these Rigs. For me it's Tall Grass, they both work and do what I want them to do, and I paid CASH for both of them. I just can't save 1500.00 or more CASH MONEY and spend it on a radio. It's easy with a credit card, but it hurts when you unfold the Dollar Bills. That's why I don't have credit cards and I run 200.00 Rigs. Today's Equipment may be a bargain, I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Best 73
Nick
W9ZXT
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4LGH on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9ZXT says..."It's easy with a credit card, but it hurts when you unfold the Dollar Bills."
And I agree 100%! My entire station has been paid for in cash and I am proud of that fact. Everything was either traded, or I sold what I had, and bought something different. My last NEW HF purchase was my Yaesu FT-1000-MP MKV, which I traded for the FT-2000, just about straight up, as the original owner loved the MKV, and I had one of the last ones produced. The difference was an AL-811 amp I had sitting around not using.
My vintage equipment was also paid for in cash, except the few pieces that were donated to me because they knew I would give it a good home. And for the record, I still accept Donations of radios and will gladly pay the shipping costs.
So if you have some vintage equipment thats taking up room, not being used, certainly get intouch with me.
I do enjoy the Vintage stuff!!
New radios are great, but they just don't have the same class. Nothing makes ya feel better tahn to tell someone you are on a Drake 4B line, and tell you what a great signal, and how good your audio sounds, and that you are ON frequency!!
Different strokes for different folks. I like both old and new, but have a special spot for vintage stuff, but I am NOT saying Older is better, but for everyday ragchewing, who needs all the bells & whistles??
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Of course a lot of the discussion is about the price of *new* ham rigs.
But a lot of us don't go that route. In fact the only brand-new ham gear I've ever owned in 40+ years of hamming are a Heath HW-2036 (1977) and an Elecraft K2 (2001). Both were kits.
For used gear, how about these prices:
First transmitter: 6V6GT oscillator. 50 cents for the J-37 key, 50 cents for a box of parts from an NRI correspondence course that started the junk box, $1.25 for a 6V6GT, power supply from an old TV (free), $3 for a crystal. Made a lot of QSOs with that $5.25 rig.
Or the BC-342N that I got at a hamfest ~20 years ago for $2. A DX-20 for $20 in 1968 (40 cents per watt!) traded later for a Viking Adventurer.
Viking 2 for $35. SX-101A for the same price. (early 1980s)
ARC-5s for $5 each, complete. Old TVs, record players and AM BC sets from the trash for parts.
Or this homebrew rx, built for about $10 back in the early 1970s (xtals and 88mh toroids had to be bought):
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/jiminfo.doc
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX1.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX2.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX3.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX4.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX5.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX6.jpg
The old gear is great. The new gear is great. Lots of fun from any vintage.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by G3LBS on April 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't know whether they tidy up the shack before putting it on eHam Spotlight, but I deplore the fact that tools are not in sight and the Computer monitor totally dominates the scene. Soon there will be litigation if you burn yourself on an errant soldering iron. As the rigs become throw-away, so will the ham's brains and bodies. Avatars will be incentive-licensed by the ARRL.
Buffalo Gil W2/G3LBS
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KB6YH on April 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Heard a ham say that he "built" his K3. That's nice, but it doesn't require soldering one connection. I remember the challenge of building a 13 tube triple conversion receiver from scratch(not a kit) and buying one part at a time. Which end of a soldering iron gets hot?? New radios are relative bargains, but if you check Sherwood engineering's data some of the old radios are still better than new ones when certain qualities are tested. I have a Collins receiver from 1954 that has only had one capacitor replaced ( a line filter)and it still works fine. My feeling is cherish the old and admire the new.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KB6YH on April 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There is a third alternative...Buy a used rig that has all the features you need at way less than it cost originally.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by G3RZP on April 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Len, AF6AY said:
>On transmitters' sound, FEW Hams have heard their own voice (or keying) received and recorded by another...let alone checking their own Tx into a dummy load and recording it via a separate receiver.<
For voice, use a dummy load and broadcast radio as an audio source. Listen on another rx. You may not like the results, but it's a useful test. Make sure the rx can reproduce SSB or whatever well, though - older receivers where you can use an AM or at least wider bandwidth IF and still demodulate SSB are good here. For CW, there's little to beat the old BC221 as a monitor. You can use it on voice, but it will make things sound very bassy.
The trouble with carefully checking the gear is that like having a spectrum analyser, you learn things that you'd rather not know!
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
G3LBS writes: "I deplore the fact that tools are not in sight"
A lot of hams I know have an "op table", used only for on-the-air operating, and a "shop table" for building/repairing/aligning etc. The tools are naturally kept near the shop table.
G3LBS: "and the Computer monitor totally dominates the scene."
Here's a shack where that's not the case:
http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/
(the shop table is in another part of the room).
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K9MHZ on April 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD6NEM wrote: As someone else first reported here in eHam, this RoHS boondoggle will needlessly rob you of the opportunity to keep any new rig more than about a decade at best. Fine pitch SMT + lead free solder = early failure. Google "NASA & RoHS tin solder" if you are skeptical.<<<<
KD6NEM, thanks for bringing this up.....I thought your presentation of it was really good....sticking to the science involved. The politics will explode this thread, and the Jerry Springer Show will look like a bunch of lightweights compared to here.
Since I'm obsessive, I bought several pounds of "the good stuff"....leaded solder that is. I'm wondering about the science involved with the hard solder growing fingers. I think you and others have hit it right on...while most people (non-hams) wouldn't give a decade of electronics ownership a second thought, but we hams like to keep our gear around for quite a while.
Thanks!
Best,
Brad
K9MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K5UJ on April 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<< I seriously doubt that we'll in twenty years be admiring anyone's 2009 model year "classic" rig regardless of what was paid for it. We'll still have our Drakes, Collins, & even Heathkits still gracing our desks, but very few of today's rigs could possibly be alive even twelve years from now. Many won't make much over half that far. They are indeed from the era of disposable electronics, and even those who wish to preserve their modern rig will throw up their hands in futility!>>>
Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think every period has its keepers. Every period has its duds. The Kenwood 870, the last really good rig kenwood made (~1995 technology) is highly regarded today (and sought after) and probably will be 10 or 15 years from now. What usually causes a rig's decline in desirability isn't so much its out of date component technology alone, but rather its limits in capability like for example limited no. of bands covered, or small no. of features compared to modern rigs or no TCXO or digital readout.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K9MHZ on April 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah, every generation has its own concept of history as well. My parents can't understand why everyone doesn't think that Pearl Harbor was the most pivotal point in modern history (maybe in a way they have a point, as it pulled the free world into a technologically advanced era in a few short years). I can't understand why any young person wouldn't think that the moon landing was the coolest thing that ever took place. Today...911? Britney going into rehab?
On the ham side of the concept....big, big Collins or Hallicrafters gear for the seasoned guys....Heaths, Collins S line or KWM-2 for the middle agers, Yaesu 101 or Kenwood 520 rigs for the younger ones....etc, etc. Lots of nitpicking possibilities in the last sentence....just trying to make a point of every generation having "their" '57 Chevy in their shacks.
(OK, or their '65 Mustang, '72 Nova....)
Cheers,
Brad
K9MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2UGB on April 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I suspect most hams have an operating desk and a work bench. The work bench might serve many handy-man and hobby functions.
They probably aren't in the same room. Operating desk in a spare room (home office, den, extra bed, whatever). The workbench in the basement with the mice and other creepy crawlers.
Like Wallace's basement where he constructed his spaceship thus getting him and Gromit to the moon for their Cheese Vacation.
If I wasn't in this little apartment, that is where my work bench would be. My kitchen table in a photograph? UGGH!
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2UGB writes: "I suspect most hams have an operating desk and a work bench....They probably aren't in the same room."
Mine are. Tried the separate-spaces thing many years ago and preferred having everything together. Much more convenient and efficient/
"Like Wallace's basement where he constructed his spaceship thus getting him and Gromit to the moon for their Cheese Vacation."
Wenslydale is really good. Subtle flavor.
"My kitchen table in a photograph? UGGH!"
Why? When I lived in an apartment, I builf a receiver on the kitchen table. Kept all the parts in big wooden box (old drawer, actually) and spread out newspapers to work on. When a work session was over, I put the tools and parts back in the box, then rolled up and tossed the newspapers.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K8YZK on April 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And just imagine what it would cost to reproduce the capability of say... an ICOM IC-7000 back in the 50's or 60's (again, adjusting for inflation); 160M through 70cm, 100 watts, all mode capability, and the other bells and whistles (SWR monitoring capability, adjustable filters, etc)."
Problem with this is that the technology was not advanced enough to even try it.
Yes based on inflation etc, it seems that radios are cheaper and better(some anyway), then those of the 50-60's, but are they really. You also have to take into the equation what were the wages and other cost at the time. So does it make radio cheaper(price wise) now then back then? How much have wages increased vs prices of radio's? Have they increased at the same rate?
a $10000 radio is still expensive in my opinion.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AA5JG on April 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I can't understand why any young person wouldn't think that the moon landing was the coolest thing that ever took place. Today...911?"
"Britney going into rehab?"--Which time?
73s John AA5JG
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8YZK writes: "it seems that radios are cheaper and better(some anyway), then those of the 50-60's, but are they really."
Yes - *if* you compare new rigs then to new rigs now, and *if* you compare specifications and features.
K8YZK: "You also have to take into the equation what were the wages and other cost at the time. So does it make radio cheaper(price wise) now then back then? How much have wages increased vs prices of radio's? Have they increased at the same rate?"
That depends on a lot of factors.
For example, 50 years ago, a family of four with a gross (not net) income of $5,000/year could live a very good middle-class life in most places in the USA. (A lot of folks raised families on much less than that). $10,000/yr was Easy Street then.
Think about how big an investment a $500 ham station was back then - and what a modest station could be had for $500. (A Collins 75A-4 was $700 with no accessories, and it was just a receiver).
K8YZK: "a $10000 radio is still expensive in my opinion."
Agreed, but that's top-of-the-line. You can get a lot of rig for a fraction of that price.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by KI6LO on April 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No matter the cost of the radio or the level of technology included in it, I am of the school that to be a 'real' radio it has to have lots of knobs. Even though I do run a Yaesu FT-100D mobile, I really dislike the multiple levels of nested menus to control functions. I happen to use older rigs (Kenwood TS-940SAT and TS-440SAT) at home, mainly due to the procurement cost, ease of maintenance and possessing my desired features and options.
But like someone else mentioned, it's your money. Buy what you like and want and be happy with it.
Gene KI6LO
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4LGH wrote (on April 19):
"DSP has done a lot, but still has a long way to go, if ever replacing good mechanical/crystal filters! DSP still has a lot of its own inhernent noise, and will inject unknown sound artifacts into its stream. Analog filters are very clean, can have very sharp edges and will be with us for a long time. Once they get DSP really good, they will come back out with a NEW radio offering analog filtering again, just as they have done with the "new" passband tunning features. Passband tunning is NOT new."
The theory of DSP was mature by the mid 1970's, before we had the hardware (fast floating-point A/D converters and multiplier-accumulator chips) for its practical application in radio IF signal filtering.
Analog filters are no match for DSP in terms of "very sharp edges," and phase linearity that can be achieved. The "inherent noise" of DSP is overcome by using high resolution floating-point A/D conversion, good AGC design characteristics, and a good analog "roofing filter" ahead of the DSP. The future you predict is already here. Put away at those AES catalogs and check out the characteristics of U.S. made radios. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised!
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4LGH on April 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think DSP has fully matured yet. If it has, it IS very disappointing! JPS had an audio DSP box out long ago that puts most modern DSP to shame. I love it that everybody has bought into the "roofing filter" terminalogy brought out by TEN-TEC, which is no more than a 1st IF filter. A good receiver design does NOT need DSP. It uses a passive front-end RF with passband coils for the band desired. It mixes that with a clean local osc to develop the 1st IF. Now adding a good varible 1st IF filer where you can kill all the noise before amplification, then amplify the 1st IF, 2nd IF and even 3rd IF. Now you have a receiver. I do use GOOD ole American radios and brand that earned much respect in the Ham world called Drake. The TR-7A was designed way ahead of its time and is still one of the better receivers out there.
Load it up with filters and you have superb sensitivty, great selectivity and a very high S/N ratio.
DSP is CRAP that is cheaper to build than really good mechanical filters, and has been shoved down everyones throat, just like "roofing filters" Every superhet receiver made has had a roofing filter.
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2UGB on April 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My operating station is in the living room/TV room/computer room/library book-case room/ audio room/sea chests room and comfy chair(s) room. Workbench unauthorized. The YL has a right to her input too.
The bedroom remains a bedroom.
As for the kitchen table, I throw a heavy plastic sheet over it when doing some minor work, but it gets done in a hurry and cleaned up in a hurry.
YL rules that room...that is, if I care to continue eating at home!
73
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4LGH:
Alan, I agree with you on the Drake receivers. They were very good indeed. I owned two Drake 2B's and later a 2C.
I understand your beef about the term "roofing filter," however it is a good description for its function in the receiver. What Ten Tec and INRAD did was to focus attention on narrowing the 1st IF filter bandwidth as appropriate for the mode (FM, SSB, CW, RTTY) to improve the IMD performance. Other manufacturers have picked up on this, and that's a good thing.
Your remark that "DSP is crap" shows that you really don't know much about it. I know that you enjoy your "boat anchors," and I recognize the nostalgia value in them as well as their perfectly adequate performance for most amateur purposes. I'm trying to push the envelope of performance, pursuing rare DX on the lowbands from an inner suburban location in the Midwest with other active hams in the same neighborhood. Therefore, I'm keeping up with the latest technology, and always looking for better receiver performance.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4LGH on April 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually I do know a lot about DSP, as I am a Data Network engineer, including VoIP in the commercial world. I also have owned many new technology radios, including my Yaesu FT-2000 ,which uses DSP exclusively. Its a nice radio, but the DSP does change
the audio greatly, and does induce its own noise.
I do enjoy my boatanchors as well, and my 4B line is run everyday...what wonderful audio!
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K8CAV on April 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I own a 1972 M151A2 Army jeep ... lots of fun to drive and I can get under the hood and make repairs to it myself. But would I dare compare it to a 2008 vehicle of similar size and weight in regards to fuel mileage - performance - pollution - reliability - or availability of repair parts? Nope, no way. Same goes with vintage vs modern ham radio gear. The old gear is fun to "tool down the road" with but any other comparison just won't happen. Bottom line, enjoy what you enjoy in our hobby without the unnecessary comparisons of "what's better, old or new".
Rick K8CAV
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K9MHZ on April 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>"Britney going into rehab?"--Which time?
73s John AA5JG<<<<
<LOL!>
Brad
K9MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AD3G on April 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As for todays DSP....It leaves MUCH to be desired,especially when you consider it isn't much better the say, a JPS DSP12,which was produced about,what 10 years ago? Modern DSP should be leaps and bounds better then a JPS DSP12 or Timewave unit of same vintage,but it isn't.
Not to say it's bad,but considering how fast technology improves these days,DSP is still in the model T days.
But I suppose it's better than nothing.
My 2cents worth.
AD3G
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AF6AY on April 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NI0C posted on DSP:
"I'm trying to push the envelope of performance, pursuing rare DX on the lowbands from an inner suburban location in the Midwest with other active hams in the same neighborhood. Therefore, I'm keeping up with the latest technology, and always looking for better receiver performance."
For what it is worth, I would recommend anyone really serious about DSP to go to www.dspguide.com and download the FREE "Scientists and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing" by Steven W. Smith, PhD.
34 chapters and, to me, well written with good illustrations. [the price can't be beat] Makes a folder size of about 19 MB so dial-up connectors will have to wait some. A hardcover version is $64 plus S&H. It is math-heavy in spots but that can't be avoided in this form of technology.
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K9MHZ on April 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Len,
Do you know if this is any good?....
https://www.arrl.org/catalog/8195/
Thanks,
Brad
K9MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To AF6AY:
Thanks for the link! During the late 70's, I completed two graduate courses in DSP, then in the early 90's completed another one in digital image processing. When my son was completing his EE degree, the first DSP course I took had already made its way into the undergraduate curriculum.
The DSP guide you gave the link to will help out a lot as a refresher.
So, thanks again & 73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AF6AY on April 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K9MHZ asked on 23 Apr 08:
"Do you know if this is any good?....
https://www.arrl.org/catalog/8195/"
Haven't seen its insides. At $45 plus shipping and handling it costs 45 dollars more than the free version available from Smith's website. I've had Smith's book for over two years, primarily for information purposes. As a part time writer I would say Smith writes well, simply, and without fanfare for any particular application. Having seen so many ARRL
publications over the years, I would guess that the League stuffed in lots of PR for itself between covers. <shrug>
Actual cost of a DSP project is much more than just a book and a box full of parts. One needs whatever programmer is required for a dedicated DSP IC and an ability to program, both for the general knowledge of writing the algorithms and the understanding of the math and transfer to a DSP IC's whatevers. If new to such programming there is considerably more time (the 'learning curve') required to get used to the required instructions and logical flow of operations.
In parallel, one has to consider all the peripheral circuitry, the A-to-D and D-to-A conversion, and the ability to monitor waveforms at rather fast switching speeds (varying depending on whether the DSP is at audio or up in the various IFs). That means
oscillography at a rapid rate...and consciousness of TIMING of operations. All of that can take a couple of years of hobby time for one person, perhaps longer. It isn't the 'all-analog' approach that is typical of old-time 'radio' circuitry.
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2UGB writes: "My operating station is in the living room/TV room/computer room/library book-case room/ audio room/sea chests room and comfy chair(s) room."
One BR apartment, I presume.
N2UGB: "YL rules that room...that is, if I care to continue eating at home!"
You can't cook?
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: FREE DSP book link
|
|
|
by AF6AY on April 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chuck (NI0C) kindly thanked me for a DSP book link and I reply:
Glad you like the mention of a link to something free. Never having a chance to get any formal training on DSP or even Fourier Analysis techniques, I would welcome any comments about the DSP book from those who've had such training. For me it is NOT an easy subject and rather non-intuitive. I almost got an understanding of it but got a little lost on tying it in with working interfaces. Besides, there's also a lot of other fun stuff to get involved in...:-)
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2UGB on April 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You can't cook?"
No where near as well as she can.
It is worth keeping the kitchen's primary function that of a kitchen.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 24, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A comment on DSP:
While you can build an "all-analog" receiver, you cannot build an "all-DSP" receiver. You'll always need some sort of "roofing filter" to prevent aliasing.
The better the filtering and linearity ahead of the DSP, the better the rx will be. DSP cannot put back what't not there, and cannot make up for shortcomings in the front end. That's why the really good rigs with DSP are really good "analog" rigs first.
While DSP theory is not new, DSP implementations are still being worked out. Some are better than others, particularly for specific things like notching.
Of course what really matters is whether or not you can copy the hams you want to work. Some folks forget that, and get all worked up over "the numbers" rather than how a rig actually sounds, and how well it actually works in the real world. One poster here made a big deal about one of his receivers still meeting its sensitivity spec in the "lab", and about DSP, but does the guy ever actually get on the air and work anyone?
What a lot of hams don't seem to know is that there's a big difference between the lab test environment and the on-the-air environment. For example, in the lab, a receiver may be subjected to one or two signals, and its behavior measured exactly. Those numbers are fine, but what happens when the receiver is hooked to an antenna and is subjected to dozens or even hundreds of signals of varying strength? Does its noise floor rise, and is the band full of "monkey chatter" and signals that aren't really there? Or does it still let you hear the weak ones?
The only way to know for sure is to try it out.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 24, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Folks, the same debate is going on in another forum. There, as here, I simply cannot believe that such a simplistic approach is being taken to compare prices.
You simply can not, I repeat *can not*, use only inflation to compare price levels.
There has been enough productivity gain in the electronics manufacturing industry over the past 20 years to *more* than totally offset inflation increases in prices.
You *should* be able to buy amateur products of *at least* comparable functionality of equipment available 20 years ago for far, far less than it cost 20 years ago. Yet you can't.
Take *anything* electronic and this holds true. A home theater system today with a 7.1 receiver/amp, seven speakers (including a 230watt sub-woofer), and a slew of DSP processing can be purchased anywhere for between $300-$400. This is what you would have expected to pay for a receiver/amp *alone* for a STEREO system 20 years ago -- WITH NO SPEAKERS AND FAR LESS CAPABILITY.
A decent VCR 20 years ago would cost from $350 on up. Today you can buy a progressive scan, Dolby Digital decoding VCR at Wally World for about $60 on sale.
A BW, VHF-only, 13" TV 20 years ago would have cost $150 or more. Today you can get a Color, Analog/Cable tuner, 13" TV for less than $60 and with a built-in VCR for about $15 more.
And don't quote market size to me, that's another phantom. Sunk costs are typically recovered from a manufacturing run in 48 months or less. If they can't be recovered in that amount of time the financial teams at most companies won't even consider the product. The Icom 746pro has been out for more than six years. If the sunk costs haven't been recovered already then something is terribly, terribly wrong at Icom. Yet the price has apparently not dropped to the manufacturing cost plus margin level that you would expect from electronics today.
Those who think that amateur radio prices today are in line with what they should be today are being willingly taken to the cleaners by the Yacomwood group.
If amateur radio prices followed the trend in all other areas of electronics the cost of an Icom 746pro *should* be in the $600 range and perhaps even less.
As long as hams let the Cartel of Three convince them that the prices should remain at 1990 levels *because of inflation* , the amateur community will continue to be taken to the cleaners.
So sad.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 24, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR writes: "There has been enough productivity gain in the electronics manufacturing industry over the past 20 years to *more* than totally offset inflation increases in prices.
You *should* be able to buy amateur products of *at least* comparable functionality of equipment available 20 years ago for far, far less than it cost 20 years ago. Yet you can't.
Take *anything* electronic and this holds true. A home theater system today with a 7.1 receiver/amp, seven speakers (including a 230watt sub-woofer), and a slew of DSP processing can be purchased anywhere for between $300-$400. This is what you would have expected to pay for a receiver/amp *alone* for a STEREO system 20 years ago -- WITH NO SPEAKERS AND FAR LESS CAPABILITY.
A decent VCR 20 years ago would cost from $350 on up. Today you can buy a progressive scan, Dolby Digital decoding VCR at Wally World for about $60 on sale."
For $100 you can get a combo VCR/DVD player.
AB0WR: "And don't quote market size to me, that's another phantom. Sunk costs are typically recovered from a manufacturing run in 48 months or less. If they can't be recovered in that amount of time the financial teams at most companies won't even consider the product. The Icom 746pro has been out for more than six years. If the sunk costs haven't been recovered already then something is terribly, terribly wrong at Icom. Yet the price has apparently not dropped to the manufacturing cost plus margin level that you would expect from electronics today."
You're forgetting a couple of important factors:
1) Market size *is* a big issue. The ham radio market is tiny compared to other "consumer" electronics, partly because there are relatively few hams but mostly because our rigs tend to last so long. So the engineering and tooling costs are spread out over far fewer units.
2) Hams are fussy; they tend to look at all sorts of factors when deciding on a new rig, and if the new doesn't beat the old in a lot of ways, many just keep the old. It's not like a TS-870, IC-765 or FT-890 won't make a ton of QSOs just because it's a decade or more away from the factory.
3) Over the past few decades much of the "consumer" electronics manufacturing has moved to lower-cost countries other than Japan. Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, and of course China. Look at that inexpensive theatre system, VCR, or TV and see where it was made - it's a safe bet it wasn't Japan. Particularly the bottom-of-the-line and older-technology stuff (VCRs and NTSC TVs are ancient technology in the consumer electronics universe).
But the Big Three still make ham rigs in Japan, don't they?
Note too the survival of Ten Tec (40 years!) and the emergence of Elecraft.
AB0WR: "Those who think that amateur radio prices today are in line with what they should be today are being willingly taken to the cleaners by the Yacomwood group."
Perhaps you are right. My solution is to homebrew, fix up old rigs, and buy American.
AB0WR: "If amateur radio prices followed the trend in all other areas of electronics the cost of an Icom 746pro *should* be in the $600 range and perhaps even less."
All areas of *CONSUMER* electronics. And only if the rigmakers do what's been done in other sectors, such as moving production.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 24, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
n2ey
>>>>>1) Market size *is* a big issue. The ham radio market is tiny compared to other "consumer" electronics, partly because there are relatively few hams but mostly because our rigs tend to last so long. So the engineering and tooling costs are spread out over far fewer units. <<<<<
I don't buy this for a moment.As I pointed out the Icom 746 has been around for six years with no step down in price. If they haven't recovered the engineering and tooling costs by now I can't believe the financial people wouldn't have closed down production already. *Six years*? No way.
BTW, with current production methods there are very little "tooling" costs involved. Robot parts placement machines can be "re-tooled" on the fly but just loading a new program. We aren't talking 1950's auto production methods here.
n2ey:
>>>>>2) Hams are fussy; they tend to look at all sorts of factors when deciding on a new rig, and if the new doesn't beat the old in a lot of ways, many just keep the old. It's not like a TS-870, IC-765 or FT-890 won't make a ton of QSOs just because it's a decade or more away from the factory. <<<<
In any other, undistorted market lowered demand causes two things. Lowered prices as the suppliers chase fewer buyers in order to maintain market share and the loss of suppliers that can't compete. (look at the auto and airline markets for current prime examples) The fact that we see neither in the amateur radio market should be a tipoff to anyone that something is not right about the market.
n2ey
>>>>3) Over the past few decades much of the "consumer" electronics manufacturing has moved to lower-cost countries other than Japan. Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, and of course China. Look at that inexpensive theatre system, VCR, or TV and see where it was made - it's a safe bet it wasn't Japan. Particularly the bottom-of-the-line and older-technology stuff (VCRs and NTSC TVs are ancient technology in the consumer electronics universe).
But the Big Three still make ham rigs in Japan, don't they? >>>>>>>>>>
And why are the amateurs of the world accepting such poor decision makers from the radio manufacturers? It's *our* money we are spending, we should be demanding the most efficient operation by the suppliers. You have really just proved my point for me. If Toyota operated their auto manufacturing this way we wouldn't be seeing them push to become Nbr 1 in the US.
The amateur market has apparently become a community of sheep, meekly accepting whatever the Cartel offers and willingly forking over whatever price the Cartel wants. It's a market that is upside down!
n2ey:
<<<<<<<<<<<Note too the survival of Ten Tec (40 years!) and the emergence of Elecraft. >>>>>>>>>>
These are niche markets where supply and demand *really* don't apply.
n2ey:>>>>>>Perhaps you are right. My solution is to homebrew, fix up old rigs, and buy American. >>>>>>>
Me too. My main rig is a homebrew one. My backups are an icom 751a and 745. I have been working with the softrock kits for the past six months -- a *very* low price solution to a high functioning rig.
n2ey: >>>>>>>>>All areas of *CONSUMER* electronics. And only if the rigmakers do what's been done in other sectors, such as moving production. <<<<<<<<<<
My point exactly. A market that is NOT functioning correctly -- and the amateur community pays the price, not the manufacturer. That fact that the amateur market pays it willingly is what is sad.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4LGH on April 24, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim AB0WR says..."If amateur radio prices followed the trend in all other areas of electronics the cost of an Icom 746pro *should* be in the $600 range and perhaps even less. As long as hams let the Cartel of Three convince them that the prices should remain at 1990 levels *because of inflation* , the amateur community will continue to be taken to the cleaners."
There are other factors to consider here Tim... the main being that Amateur Electronics have to be marketed to a much smaller group, therefore holding the price up somewhat. The BEST a NEW radio can do in sales in the US is about 700,000, and thats selling this new radio to every Ham in the US. Now your TV/DVD/VCR/Home Stereo etc, have a market of over 200million!! So you are NOT compairing apples to apples here.
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 25, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
n2ey
>>>>>1) The ham radio market is tiny compared to other "consumer" electronics <<<<<
AB0WR: "I don't buy this for a moment.As I pointed out the Icom 746 has been around for six years with no step down in price. If they haven't recovered the engineering and tooling costs by now I can't believe the financial people wouldn't have closed down production already. *Six years*? No way.
BTW, with current production methods there are very little "tooling" costs involved."
In today's world the "tooling cost" is actually the cost of engineering the new rig, getting the custom parts set up, writing the manuals, etc. That has to be amortized over relatively few units.
How many IC-746s have been sold in six years? 1.000? 10,000? 100,000? That's *nothing* compared to a typical "consumer" product.
n2ey:
>>>>>2) Hams are fussy; they tend to look at all sorts of factors when deciding on a new rig, and if the new doesn't beat the old in a lot of ways, many just keep the old. It's not like a TS-870, IC-765 or FT-890 won't make a ton of QSOs just because it's a decade or more away from the factory. <<<<
AB0WR: "In any other, undistorted market lowered demand causes two things. Lowered prices as the suppliers chase fewer buyers in order to maintain market share and the loss of suppliers that can't compete. (look at the auto and airline markets for current prime examples) The fact that we see neither in the amateur radio market should be a tipoff to anyone that something is not right about the market."
It can be as simple as the idea that they don't expect to sell many rigs, and price them accordingly. We may have the image of a factory churning out IC-746s, but in fact they may simply do a production run of a certain number and warehouse them. If the rig is popular, they make a few improvements, call it a "Pro" or some such nonsense, and have a second run. Some hams are taken in by such things.
Consider the famed IC-781, which broke the $5000 cost level. There was only one production run, but a big warehouse.
n2ey
>>>>3) Over the past few decades much of the "consumer" electronics manufacturing has moved to lower-cost countries other than Japan. Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, and of course China. Look at that inexpensive theatre system, VCR, or TV and see where it was made - it's a safe bet it wasn't Japan. Particularly the bottom-of-the-line and older-technology stuff (VCRs and NTSC TVs are ancient technology in the consumer electronics universe).
But the Big Three still make ham rigs in Japan, don't they? >>>>>>>>>>
AB0WR: "And why are the amateurs of the world accepting such poor decision makers from the radio manufacturers? It's *our* money we are spending, we should be demanding the most efficient operation by the suppliers."
It may not be poor decision-making. The cost of moving a low-volume operation may not be worth it.
AB0WR: " You have really just proved my point for me. If Toyota operated their auto manufacturing this way we wouldn't be seeing them push to become Nbr 1 in the US."
Cars aren't the same thing as electronics. Much of the cost of a car is energy to make it and transportation of parts and the finished product. Ironically, Toyota has built assembly plants *in the US* to reduce cost!
AB0WR: "The amateur market has apparently become a community of sheep, meekly accepting whatever the Cartel offers and willingly forking over whatever price the Cartel wants."
I haven't. Not ever.
AB0WR: "It's a market that is upside down!"
Not really. See below.
n2ey:
<<<<<<<<<<<Note too the survival of Ten Tec (40 years!) and the emergence of Elecraft. >>>>>>>>>>
AB0WR: "These are niche markets where supply and demand *really* don't apply."
Why are TenTec and Elecraft "niche" suppliers but Yaecomwood aren't? The Omni 7 and Orion are pretty serious rigs, too.
Ham rigs tend to use parts that are expensive, such as crystal filters, RF power transistors, custom displays and controls, etc.
Look at the success of the Elecraft K2 - over 6000 units shipped, most of them without even advertising! No dealer network, either. And the basic K2 is a QRP CW *kit*.
The new Elecraft K3 has shipped over 700 units in a few months. They are making them as fast as they can and yet there's a wait of a couple months for one.
n2ey:>>>>>>Perhaps you are right. My solution is to homebrew, fix up old rigs, and buy American. >>>>>>>
AB0WR: "Me too. My main rig is a homebrew one. My backups are an icom 751a and 745. I have been working with the softrock kits for the past six months -- a *very* low price solution to a high functioning rig."
But the softrock is a "niche market"....
n2ey: >>>>>>>>>All areas of *CONSUMER* electronics. And only if the rigmakers do what's been done in other sectors, such as moving production. <<<<<<<<<<
AB0WR: "My point exactly. A market that is NOT functioning correctly -- and the amateur community pays the price, not the manufacturer. That fact that the amateur market pays it willingly is what is sad."
But a lot of us do not play the game.
73 de Jim, N2EY
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by VE2DC on April 25, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LOL! That's one way Dan...
However, you can still build kits, antennas, tuners and the like... though parts procurement is getting more difficult... almost impossible for many if it wasn't for the Internet.
>All I can say to the die-hard radio modification types who would rather be able to tweak their rigs than to be nostalgic is : learn to write software ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AF6AY on April 25, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY wrote on April 24, 2008:
"While you can build an "all-analog" receiver, you cannot build an "all-DSP" receiver. You'll always need some sort of "roofing filter" to prevent aliasing."
"The better the filtering and linearity ahead of the DSP, the better the rx will be. DSP cannot put back what't not there, and cannot make up for shortcomings in the front end. That's why the really good rigs with DSP are really good "analog" rigs first."
Gosh, senior, should I send back my La Crosse radio watch I got in 2005? It has NO 'filter' ahead of an essentially-all-digital receiver for 60 KHz. The only passive lump outside of the SMD IC in it is a teeny rod antenna. It has worked all this time and even along the highways to/from Wisconsin from/to California. The closest we got to Fort Collins, CO,
after midnight was about 500 miles. [this model only starts receiving after midnight] I can listen to WWV time ticks and hear voice announcements that coincide perfectly with the indicated minute-second display; it corrects itself for hours and time zone.
........
"The only way to know for sure is to try it out."
I did for three years now...and in all sorts of RF-noise environments, including my own transmitter near-field. It must work by 'magic' right? :-)
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4LGH on April 27, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY wrote on April 24, 2008:
"While you can build an "all-analog" receiver, you cannot build an "all-DSP" receiver. You'll always need some sort of "roofing filter" to prevent aliasing."
> I say, what the hell are you talking about? A "Roofing Filter" is no more than the First IF filter in ANY superhet receiver, and became a BUZZWORD started by Ten-Tec's marketing to make you think they had something that no one else had.
I can't wait til they call the 2nd IF the "Ceiling Filer" and the 3rd IF the "Flooring Filer"!!!!
And ther is NO pure DIGITAL signal out there anywhere, it all starts out as analog and had to be converted back to analog so we as humans can hear it or see it.
===========================================
N2EY further wrote on April 24, 2008:
"The better the filtering and linearity ahead of the DSP, the better the rx will be. DSP cannot put back what't not there, and cannot make up for shortcomings in the front end. That's why the really good rigs with DSP are really good "analog" rigs first."
>I say, ALL the radios out out there GOOD analog radios FIRST and LAST with DSP filtering in the middle. However it is STILL an analog radio. DSP is only used as a less expensive way of designing and using super mechanical filers. The ONLY advantage of using DSP over these mechanical filters is that it can be variable, which may or maybe not really be needed. DSP has NOT shown me a whole lot, and has a long way to go to fully mature.
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AF6AY on April 27, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4LGH wrote on 27 Apr 08:
"N2EY wrote on April 24, 2008:
"While you can build an "all-analog" receiver, you cannot build an "all-DSP" receiver. You'll always need some sort of "roofing filter" to prevent aliasing."
> I say, what the hell are you talking about? A "Roofing Filter" is no more than the First IF filter in ANY superhet receiver, and became a BUZZWORD started by Ten-Tec's marketing to make you think they had something that no one else had.
I can't wait til they call the 2nd IF the "Ceiling Filer" and the 3rd IF the "Flooring Filer"!!!!"
Alan, it shows the Power of Advertising. Bend the minds so that they Buy Product. :-)
Over the years in the industry and as a hobbyist, I've seen dozens of sales phrases become (suddenly) 'textbook statements' that everyone assumes is 'correct.' Just BUZZWORDS to make something old look new-exciting-different. :-)
..........
"And ther is NO pure DIGITAL signal out there anywhere, it all starts out as analog and had to be converted back to analog so we as humans can hear it or see it."
Ahem...I've mentioned my radio watch. I'll add to that the two radio clocks we have in the house. The ONLY 'analog' lump in any of the three is a tiny ferrite (or iron powder) 'loopstick' of very small dimensions. ALL the rest is digital up to the LCD display panel. One little IC does ALL the 'input filtering' and demodulation and time-sorting and storing in internal memory and formation of the squared-off waveforms needed by the LCD.
Whether or not one calls the WWVB transmitter 'analog' or 'digital' is beside the point. NIST uses digital modulation WITH amplitude control but the timing and derivation of the correct time is definitely digital.
...........
">I say, ALL the radios out out there GOOD analog radios FIRST and LAST with DSP filtering in the middle. However it is STILL an analog radio. DSP is only used as a less expensive way of designing and using super mechanical filers. The ONLY advantage of using DSP over these mechanical filters is that it can be variable, which may or maybe not really be needed. DSP has NOT shown me a whole lot, and has a long way to go to fully mature."
Well, in general, you are correct but that isn't the whole story. Digital Signal Processing BEGINS with the proper programming instructions with understanding of the theory behind DSP. With the proper knowledge and proper programming, a DSP 'brick wall' response IF filter CAN be done. It has been done. But...all the 'DSP' things on the market now are NOT done 'perfectly.' Usually it is inadequate programming of the DSP IC in the unit.
Around 1981 I watched with great interest as a fellow engineer at Rocketdyne put together and ran an Intel demo kit for an audio spectrum analyzer. Tiny PCB with through-hole ICs and components. ['IBM' PCs had been out for a year using Intel CPUs and a 'fast' PC had a 30 MHz clock rate...;-) ] A small mind-blowing moment as Eddie connected an HP 200CD signal generator (nice pure sinewave output) and ran it through the spectrum with no visible 2nd or 3rd or any other harmonics. A few years later and an audio spectral display (similar to the Intel demo unit) was a standard front panel item on many home music systems.
Now that isn't any biggie example of DSP. Yet it is. NO analog filtering ahead of it yet it was able to discriminate frequencies and not show any self-generated harmonics. That was 27 years ago. At time now we have available MUCH faster DSP ICs and we can get spectrum analysis just about any frequency desired and do. We can get it on digital oscilloscopes as a byproduct of analyzing a stored waveshape (the Sampler is neither 'analog' or 'digital' since it is part of both disciplines). Tektronix, HP, LeCroy all have it. Nobody has had any valid technical complaint against any of those three on that added function.
Spectrum analysis is a sibling of frequency domain filtering. Do one and do the other, sometimes with the same DSP IC. SDR (Software Defined Radios) for the military exist now and the Big 3 of Japan all have built-in DSP for bandpass filtering in transceivers. My Icom 746Pro has separate audio filtering for microphone and earphone in addition to the IF bandpass filter. :-)
The peripheral equipment that claims 'DSP' has me wondering. I won't really believe them until I see some test results done with good signal generators and good harmonic analyzers. Chances are that some of them using the DSP buzzword just aren't programmed efficiently. Any DSP IC can be programmed to just about any filtering kind, shape, and response.
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K6WHP on April 27, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
For Tanaka-san: don't drop your radios.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 28, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY wrote on April 24, 2008:
"While you can build an "all-analog" receiver, you cannot build an "all-DSP" receiver. You'll always need some sort of "roofing filter" to prevent aliasing."
W4LGH replies: "I say, what the hell are you talking about? A "Roofing Filter" is no more than the First IF filter in ANY superhet receiver, and became a BUZZWORD started by Ten-Tec's marketing to make you think they had something that no one else had."
That's why I put quotation marks around "roofing filter", Alan.
The main point is that there has to be some kind of hardware/analog filter before the DSP, to limit what signals get to the A/D converter. Otherwise you get all sorts of artifacts. It can be as simple as a single tuned circuit in some applications, or as complex as a combination of LC front end filtering and crystal IF filters.
W4LGH: "And ther is NO pure DIGITAL signal out there anywhere, it all starts out as analog and had to be converted back to analog so we as humans can hear it or see it."
In terms of radio reception, that's at least half true: What comes from the antenna is analog, not digital.
===========================================
N2EY further wrote on April 24, 2008:
"The better the filtering and linearity ahead of the DSP, the better the rx will be. DSP cannot put back what't not there, and cannot make up for shortcomings in the front end. That's why the really good rigs with DSP are really good "analog" rigs first."
W4LGH: "I say, ALL the radios out out there GOOD analog radios FIRST and LAST with DSP filtering in the middle. However it is STILL an analog radio."
We're saying the same thing.
W4LGH: "DSP is only used as a less expensive way of designing and using super mechanical filers. The ONLY advantage of using DSP over these mechanical filters is that it can be variable, which may or maybe not really be needed."
DSP can implement features that are impractical or impossible with the current state of crystal or mechanical filters. Like extremely sharp skirts, multiple sharp notches in the passband, etc.
The cost factor is important, too. The price of high quality crystal or mechanical filters isn't going to drop, so if you want 10 different filter characteristics, you need 10 different filters at $50-100 a pop. With DSP, those 10 different filter characteristics are software.
W4LGH: "DSP has NOT shown me a whole lot, and has a long way to go to fully mature."
No argument there, it's just getting started in some ways. For example, the early DSP stuff in ham radio gear functioned at audio; the next generation at very low IFs just above the audio range. This was because of the limitations of the DSP hardware available. Direct processing of the first IF is next.
One of the big problems with DSP is its very flexibility. Just because there are all sorts of possible filter characteristics possible doesn't mean they all sound good, or that none of them have other, less-desirable characteristics. It will take a lot of experience to weed out the bad ones.
This is the factor which separates the lab boys from the operators, and it's not a new thing. The lab boys will point to a specification number and say how wonderful it is, but the operators have to *use* the dern thing, and that's a different issue. A receiver can have excellent sensitivity, but if its sound is tiring to listen to, you won't want to use it for long.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 28, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AF6AY wrote:
"The peripheral equipment that claims 'DSP' has me wondering. I won't really believe them until I see some test results done with good signal generators and good harmonic analyzers. Chances are that some of them using the DSP buzzword just aren't programmed efficiently. Any DSP IC can be programmed to just about any filtering kind, shape, and response."
Len, I'm not sure what equipment you are referring to here. I have a DSP audio filter made by MFJ that is quite good. In addition to a DSP noise reduction function, it features variable low-pass, high-pass, and bandpass FIR filters that are very effective. It's not a new product either-- I've used it in my station for at least 8-10 years.
I don't have any test results to show you, though. One of these days, I'll build the Elecraft noise generator kit and use it with Spectrogram software (free download available) to evaluate the filters. I did use the MFJ filter to help align an Elecraft K2 radio.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 28, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's the link to the spectrogram software download in case anyone is interested:
http://www.visualizationsoftware.com/gram/gramdl.html
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by AF6AY on April 28, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NI0C wrote on 28 Apr 08:
AF6AY:"The peripheral equipment that claims 'DSP' has me wondering. I won't really believe them until I see some test results done with good signal generators and good harmonic analyzers. Chances are that some of them using the DSP buzzword just aren't programmed efficiently. Any DSP IC can be programmed to just about any filtering kind, shape, and response."
"Len, I'm not sure what equipment you are referring to here."
I was making a very general statement. It was concerning advertising hype and use of BUZZWORDS. Geez, Chuck, I've been seeing advertisements for over six decades and am full to mental brim with buzzwords about the wonderfulness of products...some of which were NOT so wonderful. :-)
........
NI0C: "I have a DSP audio filter made by MFJ that is quite good."
I bought their Antenna Analyzer a year ago and discovered the impedance readout did NOT show any sign for reactance! My fault for NOT reading all the advertising by MFJ carefully enough. After decades of reading Smith charts (and knowing complex number quantity handling), my too-hasty enthusiasm on getting into amateur radio activity over-rode common sense. :-(
NI0C: "In addition to a DSP noise reduction function, it features variable low-pass, high-pass, and bandpass FIR filters that are very effective. It's not a new product either-- I've used it in my station for at least 8-10 years."
OK on that. If it works for you, satisfying you, that is the ultimate personal criterion.
I have to use a fixed capacitor in series with my MFJ antenna analyzer to get any reasonable SIGN of reactance reading...then pull out the HP 35S calculator and go through the quick calculations to find out which way the imaginary part of Z went. I should have built a duplicate of the Noise Bridge I had long ago...accidentally run over by a Karmann-
Ghia of another. :-( The VSWR readings of the MFJ antenna analyzer are barely within spec.
..........
NI0C: "I don't have any test results to show you, though."
Well, my audio measurement capability is limited to a couple of Heathkits of long ago. A Wien-Bridge audio generator and harmonic analyzer. I've wrung those out using metrology techniques and believe the results. I was once heavy into 'Hi-Fi' music but that was a LONG
time ago well before the 'boom-boxes' and distorted guitar sounds. :-)
..........
NI0C: "One of these days, I'll build the Elecraft noise generator kit and use it with Spectrogram software (free download available) to evaluate the filters."
Thanks for the (other message) link to Spectrogram.
I've used others' DSP-derived spectrum analysis but have yet to get any PC in the workshop for myself. I'm beginning some PIC projects and its programming is done in the home office PC, then taken to the workshop for in-site (and insight) testing. Those DSP-derived units have been checked with known sine sources of good purity and do show the correct amplitudes and harmonic content. I've seen a couple other kinds of DSP spectral analysis tools that were NOT programmed or implemented correctly, therefore my doubts. <shrug>
73, Len AF6AY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by K8MN on April 28, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4VR:
"Good article for a change! I bought a National NCX-3 in 1965 for $700. Using an inflation conversion factor of .175 my $700 was worth $4000 in today's dollars. So, you are right...radios today are real cheapin price and affordable even by the the guy on welfare."
I think your memory about the price you paid might be in error. I recall the NCX-5, a full featured five band rig with mechanical digital readout, sold for something like $695 in that same time frame.
Dave K8MN
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N9DG on April 28, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR: “The amateur market has apparently become a community of sheep, meekly accepting whatever the Cartel offers and willingly forking over whatever price the Cartel wants. It's a market that is upside down!”
To me the issue is not so much about the prices, I think they really are quite reasonable for what you do get. What I do find astounding though, is how so many hams are so willing to keep buying the next newest model from their favorite brand (from the 80's and 90's) when those new model's performance is really uninspiring to put it nicely. I can only attribute that behavior to blind brand loyalty. Some fairly basic analysis of 3rd party published test data should be convincing enough for them to be looking elsewhere. But I guess flashy advertisements and marketing trump rational analysis. For what is ostensibly a 'technical' hobby that is really a rather sad state of affairs..
W4LGH: “I say, what the hell are you talking about? A "Roofing Filter" is no more than the First IF filter in ANY superhet receiver, and became a BUZZWORD started by Ten-Tec's marketing to make you think they had something that no one else had.”
You mean like having truly decent close-spaced (2 kHz) IMD DR in the 90+ dB range like Ten Tec, Elecraft and Flex-Radio can all achieve, and that none of the big 3 can match at any price???? Or that any of the older analog only designs can match either?? But you are right, the big 3 have adopted the 'roofing filter' buzzword for what appears to be primarily marketing-only purposes...So if you are basing your opinions of roofing filters, and DSP only on the big 3 implementations of them, then you haven't really experienced any state of the art examples of them...
W4LGH: "DSP is only used as a less expensive way of designing and using super mechanical filers. The ONLY advantage of using DSP over these mechanical filters is that it can be variable, which may or maybe not really be needed."
This maybe the way that the imported big 3 approach the use of DSP. Be assured though that the newer upstart USA based companies are considerably more visionary in its application, and they are years ahead of their big 3 competitors.
N2EY: “DSP can implement features that are impractical or impossible with the current state of crystal or mechanical filters. Like extremely sharp skirts, multiple sharp notches in the passband, etc.”
All in all basic filters are rather mundane. A well implemented DSP can provide are things like a noise blanker that doesn't just blank the noise pulse, but bridges the 'before' and 'after' of the desired waveform with estimated values. Doing this greatly reduce audio IMD products. Again I'm not aware of any of the imports doing this, just PowerSDR as far as I know. Also superior AGC can be implemented in DSP, PowerSDR has this down pat too. It doesn't overshoot, it doesn't click or pop, it doesn't blank the RX gain on every brief little noise pulse either. But DSP can also make a mess of a radio's AGC too if it is implemented poorly (for example the FT-2000's by many accounts).
W4LGH: "DSP has NOT shown me a whole lot, and has a long way to go to fully mature."
N2EY: “No argument there, it's just getting started in some ways. For example, the early DSP stuff in ham radio gear functioned at audio; the next generation at very low IFs just above the audio range. This was because of the limitations of the DSP hardware available. Direct processing of the first IF is next.”
I'd say it is a very mature technology at this point. At least for the basics of a typical receiver. What is left to do is implement things like active QRM suppression, that is where the DSP is actually subtracting out the components of an interfering signal that is bleeding over into the desired signal's passband.
N2EY: “One of the big problems with DSP is its very flexibility. Just because there are all sorts of possible filter characteristics possible doesn't mean they all sound good, or that none of them have other, less-desirable characteristics. It will take a lot of experience to weed out the bad ones.”
Some manufacturers already have plenty of experience weeding out the 'bad ones'. It seems once again that the import brands who are behind on this.
N2EY: “This is the factor which separates the lab boys from the operators, and it's not a new thing. The lab boys will point to a specification number and say how wonderful it is, but the operators have to *use* the dern thing, and that's a different issue. A receiver can have excellent sensitivity, but if its sound is tiring to listen to, you won't want to use it for long.”
And some of the *worst offenders* I've ever used for listener fatigue are analog only designs. And some otherwise good sounding DSP IF radios can can be made fatiguing if you just run the RF at full gain no matter what the band conditions are, verses setting it to make the natural noise floor just begin to generate AGC action, the Jupiter/Pegasus fit this description.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W4LGH on April 29, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dave K8MN said..."I think your memory about the price you paid might be in error. I recall the NCX-5, a full featured five band rig with mechanical digital readout, sold for something like $695 in that same time frame."
Actually the National NCX-5 came out in 1964 and there were 2 models of it. The suggested retail was $795 for the basic model and the deluxe model had wooden side panels to dress it up was $895. It was one of the original "Transceivers" when everyone was still using seperates. It big claim to fame was the mechanical digit readout, and that it had a solid-state VFO for high stability. I currently have a working one in my collection today.
Now I don't know about any inflation calculator, because inflation has NOT been equal across the board, but I do know you could buy almost 2 VW Beetles
for the the same $795, and you'd play hell trying to buy 2 cars of any brand for less then $20,000!
That same $20,000 today would build you a super hamshack today!
73 de W4LGH - ALan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 29, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AF6AY wrote about the MFJ antenna analyzer:
"I bought their Antenna Analyzer a year ago and discovered the impedance readout did NOT show any sign for reactance! My fault for NOT reading all the advertising by MFJ carefully enough. After decades of reading Smith charts (and knowing complex number quantity handling), my too-hasty enthusiasm on getting into amateur radio activity over-rode common sense. :-( "
I have the MFJ-259B analyzer and noticed the same thing. So far however, I haven't needed to know if a particular impedance measurement had capacitive or inductive reactance. That's because my use of it has been confined to looking for resonance points of my antennas (where the reactance dips to zero), to aid in tweaking the antennas. I'm mainly interested in the real part of the impedance, the SWR, and the coax cable loss measurements that the instrument provides.
For those things it is very handy.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 29, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4LGH wrote: "the National NCX-5 came out in 1964...Now I don't know about any inflation calculator, because inflation has NOT been equal across the board, but I do know you could buy almost 2 VW Beetles for the the same $795, and you'd play hell trying to buy 2 cars of any brand for less then $20,000!"
A 1964 VW Beetle was about $1600 new, not $400. $795 would buy you about half of one, not two of them.
Used is another story, but the implication was new.
"That same $20,000 today would build you a super hamshack today!"
Sort of. In 1964 you could buy quite a lot of house for $20,000 in most places; today $20,000 isn't even a decent down payment.
What's really changed is that while the rigs are less expensive today, the house to put them is costs a lot more.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by W9IP on April 29, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Secondly, the big-dollar market satisfied by transceivers such as the IC-7800, FTDX-9000MP and the Hilberling PT-8000 seems to have newly immerged from the 90s when no manufacturer sold a transceiver above the $10K mark."
The release of such expensive radios seems to correspond with the hyper-inflation of home values and the rage of refinancing. How else could anyone afford them without tapping into home equity?
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 29, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4VR: "I bought a National NCX-3 in 1965 for $700."
The NCX-3 cost about half that back then, less power supply and speaker. With both AC and DC power supplies, speakers, cables, mike and mobile mount, taxes and shipping you might have been able to spend $700.
NCX-3 was a three-band (80/40/20) hollowstate SSB transceiver that was a pretty good bargain for its time. It was replaced a few years later by the National 200, which covered all 5 pre-WARC-79 HF bands.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: I'll stick with today!!
|
|
|
by K8MN on April 29, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK:
Don't be so certain some rigs of "yesteryear" aren't really superior in many ways to most modern stuff."
"For example, my 30 year-old Drake TR-7, which I purchased new in 1978 and still own, actually outperforms the majority of 2008-vintage HF transceivers in many respects. In the Sherwood Engineering "Receiver Test Data" reports, for example, the stock TR-7 has the highest recorded performance figure for 100 kHz blocking dynamic -- of all receivers tested, including brand new ones. It's also "par" with the best on Noise Floor, Front End Selectivity, Dynamic Range Wide Spaced, etc. In 30 years many new receivers were designed and built, and they don't surpass this 30 year-old piece of gear on these fronts."
You're right. The TR-7 was stellar and it was very conservatively rated as well. It would easily output 150w and had a massive heat sink. The Sherwood modified C-Line also had impressive performance.
"I've bought, used and sold (in the meantime, while still owning the TR-7) the IC-761 and 765; the FT990 and FT1000MP; the TS-940S, 950SDX and 850S (which I
still have); the OMNI-VI+; the Jupiter (which I still have); and other gear...it comes and goes, and the "keepers" remain, for various reasons. I borrowed an SDR1000 for six weeks and used it quite a lot but didn't buy it, mostly because it couldn't handle the strong SW BC signal from a 1.2 Megawatt station close to me (KVOH) who operates just below the 30m and 17m bands around the clock. Not too many receivers can actually handle that, but the TR-7's completely immune to it."
We ran into a similar situation on Market Reef running two stations simultaneously. Initially we were using a TR-7 and a TS-930 Kenwood rig. The Kenwood's receiver kept folding up whenever the TR-7 was keyed. We had a second TR-7 with us and we replaced the TS-930 with it.
Our problem went away.
Dave K8MN
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 30, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9DG writes: "What I do find astounding though, is how so many hams are so willing to keep buying the next newest model from their favorite brand (from the 80's and 90's) when those new model's performance is really uninspiring to put it nicely. I can only attribute that behavior to blind brand loyalty. Some fairly basic analysis of 3rd party published test data should be convincing enough for them to be looking elsewhere. But I guess flashy advertisements and marketing trump rational analysis. For what is ostensibly a 'technical' hobby that is really a rather sad state of affairs.."
I think there may be other factors.
One is the widespread acceptance of the idea that all sorts of electronics are supposed to have relatively-short useful life. Most folks are used to the idea that a computer will need to be replaced, or at least upgraded, every couple of years. Why should a ham rig be any different?
Another is the question of reliability and repairability. Some rigmakers simply stop supporting their products after a certain number of years, so if your older rig breaks down, getting it fixed may be a hassle.
There's also the desire for a certain feature (6 meter coverage, built-in ATU, band scope) which may drive the decision.
Sometimes a ham may have a certain amount of $$ available, but only for a certain time. (Use it or lose it.) Or the ham may be changing life situations, such as retiring, having kids, moving) and figures the time to get a new rig is NOW, because once Event X happens it will be a lot harder.
There's also the simple desire to have something new.
N9DG: "This maybe the way that the imported big 3 approach the use of DSP. Be assured though that the newer upstart USA based companies are considerably more visionary in its application, and they are years ahead of their big 3 competitors."
Agreed. Yaecomwood tends to be evolutionary, the newer companies are more revolutionary.
There is also the question of Kenwood's status as a maker of HF ham gear. How many HF rigs does Kenwood currently offer, and how old/new are the designs?
W4LGH: "DSP has NOT shown me a whole lot, and has a long way to go to fully mature."
N2EY: “No argument there, it's just getting started in some ways. For example, the early DSP stuff in ham radio gear functioned at audio; the next generation at very low IFs just above the audio range. This was because of the limitations of the DSP hardware available. Direct processing of the first IF is next.”
N9DG: "I'd say it is a very mature technology at this point. At least for the basics of a typical receiver. What is left to do is implement things like active QRM suppression, that is where the DSP is actually subtracting out the components of an interfering signal that is bleeding over into the desired signal's passband."
I think we're saying the same things in slightly different ways. Doing basic things like emulating analog filters with DSP is mature, but a lot of newer things are still being developed.
N2EY: “One of the big problems with DSP is its very flexibility. Just because there are all sorts of possible filter characteristics possible doesn't mean they all sound good, or that none of them have other, less-desirable characteristics. It will take a lot of experience to weed out the bad ones.”
N9DG: "Some manufacturers already have plenty of experience weeding out the 'bad ones'. It seems once again that the import brands who are behind on this."
Key phrase there is "some manufacturers". There's DSP that's OK and DSP that's really good, and a lot of difference between - just like with analog rigs.
N2EY: “This is the factor which separates the lab boys from the operators, and it's not a new thing. The lab boys will point to a specification number and say how wonderful it is, but the operators have to *use* the dern thing, and that's a different issue. A receiver can have excellent sensitivity, but if its sound is tiring to listen to, you won't want to use it for long.”
N9DG: "And some of the *worst offenders* I've ever used for listener fatigue are analog only designs."
Such as?
N9DG: "And some otherwise good sounding DSP IF radios can can be made fatiguing if you just run the RF at full gain no matter what the band conditions are, verses setting it to make the natural noise floor just begin to generate AGC action, the Jupiter/Pegasus fit this description."
Misuse of RF Gain and AGC are classic mistakes. Can't tell you how many hams I know simply turn the RF gain on full and forget about it, regardless of conditions. I have seen this on Field Day for decades, as inexperienced hams struggle to make QSOs through all the QRM (some of it locally generated).
When I turn down the RF and turn up the AF, the typical response is "But now the S-meter/AGC doesn't work!" (as if that mattered).
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 30, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY wrote:
"Doing basic things like emulating analog filters with DSP is mature, but a lot of newer things are still being developed."
Emulating analog filters with digital filters is not only mature, it's pretty much obsolete. Much better filter characteristics are achieved by finite impulse response digital filters. These have linear phase response and are capable of remarkable passband flatness and stopband rejection. Even this is old hat-- the Parks-McClellan algorithm for designing such filters is about thirty-five years old.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by N9DG on April 30, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY: “This is the factor which separates the lab boys from the operators, and it's not a new thing. The lab boys will point to a specification number and say how wonderful it is, but the operators have to *use* the dern thing, and that's a different issue. A receiver can have excellent sensitivity, but if its sound is tiring to listen to, you won't want to use it for long.”
N9DG: "And some of the *worst offenders* I've ever used for listener fatigue are analog only designs."
N2EY: "Such as?"
IC-706 MKII, and to a somewhat lesser degree IC-765. Backing off the RF gain and/or adding attenuation on those radios is not nearly as effective as on other radios like the Corsair, Omni VI, Pegasus, the Flex-Radio models.
|
| |
|
RE: Today's Amateur Radio Equipment is a Bargain!
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on May 1, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One factor some agree with. An old TR-7 could be repaired by the ham or service site. Repairs could be done on a componant level or swap out a plug in board.
Todays radio's are very difficut for a ham to diagnose and repair. Send it back for repair, and the company just swaps out entire boards.
I sent back a TS-50 for repair. Kenwood charged $300 for a $700 radio!
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Ham Radio Magazines
I Want to be a Ham:
Future of Ham RADIO
Packing & Shipping Amateur Radio Equipment:
ARES -- Many Questions
Other Products Articles
Goodbye to Yaesu
The Butterfly Effect
10-Pound 700-Watt Automatic Amplifer
Audio Games
IC-7000 Woes
|
|
|
