Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
Floyd Sense (K8AC)
on
July 16, 2009
View comments about this article!
For some time now, I've been watching the discussions about how SDRs have done away with the need for knobs. The SDR purists are 100% opposed to knobs and the long-time analog receiver/transceiver crowd remain insistent on the need for a tuning knob (and maybe one or two others). Exactly why the current crop of SDRs eschew a tuning knob is somewhat of a mystery to me. There's absolutely NOTHING in software architectures that make a tuning knob incompatible with the SDR.
There's nothing like being able to mouse on a signal on the spectrum scope screen and have your SDR immediately tuned to that frequency. For many, that type of operation might make up 99% of their operating time. Many of the rest of us spend a lot of time carefully tuning a large weighted, smooth knob at 2 1/2 to 5 KHz per knob revolution digging out signals that are jammed up against many others or for other reasons are difficult to see on a scope.
It may surprise many SDR users to discover that most of these tuning knobs are connected to a fully digital encoder, driving digital frequency-determining circuits, all controlled by software. Typically the frequency is being changed at a rate of 10 Hz per encoder pulse and so to get the comfortable 2 1/2 to 5 KHz per revolution frequency change, the tuning knob encoder must put out enough pulses per revolution to make this possible. This relationship among tuning elements is a carefully coordinated one and the result is a very smooth and easy to use tuning mechanism.
As some know, this need not be an "either / or" situation regarding tuning knobs. Anyone who has used N8LP's LP-Pan software with a supported transceiver, or used the SDR-IQ receiver and SpectraVue to accomplish the panadaptor function can enjoy both the traditional tuning knob (note I didn't say "analog knob") and point-and-click to tune to a visible signal quickly. I've used both of these approaches and the combination of tuning methods is a superior solution.
A knob tuning function offered by some SDR software consists of using the mouse scrollwheel to fine tune the transceiver. I've found this to be barely workable due to the fact that most scrollwheels have detents that interfere with tuning, and the number of pulses output per revolution is simply too low to be of general use. OEM USB attached knobs, such as the Griffin PowerMate, are similarly flawed and have the additional shortcoming of backlash caused by the long software paths involved in getting the simulated keystrokes transferred to and processed by the SDR program.
All of this could be resolved, of course, through the simple technique of providing a proper encoder/knob and connecting that directly to the SDR's frequency-determining hardware/software. Anyone who has built or used the popular IQPro DDS VFO knows how well a good designer can marry a digital tuning encoder to a "software defined" unit.
In summary, the idea that an SDR and good tuning knob are somehow mutually exclusive is just plain wrong. Every other human interface to the SDR devices (eyes, ears) is ANALOG and that doesn't appear to inhibit the radio functions in anyway. Why object to the use of a simulated analog knob as an additional useful interface? Good software design in conjunction with the proper encoder can actually enhance the old-time tuning knob by offering tuning rates that vary with rotation speed making the knob useful in fast and large excursions as well as for fine tuning. I suspect that addressing this shortcoming in current SDR radios might just have a positive impact on sales.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N4BFD on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree, and of course if you wish, there are several methods of using a knob for tuning with powersdr.
I think the "no knobs" statement comes from many SDR users who basically get frustrated from listening to other hams eschew a radio that does not have them. Every time I tell someone I use a FlexRadio the "knobs" complaint is brought up. A few that act like their entire experience of operating a radio centers around spinning a VFO and messing about with legions of buttons and itty bitty knobs that have multiple functions.
For me, operating a radio, any radio, is the on air experience, how the RX and TX perform. I think of radios as RF interfaces if you will. I don't really care how it gets the job done, as long as it gets it done well.
That being said, a panadapter is rather addicting!
However, to each his own.
Recently someone on the FlexRadio email reflector mentioned that Logitech had a mouse with a weighted thumbwheel, that could be set to spin free without detents. Seems like a good way to go to me.
N4BFD
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by AA4ZZ on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
My Kachina 505DSP let me both use a tuning knob and use a mouse point on a visible signal and it was developed over 10 years ago.
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3EVL on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...Many of the rest of us spend a lot of time carefully tuning a large weighted, smooth knob at 2 1/2 to 5 KHz per knob revolution digging out signals that are jammed up against many others or for other reasons are difficult to see on a scope..."
At least with PowerSDR, I don't recall ever beeing in a situation where I could hear but not also see the signal of interest so this concept of "digging out" and "jammed up" doesn't really apply.
By combining the selction of visible spectrum width (panadapter resolution), tuning step rate, and all/any of the various methods of selecting the frequency (mouse click,mouse drag scroll, mouse wheel, keyboard, knob,...) the signal can be tuned.
I have nothing against the inclusion of a tuning knob and agree that a nicely weighted, smooth device can be a pleasure to use but in the example case as stated, this is a non-problem.
Pete
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What it really comes down to is the human-machine interface design. The ops who prefer knobs like that kind of interface.
This is not a trivial thing, however, because the interface can make a big difference in how much fun a rig is to use, and how easy it is to use.
Look at early autos and airplanes, and you'll see some very different control arrangements that were abandoned because people didn't like them.
There was a time when the computer folks thought a "light pen" that you'd use to point to things on the screen would be the best interface. But the mouse turned out to be better, probably because you don't have to lift your arm as much, and your hand doesn't block the screen.
So if hams want knobs - give 'em knobs!
Another issue is the "one box concept".
For years the trend has been to pack everything into one box, except maybe the power supply. Keyer, ATU, speaker, filters, etc., all in the transceiver box. Some rigs, like the Elecraft K3, can do digital modes without a computer. Hook up 13.8 volts, key/mike/keyboard, ground and antenna and you're ready to go. The TenTec Omni 7 has a network interface built-in. Etc.
Knobless SDRs go against that trend. They need a couple of boxes all connected together in order to work.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Even my TS2000(X) can be run solely with a mouse on the computer. Though, I find that method to be rather inefficient and clumsy.
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KW0O on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The SDRs that I have spoken to have always sounded Bassy and the operators always fiddling with it to make it sound fair. I personally would rather use a old time tube radio over a SDR
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing I find interesting is that most rigs today, and for many years now, are primarily software based anyway - in the control systems, at least.
What I mean is that even if the signal circuitry is purely "analog", the knobs and controls on the front panel don't directly control it, an embedded microcontroller (or several!) does. The tuning knob turns an optical encoder whose output goes to the microcontroller that tells the synthesizer what to do. The various push buttons are just inputs to a microcontroller which then operates relays, diode switches or other components to effect the desired function. In some cases even things like AF GAIN aren't directly controlling the signal level.
None of this is new; look how long ago HF rigs stopped having band switches and started having band buttons.
Yes, there are a few QRP rigs made today that don't depend on a microcontroller. And of course homebrew rigs like the Southgate Type 7 don't have one either. But they're the exception that prves the rule.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K4ELO on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"OEM USB attached knobs, such as the Griffin PowerMate, are similarly flawed and have the additional shortcoming of backlash caused by the long software paths involved in getting the simulated keystrokes transferred to and processed by the SDR program."
I'm wondering how you made this conclusion. What software and what SDR were you using when you observed this? Or is this just an opinion with no tests to verify the conclusion? Or did you analyze the software source code or run timing tests? How do you know if there are 'long software paths'?
If one is going to state opinions, they should not be asserted as facts. This article looks like one big opinion with no verifiable facts, tests, or measurements to back it up.
Nothing wrong with stating opinions as long as they are labeled as such.
Just my opinion.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K0BG on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's a question posed by one of my friends recently: Why don't SDR manufacturers have a full-function face plate available as an option?
Why don't they indeed?
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
| |
|
Not a picture of radio on a PC
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PC based SDR’s should not be confused with the various panel-less radio control programs out there that simply “draw a picture” of a regular radio on a computer screen. Drawing a picture of a radio on a computer screen misses 90% of the whole point of what SDR is and can be. It is kinda unfortunate that so many end up basing their perceptions of how radios like the Flex work by using TS-B2000’s or the Yaesu control program for the FT-2000. Neither of those two examples come anywhere near close to what the PowerSDR user experience is like. And both are examples of “picture of radio” on computer screen. I think that programs running on radios like those has done more to hinder the growth of PC based SDR’s than most anything else. They really do leave people with a miss perception of what PC based SDR’s are, and can do.
One thing I do find interesting is that many who struggle with point and click tuning have this notion of “slow tuning” to find weak signals. So they set up their tuning rates to some slow rate. They then do the same for their SDR’s and then get frustrated trying to tune in small steps. The reality is that you don’t need to. The panadapter waterfall is sensitive enough that any thing you can hear you can see, or perhaps more accurately, anything that you can see you will hear. So instead of scanning the band audibly by tuning, you scan the band visually by watching the display and then clicking on things of interest. And equally important, you can skip over the stuff you not interested in, with knob you must tune through it.. So in the end I rarely run with PowerSDR tuning steps size less than .5 kHz. For CW just click right on top of the signal and you’re there, if you miss, just click again. On SSB if you miss, then just one or two clicks of the mouse wheel gets you dead on since most everyone is on the even .5 or 1 kHz anyhow.
I too have played around with adding SDR features to an exiting conventional radio several years ago. It does indeed add more functionality to those radios. But in the end I find the constant transition between the VFO knob and the pandapter/waterfall cumbersome. I really can maneuver around the band so much faster and easier with just the SDR controls.
In the shack if I want run very “casual”, then I’ll just run one of my very simple, older, no menu traditional radios that I have. But if I want to really “work the band”, then PC based SDR is so much more enjoyable. I certainly have no interest at all in a knobs and button radio with dozens of tiny multifunction buttons and knobs. Or hundreds of cryptic menus to set. Nor some afterthought insensitive and slow panadaper running on proprietary hardware with no ability to point and click on what you do see. That surely seems like a recipe for frustration, especially after using PowerSDR for some time now. It would be like trying do things fast on dialup vs. broadband. Once you had broadband, then dialup seems slower than you remember it to be, to me the “big 3” manufacturer’s panadapter implementations are the same contrast. They just don’t impress me anymore.
|
| |
|
RE: Not a picture of radio on a PC
|
|
|
by K9FON on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A "radio" if you will, without knobs is NOT a radio but a computer plaything. A real radio has knobs and sometimes tubes. I will keep my old fashioned knob radios thank you very much. Most of my gear also has tubes as well. I did get to play with a SDR "computer toy" (I avoid the term "rig" here)at a hamfest once and was NOT at all impressed. I asked the salesman were are the knobs and he seemed a little put off by the comments! Oh well. To each their own.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY: “Look at early autos and airplanes, and you'll see some very different control arrangements that were abandoned because people didn't like them.”
I see this analogy used a lot when debating knobs vs. PC displays for radios. The flaw in the comparison is that vehicles are physical, tactile, objects to begin with. As such it makes sense to control them via mechanical means. The controls themselves often being “extensions” or interfaces of one’s own arms and legs to more machinery that also works like arms and legs.
Radio (RF) on the other hand is not physical in the sense that you can touch and manipulate it by your hands etc. But in previous decades mechanical mechanisms like knobs and buttons became the best way to interact with the abstract of what radio is. For many years there was no better, or economical, way to interact with, or maneuver within the RF spectrum. Now with very inexpensive PC technology today there is. PC displays are far better at presenting what the RF spectrum is than a discrete VFO frequency displays and S meters are. But along with that new display capability you need an effective way to “interact with” the things that you do see. You need 2 or more dimensions of access and control, knobs and buttons only give one dimension. One dimension in the sense that you must do things sequentially, there is no means, concept, or equivalence of tuning into the one (or more signals) of interest without tuning through all those others that you have no interest in without some outside help like DX spotting networks are.
In the end it often seems that today’s knobs and buttons radios are designed to please those who want to play with *the radio* (as an object) vs. those who want to play in the *radio spectrum* (the abstract physical medium of RF). I fall more into the second category. The less I even notice that the radio (hardware) is even there the better. Today’s PC based SDR’s make that hardware layer between me and the RF thinner than ever before.
N2EY: “For years the trend has been to pack everything into one box, except maybe the power supply. Keyer, ATU, speaker, filters, etc., all in the transceiver box. Some rigs, like the Elecraft K3, can do digital modes without a computer. Hook up 13.8 volts, key/mike/keyboard, ground and antenna and you're ready to go. The TenTec Omni 7 has a network interface built-in. Etc.”
But these examples are limited. Do they do SSTV? WSJT? Packet? Or any other new mode that may come along? Or what if I like somebody else’s implementation of these various modes and do not like the proprietary implementation that these “one box” radios provide? I’ve come to the conclusion that these kinds of implementations of digital modes aren’t widely used. A neat trick for sure, but just not that practical in the grand scheme of things.
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WC1I on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is an exact parallel to SDR in the pro audio domain in that there are hardware sound mixing boards and software mixers. The same arguments regarding knobs and interfaces has largely resolved in audio, however. The result is that there is a robust market for interface devices that control software functions. Beginning with simplistic knob and slider pads, typically each controlling a single function, these have evolved into full-blown professional interfaces with fully assignable functions, often electronically labeled, and flexibility only dreamed of in the analog realm. You want 10 busses, 20, 30? The limit is your PC and software. Want to map multiple functions onto a single knob? No problem. Want to link controls? No problem. Need to accomodate complex routing functions from software to interface to outboard equipment back into the software, etc.? No problem.
The PROBLEM is getting people to think outside the existing paradigm. That applies to the software side of SDR also - over time expect the development of many 3rd party software plug-in providers and alternative platforms as well as more and better human interface control devices.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The reality is that you don’t need to. The panadapter waterfall is sensitive enough that any thing you can hear you can see, or perhaps more accurately, anything that you can see you will hear. So instead of scanning the band audibly by tuning, you scan the band visually by watching the display and then clicking on things of interest"
But I don't want to do that.
I want to tune through the signals and hear what I'm going to hear.
I would probably also use the panadapter, but let's not miss the point that some people have a basic and fairly strong objection to that style of tuning.
I don't actually care even if it is better in some objective measure. I don't care if it gives me more DX stations. (though I suppose I might care if it gave me more contest multipliers, but that is a different style of operating)
I want to use a tuning knob most of the time when I'm DXing.
Not everyone's objection to knoblessness is because they're imagining the software wrong. Some people just really, really like the big knob interface for actually tuning across the band listening for stations to work.
I do a lot of clicking on spectral peaks in my line of work; I don't want to use a mouse and panadapter to tune my radio most of the time. Maybe I'd get used to it eventually, but like K8AC says, there's not *really* a reason to have to get used to it.
The same thing goes for any sort of computer interface. A lot of interface designers have a "better" idea that might even be legitimately better in terms of efficiency or whatever, but for ultimate commercial success among the broadest population, they really should give the user the option of doing exactly what they were doing before with the old UI, because people feel strongly about switching their reflexes over.
Now, some companies probably hold steadfast to the idea that their UI is better, and they will not be backwards compatible with people's muscle memory from using their competitors' products for years. That's fine. But they can't expect to win over the "comfort zoners" who really prefer to stick with the old style. Free software from the open source community is always going to make more headway if it works exactly like the Microsoft equivalent, even if that makes the developers want to vomit.
UI design is really, ultimately, totally subjective even if there are some things that seem universally better about the new design.
73
Dan
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KK5IB on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My Yaesu FT-2000 has 105 knobs and buttons and 147 menus, can be turned on by AWH Commander program and operated also by Ham Radio Deluxe, and we have had several CPU and DSP upgrades this year. Nothing wrong with having it both ways.
Darryl, KK5IB
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches (knobs vs windows based sdr). There is definitely a visual appeal to point and click tuning, but you do lose the sense of touch, which also has its advantages. I can reach over and adjust the volume (or other) knob on a radio without even looking at it, because I know where the knob is at, its position does not change. For instance, I can adjust the volume on my car radio without ever taking my eye off of the road, because I know the location of the knobs. On Windows based SDR, I have to look at the computer screen, and find the right location for the controls, as they can change based on the position of the window, and I have to move the mouse to the correct position. But it does have a great visual appeal, as I can visually see a large section of the band, and quickly tune to a signal.
I personally think a combination of the two is the best approach, a point and click spectrum attached to a radio with knobs.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WC1I on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Now, some companies probably hold steadfast to the idea that their UI is better, and they will not be backwards compatible with people's muscle memory from using their competitors' products for years. That's fine. But they can't expect to win over the "comfort zoners" who really prefer to stick with the old style. Free software from the open source community is always going to make more headway if it works exactly like the Microsoft equivalent, even if that makes the developers want to vomit. "
There's a body of opinion that holds open source software (UI anyway) only thrives by offering an incremental improvement - to your point - by way of comparison to Windows. The idea of Microsoft as a permanent standard only goes so far, though, and you need look no further than the iPhone. I also clearly remember when mouse use and windowed interfaces themselves were dissed in favor of character-based interfaces. Companies like Flex may be doing themselves a disservice by concentrating their marketing so heavily on the UI - after all, it is only one possible implementation out of many possibilities.
Your larger point about simple preference is completely valid and I think there's more to it than the familiarity of "old style." There's a lot to be said for the simple satisfaction of physically manipulating a device - something that also applies to my iPhone example but is a degree removed with a mouse. I have Flex's PowerSDR demo on my PC. Having gone through it several times, I like its capabilities (and its potential), but find using the screen interface oddly unsatisfying. Were I to go the SDR route, I would absolutely want to use some sort of interface device, at least for base usage, and would want more than a simple knob or two.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by AK2B on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“Here's a question posed by one of my friends recently: Why don't SDR manufacturers have a full-function face plate available as an option?
Why don't they indeed?
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com"
That’s an interesting question. Aside from the obvious fact that it would increase the cost somewhat, it still opens a whole area of ideas. What controls do you put on the face plate? Is the face plate just an open panel or contained in a box. If it is a box would it be so light that you would need to add weights just to keep it from moving all over the place? Is the face plate connected by cable or totally remote? It will be interesting to see what the future holds in this relatively new arena.
I have used PowerSDR many times with SoftRocks. The lack of knobs didn’t cause any major trauma and is really pretty easy to get used to. In fact there is a lot to like about seeing a large slice of the band and being able to click and tune on a little blip or know in an instant whether the band is dead or alive. Maybe as hams we are genetically predisposed to be knob twisters. I know I am and I still feel like something's missing with software interface only radios. Currently I use PowerSDR on the IF output of my radio. This is positively a fantastic way to enjoy the best of both worlds.
Tom, ak2b
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KC0UZA on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is one of those religious discussions that will convince no one. I work all day on a computer and enjoy the break from that interface on a radio with physical controls like tuning knobs, volume control, keyer speed, etc. Granted using some buried menu items can be a pain. I have used HRD to control my rig and my pc is close enough that I can switch between if I desire to. But I usually don't.
The implementations of either method are flawed and could always be improved. I would hate to be forced to use a computer interface but like the option.
I think SDR radio designers are perhaps missing out by not accomodating interface mechanisms that those that like a more manual feel would enjoy. Those are some customers that won't buy one.
73
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KB6QXM on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My goal is to have a 100% software defined and/or computer controlled ham shack. That includes rotor control, amplifier control, tuner control, watt meter, antenna analyzer. The ability to use 3G/4G cell technology to control and use my shack remotely through my smart windows based smart phone.
The only thing that is stopping me is the SCARY economy. Once the economy recovers, then I will invest in the technology to make this system become a reality.
Walk into the shack and all you see is a large LCD monitor, a keyboard, a trackball, a microphone on a boom mike and a CW key. That's it. All of the equipment that is being controlled will be in a rack away from the operating station.
The Flex 5000a with it's eventual release of 2M/70cm transverters will allow 160-70cm all mode operation, multiple recievers.
SDR is the future....time to get on the SDR train. I know I will with both feet once the economy stops shedding jobs.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N4BFD on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HRD isn't even close to Powersdr. Not the same league, two different types of software, HRD just controls a radio. PowerSDR IS the radio, and centers around a real time panadapter. Was that someone tuning up for a split second 34 khz up the band? A band you thought was dead? Yea you saw it.. click on it and you're there. Brick wall filters, and I mean big.. THICK brick walls.. a few hertz outside the pass band and the offending station/interference is gone. PowerSDR modulates and demodulates all signals, open source, and software updates are endless and performance increases can be measured over time in weeks and months, not years then... nothing like the firmware in most rigs these days.
If you limit yourself to that (HRD) to pass judgment, it's like declaring cars are terrible because you rode in a Yugo so you know the Ferrari is no fun either.
HRD, and other rig control programs are not what SDR is about by any stretch of the means. I don't see the point of doing that either, the only thing I have ever used HRD for is to tell DM780 what frequency I am on when using digital modes.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by AA4PB on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The ultimate SDR is one that monitors 1-30MHz for needed stations, works them automatically, logs them with LOTW, and automatically prints the QSL card. It would automatically notify send me via a text message on my IPhone when it has achieved WAS or DXCC. :-)
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB6QXM writes: "My goal is to have a 100% software defined and/or computer controlled ham shack....
Walk into the shack and all you see is a large LCD monitor, a keyboard, a trackball, a microphone on a boom mike and a CW key. That's it."
If that's what you want, I wish you success and enjoyment with it. Personally I like being close to the radio stuff, but that's just me.
Oddly enough, we've come full circle in some ways. In the spark era it was common practice for hams to put the transmitter in a different room from the shack, and remote control it, to get away from the incredible racket it made. (I've been right next to an operating 1 kW rotary spark transmitter; it makes so much noise you can't hear yourself think!)
Now for the devil's advocate part:
Why the CW key in your setup? You can send perfect Morse using the keyboard, have canned messages with your name, QTH, rig description, etc. at the push of a function key or spin/tap of the trackball. The CW key design is at least 100 years old, if not 150 years old!
Of course the answer is that you PREFER the key. You just LIKE using it instead of a keyboard. That reason alone is enough to have it.
That's all the knob-twisters are saying. They're not stuck in the past, they just PREFER that interface, they just LIKE it better.
IMHO one of the really great things about Amateur Radio is the enormous variety of choices we have, in rigs, modes, technologies, bands, etc. You could be running a remote-controlled 2009 model SDR, while I'm running a 1929 vintage homebrew-on-a-breadboard rig, and we can have an enjoyable QSO. And if the rigs are done right, you can't tell by the signal which is which.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KB6QXM on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
The reason for the CW key is that I "know" code. I am NOT a part of the new generation of hams that were not required to know or pass a code test. The reason for the key is for me to use my ability to send and recieve code.
It is a mode that takes some skill. I did not whine that it was too hard or that I did not have the ability to learn the code. Oh sure, I failed a couple of times when passing my 13WPM, but I did it. Why? Because it was a challenge and I wanted it. In those days there were no two schools of ham radio tickets. You either passed the code element or you did not advance your license class. No instant gradification back then.
Challenges is what makes us stronger as people. Take it away and you have a bunch of fat, dumb and happy people. There is a bit of truth in ignorant is bliss saying.
I, myself, like challenges. It defines the character of the person. When I was testing for my black belt in traditional karate did I pass the first time. No. It was physically, mentally and spiritually challenging. I wanted it. The challenge was there and all of my failure did was to increase my focus. I learned from my mistakes and obtained my black belt.
The same holds true with the challenges of ham radio. Take away the challenge and complexity and now what do you have. A bunch of hams that are these new extra classes who don't know the difference between resistance and reactance. Extra Class hams that do not know how to put on a RF connector on a peice of coax.
I know you and I have gone around and around on this subject. You will not change your stance. I will not change mine. Let's just agree to disagree that your views of ham radio and challenges are completely different.
All of this instant gradification and entitlement society and give everyone something for nothing is why the United States has to import a great amount of our intellectual workforce. I do know about you, I find that unacceptable. We need to grow that intellectual workforce here.
Enough said.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WC1I says:
"
There's a body of opinion that holds open source software (UI anyway) only thrives by offering an incremental improvement - to your point - by way of comparison to Windows. The idea of Microsoft as a permanent standard only goes so far, though, and you need look no further than the iPhone."
Yes, the iPhone is fantastic. I am impressed with even the few seconds that I've used one.
But it seems to me the open source guys, at least in the past, insisted on "different but not obviously better."
Apple puts a huge amount of time and, presumably, actual usability testing into their UI's. And in no way do I want to paint open source with too broad a brush, but I think that there's more of a tendency toward "we need to be different" rather than "we need to make this so much better that no one could possibly care that it's different"
Windows shouldn't be a permanent standard, but in the absence of a really, really good idea, making your word processor work exactly like Word and your spreadsheet work exactly like Excel might be better than making them "equivalently" useful but simply different. How you define that all is an open question :-)
"Companies like Flex may be doing themselves a disservice by concentrating their marketing so heavily on the UI - after all, it is only one possible implementation out of many possibilities."
Yes, and man I do not like clicking with a mouse.
"here's a lot to be said for the simple satisfaction of physically manipulating a device - something that also applies to my iPhone example but is a degree removed with a mouse."
There's probably a lot of headway to be made with touchscreen technology. All of your RF gain, CW speed, etc could be "Star Trek" style sliders, which I'd be fine with.
But in the absence of a knob, I want the tuning to be ridiculously better than a knob, which I like quite a bit.
I think a mouse is actually pretty terrible. It takes me nearly three seconds to grab the mouse, click an icon on the lower left side of the two-screen system here, and then move to the upper right and click a Firefox bookmark. The equivalent thing if both of these screens were touch-screens takes a fraction of that. A touch screen spectrum that worked like an iPhone in the sense that you could expand and contract it with two finger gestures and tap on a peak to tune there might appeal to me in a way that the mouse does not.
How about eye tracking so that I can look straight ahead and have the IF filter centered to pass CW that then comes in at 400Hz (my preference), but if I look side to side, the filter shifts or widens to "open up" lower or higher frequencies, which are mapped across a stereo sound field from left to right, low to high.
There are even ways to map three dimensional sound fields to stereo headphones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function
How many signals can you hear if you actually map the SOUND into a three dimensional space? You could even have VFO A in front and VFO B off to the side or behind where you could choose to pay attention to it or not.
Now THAT's transparent :-)
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W0STB on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"But I don't want to do that.
I want to tune through the signals and hear what I'm going to hear."
So - turn the pan or waterfall display to "off" and tune with your ears only. Or to take the next step you could plug one of your ears and just be a one-ear-tuner guy.
Maybe it would be an even better experience if you didn't have any kind of frequency display at all?
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This whole article is ridiculous. No SDR enthusiast cares one whit whether there is a friggin knob or not. The idea that some "would be surprised" that the knob is connected to a digital encoder is also non-sense. This is merely a straw man cooked by the author so he can KNOCK IT DOWN.
The issue primarily is how the SDR is implemented. In some cases the radio is not truly SDR but a firmware defined radio. The "radio" is contained typically is some puny underpowered "computer chip" in a box with a knob. As such it does not lend itself to much plasticity. You are basically stuck with the architecture and you are basically stuck with the knob compliment you have on your radio. The design is pretty much in stone because the interface is pretty much in stone.
The SDR this author tries to knock down on the other had is extremely plastic. You can add functionality and "virtual" knobs out the ying yang as your software expands, or you can subtract knobs, or you can have the precise virtual knob compliment you need for a given task.
For example the Flex radio has an interface that changes with mode. In CW things like offset and keyer speed and breakin delay all come up when you choose CW. The filter choices are also just for CW and every choice is definable by the user so you can have a compliment that goes 1000hz 500hz 200hz 100hz 50hz 25hz and 11hz on the interface when you switch to CW, or any other compliment you want. If you switch to SSB the compliment changes to 6khz 4.4khz 3.3khz 3.1khz 2.7khz 2.4khz 2khz or any other bandwidths you decide you want displayed. Also when you choose SSB the panel changes to things like processor, VOX, MIC gain, and the GATE function. If you go to Digital again the compliment of "knobs" are specific to those modes
The fact that the actual radio resides IN YOUR DESKTOP OR LAPTOP COMPUTER is significant for this kind of setup. The actual DSP is in the software in the computer. The actual processing is being done in the computer. The computer does not merely act as a software interface. The flex radio for example can be viewed as a dual conversion receiver. The first conversion is done in hardware, where RF is converted to a 96khz or 192khz baseband. That converted RF is then fed to the second conversion as a digitized representation of the wideband RF waveform it is there that the actual filtering demodulation AGC noise blanking etc etc occurs as well as the frequency control. I think it is important to understand the true architecture of this kind of radio. Because the radio is mostly done in software, it is trivial to modify and this its huge advantage. For example if it is determined that the AGC action is better at the end of the signal chain rather than the beginning or middle you just change the code AND EVERY SINGLE RADIO OWNER THAT DOWNLOADS THE NEW SOFTWARE is upgraded immediately. If your AGC is done in hardware you are screwed because you can't change that. Your only solution is to buy a new radio. In fact this radio is GPL license so you can customize the radio to your own specification if you know something about computer coding. The other advantage to having your radio reside on a full sized computer is as the computing power needs increase you can simply upgrade the computer to fit your needs. A far cheaper proposition that buying a new radio. New mother board new processor maybe a little dab more of memory and your done.
That there is no KNOB device that satisfies the author does not mean there are no adequate KNOB devices. Perhaps this fellow is just a KNOB SNOB. Perhaps its just the gentle caress of his 2.5khz revolver that make his day. In fact frequency is controllable at 1hz resolution with a SDR so there is no problem "rocking" the frequency to dig out a weak one. My Flex radios hear weak ones much better than any of the knob radios I ever owned, and getting it on freq 99% of the time is a one click affair. As the state of the art continues to improve I think we will see further evolution in the interface. The Flex approach with its virtual real time panadapter is 2 dimensional. You see a wide swath of frequency (192khz) and you see the amplitude of every signal contained in that swath You can see signals across a wide bandwidth of frequencies so you don't have to tune. You already know exactly what signals are on the band. A knob is one dimensional and blind. If for example you tune up the band looking for DX, you can't tell that the DX just came up on the frequency 1kz down the band from where you are. You just tuned by that freq, and you are headed further up the band using your knob. Further away for your interest. On a 2 dimensional radio however you would see that station start transmitting just below you. In fact there is another dimension you can add to this mix.
There is a program called CW skimmer that can be added that will actually identify the stations call sign. So with a Flex radio and skimmer you have 3 dimension available to you, frequency amplitude and identity. You can see the station and identify the station without even "listening" to the station. In fact you can be listening to another station and see all this. If you "click" you are exactly on the stations frequency. It is so superior to a knob it is beyond belief. In a pile up you can see the DX and you can see the station the DX is working in real time. Tail ending is a breeze and your calling is highly efficient. If the station is moving around it is very easy to identify his movement pattern and be sitting there ready to bag him as he moves onto your freq. With a knob, no matter how nice it is to caress, you're just flyin blind. I'll have the sucker in the log and you'll be there for hours "rocking" your butt off.
73 W9OY
|
| |
|
Many SDRs do have knobs
|
|
|
by KASSY on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mine does...it's an Elecraft K3.
I have used a Flex with a tuning knob. Still doesn't do it for me. When digging into that weak CW signal, I love being able to put one hand each on the BW and Center knobs of the K3 and fine-tune the filter to select just that one signal. With the pinky finger I can fine-adjust the VFO. All while keeping my eyes closed so my mind can concentrate better on hearing the weak DX.
Other SDRs with knobs:
Ten-Tec Orion
Icom IC7X00 and 756Pro
I don't know why we ever got to the crazy idea that the only SDRs in the world were the ones that used sound cards.
- k
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KC2RGW on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I really don't understand this whole thing.
With SDR software you can
Enter in frequencies manually by typing out the numbers.
Click on the pan and just drag the band, most have inertial tuning so you can just get it 'spinning' in one direction or other at varying speeds. Click to stop it.
Direct click to tune.
Hover over the frequency display a digit at a time and mousewheel tune up or down that particular increment step...most of the SDR software has this supported.
Mouse wheel tuning for fine tuning that goes down to at least 1Hz or even finer depending on the variation of software used.
Why in the hell would anyone want a knob in addition to the mouse their hand is already sitting on, with all these options? Yes there is a USB knob, but it totally ruins the interface if you are jumping back and forth to it from the mouse...it's pointless.
You can do FAR finer tuning more easily with the mouse wheel and setting the tuning increment in the interface than you can with a VFO knob that in 99% of rigs is a fixed step size.
How is this even a question? Have the people yelling for knobs never actually used an SDR? It's the only answer that is even a little bit logical as an explanation.
It used to be unclear to me what it was all about, until I actually got one. It was however _immediately_ apparent there was no need for a knob the first minute of operating one.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W7ETA on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great prose.
Interesting article.
Thanks for gettin it on eHam.
If the SDR rig has a knob that goes up the band when turned CCR and it uses a 9 pin min tube, I might consider it as my next radio?
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB6QXM writes: "The reason for the CW key is that I "know" code."
I hope you don't think I'm against anything in the shack description you wrote. Because I'm not.
The fact that you want a CW key in your shack is more than enough reason to have one. Or several.
My only point is that the same thing applies to those who prefer a knob or switch for a particular function. That they like it is more than enough reason to have it.
My comments on the subject aren't meant to argue with yours, but to make a point to those who seem to want rigs-with-knobs to go away.
---
KB6QXM: "I am NOT a part of the new generation of hams that were not required to know or pass a code test."
Nor am I. But they're here and they're hams. And at least some of them are learning and using Morse Code anyway.
KB6QXM: "You either passed the code element or you did not advance your license class."
That's true - with two small exceptions. One was when a Novice upgraded to Technician, the other was when a General or Conditional upgraded to Advanced. Every other upgrade required passing code tests.
KB6QXM: "No instant gradification back then."
How well I remember passing a license test, and then going home to wait 6 to 8 weeks for the license to come. I couldn't use the new privileges until I got the actual license. I also remember making a 2 year calendar (by hand) to mark off the days till when I could try the Extra.
KB6QXM: "Challenges is what makes us stronger as people. Take it away and you have a bunch of fat, dumb and happy people. There is a bit of truth in ignorant is bliss saying."
I know what you mean; I've run two marathons. Did it for the challenge.
KB6QXM: "All of this instant gradification and entitlement society and give everyone something for nothing is why the United States has to import a great amount of our intellectual workforce. I do know about you, I find that unacceptable. We need to grow that intellectual workforce here."
I find it unacceptable too. But I think there's more to it than the lack of challenges.
One reason for the importing is to keep wages and benefits down. Look at the difference in pay and perks between professions that can easily import (software engineering) and those that can't (law). Tells you something.
Another is to keep from having to invest in quality education for ALL kids, so that the talented in all fields will have a chance.
But the worst IMHO is the culture that highly values, publicizes and rewards certain jobs but not others. Just look at TV and the movies - how many positive depictions of engineers (or hams) do you see?
I hope you get the shack you envision. And soon.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why in the hell would anyone want a knob in addition to the mouse their hand is already sitting on, with all these options? "
Because I hate the mouse?
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So - turn the pan or waterfall display to "off" and tune with your ears only. Or to take the next step you could plug one of your ears and just be a one-ear-tuner guy.
Maybe it would be an even better experience if you didn't have any kind of frequency display at all? "
You're missing the point. I'm not being an anti-display luddite. It's not alternative and better tuning schemes that I don't want.
What I don't want is to be using a mouse or trackball or keyboard to tune my radio across the band, at least not most of the time.
And there's no real reason why someone can't build a nice big weighted tuning peripheral VFO knob with tuning acceleration. In fact, if I can't buy one when I get a Flex eventually, I will build one. I prefer not to have to learn how to write Windows software to get it to work the way I want it to though, so I hope this issue eventually gets cleared up.
I think, for general tuning around the band, clicking with a mouse, even with a mouse wheel for fine tuning, for me, is WORSE than spinning a knob.
You might like the way tuning with a mouse works. I do not.
For tuning across a band listening with the ears, a big weighted VFO knob is actually a very good interface, in my opinion, and I think it's one shared by a lot of hams, SDR enthusiast or not.
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"How is this even a question? Have the people yelling for knobs never actually used an SDR? It's the only answer that is even a little bit logical as an explanation. "
Apparently, some SDR users do find knoblessness to be a problem:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio@flex-radio.biz/msg29744.html
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by HR2510 on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tuning a radio with a mouse is so completely different that most hams have a bad time accepting the change. Add to that the fact that the Flex-radios are NOT plug and play (though the 3000 is closing in on that quickly) you have a situation that makes SDR seem experimental. Having to load the latest version of this and that to make an SDR work is pain the rear.
But I still own an SDR-1000, an SDR-IQ (probably the simplest SDR radio to setup and use), and mulitiples of regular big knob HF radios.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WC1I on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dan (N3OX) - I'd say you have the vision of what SDR can be. Dimensionality, touch interfaces, sight tracking, and more. To which I'd add advanced voice command, presence controls, multiple radio support (including from diverse manufacturers), and support for additional devices such as tuners, rotators, power supplies, test & measurement equipment, etc. How about digitally analyzing signals from diverse sources - some perhaps remote - and *constructing* a coherent signal, similar to what is being done with advanced optics? Scenario-based contact probability? Simultaneous multiple-mode contacts? Endless possibilities.
But, back to knobs, and I'll return to my pro audio example. Early adopters of recording software and software mixers were also adamant that the UI could do it all. Some people do only use the UI with keyboard and mouse, but in the main they were wrong. People can do more, faster, more predictably with interfaces that take full advantage of our physical capabilities. Including knobs.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"How about digitally analyzing signals from diverse sources - some perhaps remote - and *constructing* a coherent signal,"
That's right. multiple antenna diversity arranged across the stereo sound field (which you can do at least for a couple antennas, I'm sure, already) would be cool.
That's the reason why I love the idea... you can do anything you want with software, or have someone cleverer do it for you once you can convince them you have a good idea ;-)
Still want a knob until I think of something I like better though...
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a Flex 3000 and really like it, but I do not quite understand the view that a radio is only software defined if the software runs on Windows. An accepted definition of software defined radio is "where components that have typically been implemented in hardware (e.g. mixers, filters, amplifiers, oscillators, modulators/demodulators, detectors. etc.) are instead implemented using software running on a personal computer or other embedded computing devices". Note that it says that the software can run on either a personal computer OR "other embedded computing devices". There many radio's such as the Orion, Jupiter, K3,that do detection, agc, filtering on embedded computing devices inside the radio, so in my opinion they are SDR's. I don't think that the location of the software excludes them from being "software defined". In fact one definition of firmware is "Firmware is a software program or set of instructions programmed on a hardware device", describing firmware as being a "software program". I may be wrong, but I don't think that a radio is excluded from being an SDR, just because a radio has knobs or because the software is located on firmware inside the radio.
I really like tuning with bandscope point and click, but with a radio with knobs I can send CW and I can reach over and change the CW keyer speed, or adjust the RIT without even looking at it. Much harder to do on a computer screen with a mouse.
I still think they both have advantages and disadvantages, and I like a combination of both aproaches.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W4VR on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The SDRs the US manufacturers are selling are "a work in progress." Many hams I've talked with, or listened to, have had problems getting their SDRs to work and in some cases have asked for a refund. If the Japanese come out with one in the future I may consider buying one. Hopefully the Japanese will get it right the first time, rather than screwing around with a Beta 1, 2....etc. Personally I don't care if the radio has knobs or not; I want something that works and does not quit in an RF environment.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by AJ4MJ on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB6QXM: "The reason for the CW key is that I "know" code. I am NOT a part of the new generation of hams that were not required to know or pass a code test."
Well I *am* part of the generation licensed after Feb 2007. I know code too, but I guess I'll never be as awesome as you because I can't take an FCC code test. And though the code testing requirement was removed before I ever thought about getting a license, it is somehow my fault. *groan*
But back to the subject at hand. I prefer paddles to a keyboard because less hand pain is involved (especially for those of us who use a keyboard at work all day).
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KB6QXM on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD8K, why did you choose the 3000 over the 5000A? I am just curious.
The 5000a has so much more expandability.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I operate a lot with my eyes closed so I might have a perspective similar to a blind operator: I don't want to use any interface that is only graphical, since with your eyes closed you can't see it.
Nothing wrong with SDRs, I just need stuff I can adjust with my hands, without looking, to tune around, adjust volume, filter bandwidth and keyer speeds, change modes and bands, set up a "split," etc. All the stuff you'd normally do with a GUI, but do it without looking at anything.
I can easily do all the above with a PUI (physical user interface) after a very brief indoctrination period. No reason an SDR can't have both a PUI and a GUI.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>KD8K, why did you choose the 3000 over the 5000A? I am just curious
In all honesty, I just did not want to put a lot of money into the current generation of SDR's. I really like the current generation of Flex Radio's, but I think the future is with direct sampling SDR's, and I wanted to wait until those are available before I invested a lot of money.
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by AC0GR on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I dont know what OP has against the Griffin Powermate. I love mine. With it, I can tune 3 different radios with the same knob. Ive never noticed any 'backlash' or software delays, and it is definitely better than scrolling though the band with a mousewheel.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I dont know what OP has against the Griffin Powermate."
I don't like mine because it's kinda chintzy and not enough moment of inertia to spin freely.
It's better than a mouse, for sure.
The other problem I have with it is also in that link I posted: the PowerMate software can't be set up to link the PowerMate to one program regardless of whether or not that program has focus.
I would want my tuning knob to only & always actuate the SDR control program, whether or not it was maximized or minimized or behind another window... maybe you can do that, but my impression from others' comments is that you can't.
I don't look forward to overcoming that issue by myself. Seems like maybe Microsoft PowerToys can help now that I look at it, but I'll have to try it.
I don't really want to have another computer just so I can use it as a computer while I'm dialing around the band.
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KF4HR on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It should be no secret to radio manufacturer's (SDR manufacturer's or otherwise), that amateur's like a lot of bells and whistles and plenty of options. Even if you don't think you'd like SDR gear, let's face it, even some of us died-in-the-wool knob turners might be curious.
I think the company that comes out with a true SDR/Panel hybrid could have a winning product.
Ok, let's do this... Picture a full sized front panel with a panel layout similar to an IC-7800 or FT-9000, but only an inch thick and weighing around 5 pounds. The panel would have all the meters, LCD screens, knobs, and buttons that a top-end rig would have. Then all the guts of the rig would be housed in a black box sitting under the desk and fully SDR controllable by a PC. Knobs and panel, or mouse and LCD screen... take your pick. And both work at the same time and track each other.
But no need to stop there. Make sure this new Hybrid rig receives (to include bandscope) on all frequencies 500khz to 1.3ghz and transmits on all bands from 160 through 70cm, with true dual receivers. And has low-level outputs for QRP or to drive high frequency transverters and power for receive preamps. And includes a fully configurable rotator control (for any popular rotator motor). Low-level outputs to drive high frequency transverters and power for preamps (with display configurable to show actual transverter output frequency). And not a whimpy 3:1 VSWR 100 watt auto-antenna tuner, but rather a tuner with an impedance matching range similar to SGC or Palstar high end auto-tuners and capable of handling 1.5kw. And just for grins, have a couple of options; a 220 mhz module, a D-Star option, and an optional 1.5kw drop-in solid state amp... 500 watts on VHF/UHF. With firmware configurable for all popular digital modes. Ok, granted... it would be a large black box. But it would be one hell of a box!
So there ya go... the best of all worlds. And finally a rig REALLY worthy of a $10-13K price tag. Ok engineering team... Let's do it!
Wait... was I dreaming I was President of ICOM?
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N3OX on July 16, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
I don't really want to have another computer just so I can use it as a computer while I'm dialing around the band.<
::I can use a Flex SDR to dial around the band, and still use the computer for other stuff at the same time, just fine. Windows accomplishes this well, for me. Just split the screen. If you have a big enough monitor, you can run multiple apps on a split screen and still see them both. I just dislike having only a graphical user interface. If the Flex rigs had a good PUI, I'd probably still have one: They work fine and the ability for users to add features without the licensing issues is very good.
I haven't had a 5000, but I did have a 1000 for a while. I ditched it mostly because it had an image issue created by my very local 1.2 megawatt SW BC station up the street from me, and there didn't seem to be any remedy for that. I have other rigs that weren't bothered, so I stuck with those!
But that's not a software issue, it's a "hardware" issue.
I wish Flex would ditch their front end entirely and gain balance the receiver better, the problem would probably go away. My old TR-7 doesn't even notice the BC station, even if I aim my beam right at it.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by NB3O on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I wonder if using a TR-7 in front of a pair of 16 bit ADC's and a Blackfin DSP for demod would constitute the ultimate SDR....
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K8AC on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm glad to see that a few of the readers arrived at the key question: Why can't an SDR receiver offer both types of interface - point and click as well as tuning knob? To the gentleman who questioned the technical validity of my comments regarding the Griffin Powermate: I've tested the PowerMate extensively with PowerSDR in its latest incarnation, using the demo capability. It matters not a whit that there was no Flex hardware attached, but I'm sure you already knew that. Setting things up so the PowerMate tunes in 10 or 1 Hz steps simply gives you too slow a tuning rate - believe I noted about 80 transitions per rotation of the knob. Using a 100 Hz change rate gives a nice rotational speed, but one that's useless for tuning CW (Icom used that step size in the IC-701!).
Regarding my comment on path lengths: First, I'll mention that I started writing assembler code in microcode controlled in 1970, when the very existence of our capabilities were a trade secret. In everything we wrote, path lengths were critical primarily due to the slow speed of the processors of the day. So, perhaps I have a somewhat unique understanding of the subject and don't have to measure anything to give a reasonable sound opinion. If you look at code that handles encoders elegantly (the IQPro code, for example), you see that the encoder is connected directly to input pins on a processor and that the code that handles the encoder is carefully crafted for short path lengths so processor cycles are available for other work, and can still handle the encoder adequately. With the Griffin PowerMate, you first have to tell the Griffin driver WHAT KEYSTROKES TO SIMULATE. So, when you turn the knob, each encoder pulse produces simulated keystrokes that must be fed to the operating system and eventually arrive at the application (PowerSDR in this case). I don't need to measure the path length to have a pretty good idea that it's orders of magnitude longer than handling an encoder directly on a processor. As to not noticing any delays or backlash: Not everyone is capable of noticing subtle backlash, nor do they care about it. After all, receiver manufacturers in the 1960s sold thousands of receivers with measurable backlash and there weren't many public complaints about it.
Another thing I didn't mention and that SDR fans usually ignore: The concept of a window having the "focus". When you spin the PowerMate knob, if some other application or window has the focus, the knob doesn't tune the radio. I know - it's a good idea to have a dedicated PC for your SDR, but I don't buy that one either. One responder mentioned the inability to "spin" the PowerMate knob freely. I had that same concern and found the answer in a PC hacker forum. The solution was offered by a young teen who decided to find out why he couldn't spin the knob (for an application unrelated to radio). For those of you who are fearless around PC gear, simply pull the knob off and remove that thick felt washer and reinstall the knob. You'll find it spins pretty well (still not like a heavy weight tuning knob, though).
Let's not forget why all this "software-replaces-hardware" thing began in the first place: IT'S CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE, IT'S EASIER AND CHEAPER TO FIX DESIGN ERRORS, AND IT'S INEXPENSIVE TO DISTRIBUTE THE FIXES. Not only that, but you can get the users to cheerfully do the work of installing the fixes. And, these advantages allow you to add new function as well.
I will continue to build and use SDR receivers for specific applications where I can implement a function inexpensively where I couldn't do it at all with available hardware. While all SDRs are fun and are breathing some new life into our hobby, they're still sadly lacking when it comes to serious contesting and DXing.
Oh yes - of course this is all my personal opinion, but then isn't that the basis for any good discussion. Contrary to some of the comments I read, outside the ham world intelligent discussion still goes on.
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W5HSJ on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find the various interfaces fascinating. I like and use software control of my IC-7000 at home but on the road, by necessity, use the hardware interface. No real preference overall. Even at home though, if the phone rings, it's usually much quicker to reach for the knob than grab and steer a mouse
However, I really appreciate fine mechanical work and ever since I've been a ham I've been drawn to the HRO-60, though I've never owned one. That huge silky knob begs to be turned and operated to explore the world of HF radio.
I still laugh at remembrance of an old Yellow Pages ad for a used HRO-60. The ad closed with this quote, "A real knob in a world of rice boxes."
|
| |
|
But who's leading the way?
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Let's not forget why all this "software-replaces-hardware" thing began in the first place: IT'S CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE, IT'S EASIER AND CHEAPER TO FIX DESIGN ERRORS, AND IT'S INEXPENSIVE TO DISTRIBUTE THE FIXES."
I disagree that is where it "began". Perhaps that statement is true to a large extent in the cases of the previously established big 3 or 4. But I simply don't see that being the case with the likes of the PC based (usually) efforts like Flex, RF Space, etc. You can tell this is the case because the later state right up front that they do not ever expect to be "done" with the design and implementations of the software. But they do have solid code for the various releases, but feature capability frozen, no, not at all. And they also say upfront that they themselves cannot possibly think of all the different that things people need and want. The big 3-4 on the other hand start with a hardware design, including user control paradigm that forever limits those radio's hardware total range of capability. These design constraints are not far removed from the way radios have been designed and built for decades. If they hadn't built these radios with such a limited range of functional expandability then there would not even be a market for the LP Pan and the various other efforts/products like it.
".... Not only that, but you can get the users to cheerfully do the work of installing the fixes. And, these advantages allow you to add new function as well."
I do hope that those who are using the LP Pan and its contemporaries approach to "SDR-izing" their traditional radios today do realize that they would not be where they are today without the efforts of those who wrote PowerSDR for the Flex hardware.. Or in other cases the efforts of Alex, VE3NEA (Rocky), and the software authors behind the RF Space, Perseus, QS1R, and others that I can't think of at the moment.
One of the other things that gets overlooked in these discussions is the reality that there is absolutely nothing preventing some entrepreneurial type from building and creating a hardware knobs and buttons panel with exactly the features, look and feel that they may want, and then modify the PowerSDR source to accommodate them. This after all is what was done to support the LP Pan interface. But is that market truly there? And just how big really is it? Is there too much disagreement about exactly how it should look and work?
|
| |
|
RE: Not a picture of radio on a PC
|
|
|
by KG4WXP on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"A "radio" if you will, without knobs is NOT a radio but a computer plaything. A real radio has knobs and sometimes tubes."
I was under the impression that a radio transceiver was a device that converted various modes of outgoing activity to rf energy and transmitted them and reversed the process into audible range frequencies for the recieve end.
Seems the SDR's do that just like any regular rig does.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software I Defined RadioAll s)
|
|
|
by WA4KCN on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a small collector of radio gear with my oldest equipment manufactured in the late 1930's. My most state of the art is the Icom 7800. I own other radio sets that represent each decade of technology between my oldest and most technologically advanced radio. All of my equipment is either used for receiving on the short or medium frequence bands and for transmitting on the amateur HF bands. It reasons a SDR set would help complete and add to my collection example of radio technology as it has changed throughout time. I have worked a number of SDR's on the air and the equipment sounds fine. I have sat and listened to one for extended times and the receive is fine. For me there is not a quality issue with a SDR. However the value received as a consumer of ham radio equipment is below the cost of the equipment when considering SDR for me. For me preceived value in the equipment is a more complex measure than simply measuring reception and transmission quality. This is why I place a high value on actual operation of the old equipment and why I am willing to pay current prices. Amateur radio for me is valuable as a diversion from my professional work. Any activity taking place while participating in my enjoyment of amateur radio that in turn lowers the value received from the work diversion attribute of the hobby would not be practiced. I am not in computers professionally, yet as apart of business today almost everyone within an enterprise is faced with solving business problems via a computer me included. Therefore sitting at my operating position looking into a screen attached to an SDR after a difficult day at work much of the time looking at a similiar screen add little enjoyment or value to my life. I personally am unable to compartmentalize the problem away. Sitting in front of a Collins 32V2 or an Icom 7800 places me in a condition disconnected from my professional life. So for me regardless of utility the SDR is not for me. In Dayton I noticed as I walked by the Flex booth, there seemed to be more young people surrounding the booth than at any other -not surprising. Flex should hope the Obama policies of today do not prevent these young folks from having the discretionary income to actually purchase their Flex radio tomorrow.
73 Russ
WA4KCN
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software I Defined RadioAll s)
|
|
|
by K6AER on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“Many hams I've talked with, or listened to, have had problems getting their SDRs to work and in some cases have asked for a refund.”
The above statement is interesting. If a ham has a problem with the radio it must be a work in progress. Under the above definition all radios being sold are a work in progress. Look at the reviews. All have had problems and even the FTDX -9000 has been returned for refunds.
When the FT-2000 came out many hams said it had problems but those who could not work up the courage to say they just spent $3000 for a radio that had problems told the world what a great radio it was. A year later came the great software up grade and all the owners said what an improvement it was. Either they didn’t understand the problems before or didn’t care. All radios made today are software defined. Do you want the chip set in the radio our on your computer. It doesn’t matter.
I have a TS-2000, IC-756 Pro-III and the Flex-3000. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
What I can tell you is it is amazing how well the Flex-3000 performs at half the price of the knob box radios. The receiver pass band filtering is truly a vertical brick wall. The granularity of adjustment is like a Swiss Watch in precision. The Spectrum Analyzer is as good as my $30,000 HP spectrum analyzers. The waterfall display is truly a wonderful presentation and has greatly helped in DX chasing and station spotting on dead bands.
I would bet most of the knob only crowd who blast SDR technology have never used a SDR radio on the air.
|
| |
|
RE: But who's leading the way?
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"One of the other things that gets overlooked in these discussions is the reality that there is absolutely nothing preventing some entrepreneurial type from building and creating a hardware knobs and buttons panel with exactly the features, look and feel that they may want, and then modify the PowerSDR source to accommodate them."
I think it would be useful if there were some quasi-standard way to grab data from ham radio interface peripherals, so that whatever device someone felt like they could sell at a profit, at break even (or even just publish a design for) could easily work not only for software defined radios but also for internet remote bases and rig command software of all sorts.
Of course, the way it talked to PowerSDR *could* be more powerful but I'm not sure that it needs to look like everything or do everything to be successful.
I would be happy to use the mouse to actuate fancy features I can't use knobs for on my current radio.
And I would be happy to use the screen for most if not all display tasks.
I'd mainly want a big knob for tuning... wouldn't hurt to have a sub-receiver knob and maybe a couple others, assignable, and a dozen assignable buttons for commonly used things (though honestly, personally, I'd be OK with keyboard shortcuts because I don't really have to look at the keyboard to use them)
Could you make any money on it? No idea, and I have not an entrepreneurial bone in my body.
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software I Defined RadioAll s)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6AER writes: "What I can tell you is it is amazing how well the Flex-3000 performs at half the price of the knob box radios."
Well, that depends on what you compare it to.
The website prices the 3000 at $1600. But you need a computer with the right interface and processing power to go with it, so figure about $2500 total cost for the rig, computer, monitor, cables, etc. (I'm presuming that you can't just use any old computer with the '3000 because of the interface and processing power needed).
How does the 3000 compare in performance with an Elecraft K3?
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9DG writes: "The flaw in the comparison is that vehicles are physical, tactile, objects to begin with. As such it makes sense to control them via mechanical means. The controls themselves often being “extensions” or interfaces of one’s own arms and legs to more machinery that also works like arms and legs."
I disagree!
The point is that while all sorts of user-interfaces are possible, human preferences have removed some and favored others.
Remember when cars talked - and how well that went over?
N9DG: "PC displays are far better at presenting what the RF spectrum is than a discrete VFO frequency displays and S meters are. But along with that new display capability you need an effective way to “interact with” the things that you do see. You need 2 or more dimensions of access and control, knobs and buttons only give one dimension. One dimension in the sense that you must do things sequentially, there is no means, concept, or equivalence of tuning into the one (or more signals) of interest without tuning through all those others that you have no interest in without some outside help like DX spotting networks are."
The problem is that you don't know what a signal is saying until you tune into it. The display may show you, say, 20 SSB signals on the band, but who are they? Rare DX or someone in the next county?
I think one of the big differences in amateurs' conception of radio is audio vs. video. To a lot of hams, particularly CW and voice ops, radio is primarily audio - something to be heard. To other hams, radio is primarily video - something to be watched. Neither is "right" or "wrong", just different.
N2EY: “For years the trend has been to pack everything into one box, except maybe the power supply. Keyer, ATU, speaker, filters, etc., all in the transceiver box. Some rigs, like the Elecraft K3, can do digital modes without a computer. Hook up 13.8 volts, key/mike/keyboard, ground and antenna and you're ready to go. The TenTec Omni 7 has a network interface built-in. Etc.”
N9DG: "But these examples are limited. Do they do SSTV? WSJT? Packet? Or any other new mode that may come along? Or what if I like somebody else’s implementation of these various modes and do not like the proprietary implementation that these “one box” radios provide?"
You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with modes or features.
All I'm saying is that at least some hams have bought into the idea of "the radio" as being one box (or maybe one box and a power supply) that does everything. Most SDR implementations involve the radio box, the computer box, the display screen, etc. That multi-box approach isn't "wrong", it's just different, and may be one of the reasons some hams resist SDRs.
--
There's one more issue with SDRs: Longevity of computer technology.
Many hams are used to the idea that a rig is a long-term investment. Many hams are using rigs that are 10 to 20 years old, (or their designs are). Consider a popular rig like the Kenwood TS-850S, which appeared almost 20 years ago and is still prized by many. A used one in good shape with filters can sell for close to $1000 and is still a very good HF rig.
WB2WIK is still enjoying his TR-7 after more than 30 years. This FD our CW station ran a TS-450SAT and made hundreds of QSOs. There are many other examples.
But how many computers from even 10 years ago are still in use? If I buy an SDR today, how long will it be practical to keep it on the air before either the software is no longer supported, the hardware is no longer supported, or the computer needed to work with it becomes a museum piece?
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Other than the FlexRadio systems, are there any other commercially available fully honest-to-gosh "Software Defined Radio" transceivers?
What I'd love to have is a commercially-available low-powered battery-powered knob-less, button-less black-box that I could plug into a laptop computer, that would do PSK or RTTY or Hell or other such modes on higher frequency bands 20 - 10 meters.
Is there such a beast?
But I would not spend the $3000+ on it that the FlexRadio costs.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by AA4PB on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's one more issue with SDRs: Longevity of computer technology.
-----------------------------------------------------
I don't know that computer technology longevity is such a big deal. As log as the SDR software will run on the new computer or the mfg releases software versions for the new computer operating system it should still work and not affect the SDR hardware.
Longevity of new hardware radios is probably a more serious consideration. What happens to an Icom PRO when the LCD needs replacing, for example, and Icom doesn't have any available?
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<How does the 3000 compare in performance with an Elecraft K3?
I have both a 3000 and K3. The 3000 is a fun to use transceiver, and I use it a lot, but when the going gets tough and the signals are strong I do switch to the K3. This is just my opionion, not based on measured numbers, but the K3 is more bullet proof. One performance issue I see is with second order distortion mixing products. With the preamp on, I will hear shortwave broadcast stations on 15m which are the product of two shortwave broadcast stations. I can hear both stations on the same frequency at the same time. For instance, just about every evening I will hear a broadcast station(s) of about S5-6 on 21.190, which appears to be the product of stations on 13.725 and 7.465. One evening, when the signals where strong, 15m was filled with quite a few of these spurious signals that went away when the preamp was turned off. Turning off the preamp makes the spurious signal go away, but of course it reduces sensitivity on 15m, so I can not easily hear the weak signals. I do not hear these signals at all on the K3, so when the SW broadcast stations are strong I switch to the K3. However,the 3000 does seem to do pretty well with close in signals.
I would have liked to seen the 3000 have a built in preselector, I think this would have helped with the IP2 issues. I may try to add a external preselector and see if that helps.
My only other complaint with the 3000 is the loud T/R relays. Quite distracting when sending CW.
Despite these things, I do use the 3000 a lot. There are far more Pluses then Minuses. The 3000 does have much better and less fatiguing receive audio then the K3, so I tend to use it quite a bit for SSB.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The limitation of a radio that is SDR but all contained is precisely defined by the Orion and the Pegasus before that. Those radios were billed as the last radio you would ever need. I don't think the Peg has had an update since 2003. Both of them ran out of processor and memory so any additional improvements managed to break some other part of the radio. While adequate radio's they both represent failures in the SDR arena for that reason and for the reason that the "software" is closed and therefore you are stuck with a radio that is out of some designer's mind and not out of your need. Another problem with this kind of radio or a radio like the K-3 A truly plastic and openly expandable SDR can change everything for the better as the state of the art improves. The K-3 for example has awesome out of passband IM rejection but within the passband its freakin horrible
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Pe8UxXpb6nI/Sc0leWa-pbI/AAAAAAAAAZI/HsU4tQ_raE8/s1600-h/IMD3.jpg
With a true SDR you can make changes to make things better. I remember with my early SDR-1000 the AGC was a single loop affair. It wasn't that great. A new AGC algorithm was written that used 2 loops and it then became the best AGC in ham radio, over night. All I had to do was down load. The AGC in the Flex radio is entirely software so it is entirely modifiable. With a hybrid like the Orion or the K-3 you get what you get. You may be able to fool around at the edges but since the AGC is largely hardware it is hard and not very amenable to change.
In terms of diversity the flex 5K radio has an experimental branch that is developing a steerable diversity feature, that allows nulling of the noise. I am part of the test group for that feature and just this morning I was playing around to see if I could make a weak station more copyable
here is the result
http://painloss.com/blog/NR1.mp3
It's a little low on audio, but I was ale to dramatically reduce the band noise by canceling one channel of noise against the other. At my ears it made the weak CW station go from R-3 to R-5, in other words I went from being able to copy about half to everything he had to say.
The idea of spatial acoustics is essentially here with the present software. There would have to be some slight modification of the software to get a second separate audio stream, but if you sent an audio stream from the second RX in the F5K to your computer sound card, and then used the codec built into the radio for the first you could easily generate 4 channels of audio that were monitoring 4 separate frequencies on 2 antennas and be able to adjust the relative gains in a 3 dimensional audio setup. As far as console goes there is nothing that precludes movement to a gaming console kind of setup. You could easily set up a heads up display with various things displayed across the panorama. You could control it with a game controller or eye movements or what ever you want. The only limitation is how much you are willing to spend for the horsepower. If you need your compliment of knobs this radio lends itself to being integrated to a MIDI surface that has all the knobs you would ever want
http://www.zzounds.com/cat--2435
As far as the system remaining windows dependent. There is another project in the works to make the entire program operating system independent as well as distributed. What that means is you can use your entire network of computers to do the processing. It also means you can easily VPN a computer outside of your local network lets say at your office and it would be an integrated part of the system, not just some remote desktop control node. It also means you could have lets say a dozen friends with SDR scattered across the country and you could each combine your radios to make one super radio each accessible by anyone on the network What that means is I can have access to radios in 6 different locations AND every oine of them can have access to radio's in 6 different locations. I know a guy who runs his F5K from his Iphone and can make contacts as he is wheeling down the highway. He doesn't have some puny weak "mobile signal" checkin into East CARS He has a full KW on a full sized antenna.
If you have a hankerin for a knob cause you just hate mice then there is BOBKNOB, made by a ham for hams.
http://www.cqdx.it/woodbox/wbr-home.html
The idea that this kind of SDR uses a "sound card" is no longer true. It does not and that wives tail should be put to bed. It no more uses a sound card than the Orion or the K-3. The sound card interface died with the SDR-1000
If you need the plug and play experience you can always go with this radio
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_02822983000P?vName=Computers+%26+Electronics&keyword=cobra+electronics
You even get blue tooth with that one
73 W9OY
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KB2DHG on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I am not going to debate new and old ways of making a contact. It is all about having fun with a hobby. This is one of very few hobbies that have so many different avenues of interest involving the same common goal. And to me that is what makes this hobby one of the best in the world.
I happen to be into old tube type radio's but at the same time do dabble with computer based communications too!
So, do what ever floats your boat, as long as YOU are keeping this hobby alive for future generations...
Nice article and keep the air radiated!
|
| |
|
RE: Not a picture of radio on a PC
|
|
|
by N4EPD on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A rectangle is a square but a square is not a rectangle.
Are a bucket and pail the same ?? Sometime we call it a motor, sometimes we call it an engine. Are they identical ?
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3EVL on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9OY Said: "...The sound card interface died with the SDR-1000..."
True, however, I think it's worth pointing out that the SDR-1000 is still very much alive and well in terms of the continued support provided by Flex and recent updates to PowerSDR that don't depend on specific hardware in the Flex-5000/3000. My SDR-1000 continues to keep getting better.
For the experimentally inclined, you can eliminate the sound card entirely and interface your SDR-1000 via HPSDR Atlas/Ozy/Janus where Janus provides the ADC/DAC capability, and Ozy provides a single connection to the PC via a USB port.
73, Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: Not a picture of radio on a PC
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<The K-3 for example has awesome out of passband IM rejection but within the passband its freakin horrible
Yes, the K3 DID have a pretty bad in-band IMD problem, but this was fixed with a modification quite a while back. A lot of the IMD pictures out there are before the mod. You are right though, the Flex does have very good receive audio and in my opinion is one of its best features.
Just a few thoughts on Windows based vs embedded SDR. I see no reason why embedded SDR could not be upgradable. A radio like the K3 is very modular. It would be a simple matter to upgrade the DSP board, if it was needed, as the boards simply unplug. Remember though, embedded SDR does not have to deal with all of the overhead of Windows OS, and other hardware taking up IRQ's etc, so the requirements are not the same.
In my opinion, the term "Software Defined Radio" is a bit of a misnomer, as there is no such thing as a 100% software defined radio (a radio that is ONLY software). They all have at least some hardware, so all SDR's have at least some portion of them that is "hardware defined". The Flex has a DDS, the K3 has a DDS. The Flex has a mixer, so does the K3. The Flex has bandpass filters, so does the K3. I could be wrong, but I don't think you will see dynamic range improvements or a wider then 192 Khz bandscope with a Powersdr upgrade or by simply upgrading the computer. There are limits to what can be done in software, even with a Flex. Some improvements, even on a Flex, will require a hardware upgrade. It is great though that PowerSDR is open source. The many new features of PowerSDR are quite creative and useful.
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WA5VQM on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems most of the dispute is not about the radios themselves but the interface. I recently acquired a Ten-Tec RX-320. Although maybe not an SDR by a purist’s definition, it does employ the new paradigm of computer interface/control. Black box, no knobs. I’m a boatanchor fan so twiddling knobs is half the fun for me. Still, I thought I’d give it a try. Obviously, the software available for the Ten-Tec is not the same as for the Flex and others so what may be missing for the TT may be standard for the rest, I just don’t know.
Early impressions are not bad! Accessing filters, modes, keypad entry all came quickly. I liked the band scan feature, PBT adjust and whatnot. I do a lot of SWBC listening and for this the RX-320 was quick and easy. Tuning on the ham bands was a bit of a chore though and I did find myself wishing for a knob. I know there are ways to have knob control for the RX-320, just not at my shack yet. Occasionally a volume control would be handy but not essential.
In comparison my FT-450 can be computer controlled or work stand-alone. I find some features easier to access via software but generally just operate via the front panel.
The “black box” is neat but I like the options available with some front panel control. As previously stated most modern rigs are software control under the hood anyway. A couple of controls just for the sake of being handy doesn’t make the rig any less modern IMO. If you don’t want to turn knobs you don’t have to. Maybe manufacturers could offer rigs with or without faceplates for those than do/don’t want them.
Either way, I’ll still talk to ya’…..with my Hallicrafters! (LOL)
73, Mark
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY: “The point is that while all sorts of user-interfaces are possible, human preferences have removed some and favored others.
Remember when cars talked - and how well that went over? “
Yes indeed. Do you remember the on air debates in the mid 70’s as the digital displays in transceivers were coming on strong? I distinctly remember many on the air debates where many were saying that there is no need for digital displays and that they liked the analog dial with markings just fine. But yet 10 or so years later analog only radios were already hard to buy new, everything was using digital displays. A similar thing occurred with the debates around solid state finals vs. tube finals. I see a somewhat similar thing occurring with SDR’s today.
N2EY: “The problem is that you don't know what a signal is saying until you tune into it. The display may show you, say, 20 SSB signals on the band, but who are they? Rare DX or someone in the next county?
With a little practice you can tell what the signal is doing just by looking at it. Identifying CQ’s visually are pretty easy to do. DX and pileups are easy to spot. Contest activity has signature traits all of their own. But what you can do with PC displays is that when you do see a signal pop up some 10’s of kHz away from where you are listening is to just quickly drop your second RX on it and listen to it. And in future version receivers 3, 4, 5 etc. on the signals you see. With knobs radio you have twist the knob many times just to get there if you do see it, and if you have no spectrum display at all, then you’ll never even know that the signal was ever there. Additionally at some point the ability to do “instant replays” of what you saw in the passband will become available as well. Basically you’ll have the ability to visit that waterfall “smear” after the fact because you were busy on another frequency to be able to catch it real-time. That feature enhancement is just some software code away. In a knobs and buttons only radio you will never get that capability added to the built hardware or firmware.
N2EY: “I think one of the big differences in amateurs' conception of radio is audio vs. video. To a lot of hams, particularly CW and voice ops, radio is primarily audio - something to be heard. To other hams, radio is primarily video - something to be watched. Neither is "right" or "wrong", just different.”
Correct. But getting to the various CW signals is so much easier and quicker with point and shoot. And with CW Skimmer running I can just sit back and follow the exchanges of dozens of different QSO’s all at the same time, just read the text scroll across the screen for each of them. But if I do want to slowly tune the band with a VFO just because I feel like it, then I will use a radio that is simple, no menus, and with less than 20 knobs and buttons, and perhaps with no digital displays at all. And that radio is some 20+ years old and long ago paid for. But I just can’t bring myself to buy a new radio that does about the same thing but has layers and layers of menus and piles of itsy bitsy buttons and knobs.
N2EY: “All I'm saying is that at least some hams have bought into the idea of "the radio" as being one box (or maybe one box and a power supply) that does everything. Most SDR implementations involve the radio box, the computer box, the display screen, etc. That multi-box approach isn't "wrong", it's just different, and may be one of the reasons some hams resist SDRs.”
The Flex 5000C is closer to a one box solution. But its sales are dwarfed by the external computer dependent 5000A.
N2EY: “There's one more issue with SDRs: Longevity of computer technology.
Many hams are used to the idea that a rig is a long-term investment. Many hams are using rigs that are 10 to 20 years old, (or their designs are).
…
But how many computers from even 10 years ago are still in use? If I buy an SDR today, how long will it be practical to keep it on the air before either the software is no longer supported, the hardware is no longer supported, or the computer needed to work with it becomes a museum piece?”
For the foreseeable future the computers will continue to get much more powerful and the Software for the SDR’s will pick it up and continue to use them. This is actually a good thing. It is a good thing because your radio can continue to ride the advancing wave of increasing computing power for an extended period of time. The other non-SDR, non-DSP pieces of our radios don’t evolve very fast. So there is no need to keep buying those pieces over and over again. The DSP IF firmware defined radios of today have no means to keep their processing power up to the current state of the art. They are forever frozen with the DSP and embedded processors that they shipped from the factory with. There is next zero processor power enhancement capability in them.
As for technology longevity question? Lets’ say that for some reason computer technology evolves to a point in the future to where it will no longer interface to today’s Flex models. Or that for some reason the software development stops. So what? You just buy some of the last generation supported PC hardware and then just run with the last version of the software. But then isn’t that exactly what the firmware defined radios with their fixed DSP and embedded processors are from day one???
However when the day comes that it becomes clear that the technology has moved beyond supporting my SDR-1000 then I will just simply buy up some of those 20GHz 16 core processor machines at yard sales and swapfests for a couple dollars a piece and then stash them away in my closet. Basically do the same thing that people did with tubes when they were no longer being manufactured back in the late 70’s early 80’s. They did that then to keep their old tube only boat anchors going right on up through today. But until there is clear indication that the PC technology has moved beyond the SDR-1000 I will not be buying future spares, there’s no need to.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"But how many computers from even 10 years ago are still in use? If I buy an SDR today, how long will it be practical to keep it on the air before either the software is no longer supported, the hardware is no longer supported, or the computer needed to work with it becomes a museum piece?"
I think we've got mis-tuned intuition on how long computers last because software and web development makes old hardware obsolete faster.
You upgrade just your browser and OS for six or seven years, it starts to get too big for your machine. You decide to freeze upgrading to keep usability, and you end up with websites you can't use and malware all over the place.
But if you freeze updating for a computer that's off the web, and you clean out the dust regularly, who knows how long it lasts? Yeah, you lose out on the future upgrades, but that's not something you've got on your 10 year old radios no matter who made them.
The hard drive is probably the biggest problem.
It might be worth pondering how to buy a computer that has a better chance of working when it's a museum piece.
We've got this ultrasound velocity measurement device in my lab.
It's a 386 processor, possibly 1MB or so RAM. It runs DR-DOS, and until six months ago had a 40MB hard drive. Little 6 inch yellow monochrome monitor. I think the hardware is probably in the vicinity of 20 years old... at least that's probably true for the hard drive. This machine, I think, was a prototype that got upgraded over a few years at least.
I think the software was frozen around 1992.
This device is pretty much a software defined HF radio running at 4MHz. Analog front end with mixers down to baseband into A/D's. I think the heavy lifting is done in DSP chips with the general purpose processor
But the thing is, after all these years, it works just fine.
I needed more storage space so I dug a whopping 512MB drive out of the closet of aging hardware (also I wanted to back up the software in case of a hard drive failure) I installed a newer version of DR-DOS on the machine...
Now, this would have been an extremely pricey piece of scientific gear, but I don't think there was anything particularly special about the computer part. It is definitely a museum piece, but a usable one, in the sense that it still runs the software that it needs to run.
I think it is probably necessary to plan ahead a bit in terms of freezing the software around the last time you can likely upgrade the hardware compatibly and taking good care of the computer to keep your SDR running for 15-20 years after the date of purchase, but I bet you can do it.
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"In my opinion, the term "Software Defined Radio" is a bit of a misnomer, as there is no such thing as a 100% software defined radio (a radio that is ONLY software)."
Perseus is pretty darn close.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9AMI on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I totally disagree. If you do not want to move forward with the new technologies that is going to be the future of ham radio then stick with the knobs. There is nothing wrong with knobs hell my wife's are nice :-). Seriously most folks these days have more than one HF rig so if you get tired of your flex radio (god knows why) you can always throw the switch on your FT2000. SDR's are just not for some people but I can say you better know something about them because its all going that way.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"But then isn’t that exactly what the firmware defined radios with their fixed DSP and embedded processors are from day one??? "
Yes, with the possible exception that there's no amateur design put into what processor you're going to use forever and ever in those radios, unlike the choice of the last PC.
And I think a totally un-writable EEPROM might last longer than whatever program storage solution exists in that last PC.
But that's hard to predict...
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Perseus is pretty darn close.
I do agree, it's probably as close as we are going to get, even then there are still hardware limits with regard to frequency coverage and dynamic range. So far the direct sampling SDR's I have seen are only receivers. I am really looking forward to a direct sampling 100 Watt transceiver!
<The AGC in the Flex radio is entirely software so it is entirely modifiable. with a hybrid like the Orion or the K-3 you get what you get
I am not sure if this is entirely true. The K3's AGC is in software and has been upgraded several times and is about as user configurable as PowerSDR. It also includes a 2 stage AGC similar to PowerSDR.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software I Defined RadioAll s)
|
|
|
by W0STB on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm running my Flex 3000 with a computer that I put together for it for a total of $300 including a 22" LCD monitor. All the computer parts bought new. So the real investment would still be sub $2000.
And I can use this computer for email and web browsing at the same time as operating. I'm replying to this topic while checked in to a 75 meter SSB net...
No additional filters, ATU included - 100 watts. You could get all the arguments you can swallow asking how the 3K compares with a K3 - I'd bet there are small pluses and small minuses on each side. But if you stacked up all the options you would need on the K3 side the price wouldn't be close.
73 - KC7FH
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software I Defined RadioAll s)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KC7FH:
What are you using for an OS?
I've built more than a few computers from parts found in the discard. About the only parts I've had to buy are hard drives.
But a legal copy of XP is another matter.
Another solution is refurb computers. Microcenter stores (see microcenter.com) have a selection.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software I Defined RadioAll s)
|
|
|
by W0STB on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm using one of my MSDN XP licenses - but you are right, the cost of a Windows license should be included. I don't know what that cost is.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I am not sure if this is entirely true. The K3's AGC is in software and has been upgraded several times and is about as user configurable as PowerSDR. It also includes a 2 stage AGC similar to PowerSDR."
The AGC in the K3 is indeed divided between HW and SW. The HW AGC only kicks in at some moderately high signal level, I don't recall the actual figure off hand. The Flex models have no HW AGC at all, and they have only limited analog gain ahead of the ADC. The ADC has very good sensitivity by itself, so the preamp is only used normally on bands 20M on up.
I would disagee though that it is "as configurable" as PowerSDR. Or at least it isn't until LP-Pan and PowerSDR are added to it via the ~8MHz IF tap. But it is designed to be narrow (sub ~20 KHz wide) only signal path through it's native DSP hardware. The Flex models on the otherhand are in the range of 48 to 192 kHz depending on model and SW configuration.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KB6QXM on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now is this discussion of K3's versus Flex 5000a?
There are two camps I see. I worked a K3 for field day. Not impressed. All K3 owners talk about their roofing filters etc etc.
K3 owners say that the Flex has the reciever open as a barn door.
This discussion is about SDR. A K3 is a firmware defined radio not a SDR. Apples and Oranges.
If you want to learn about the Flex radios, I would suggest you go on their website http://flex-radio.com
Junk computers will NOT work with a flex. There are specific hardware requirements for the computer to avoid issues especially surrounding the firewire connection. A standalone board versus a port built into the motherboard. To make a Flex be the radio you really want it to be, you really need to understand computers a bit. What I do not understand is how people spend so much money in parts of their ham radio hobby and try to get off on the cheap in other parts of their hobby.
Cutting corners will get you poor results. Flex-radios are not for the technically challenged.
Once you understand that, then you make your purchasing decision.
I think that the Flex-radio is a great radio if you understand configuration of the computer, define your computer (no cutting corners here either) and you will be met with outstanding results. Either purchase a computer with a bit of horsepower, or build one as I do and you will not be disappointed. Trying to use a 20 old computer for a Flex would be a big mistake.
If you don't believe me, go to their website to define their hardware requirements, read their forums. Hardware, software, reported bugs. Be a informed consumer.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>The AGC in the K3 is indeed divided between HW and SW. The HW AGC only kicks in at some moderately high signal level, I don't recall the actual figure off hand. The Flex models have no HW AGC at all, and they have only limited analog gain ahead of the ADC. The ADC has very good sensitivity by itself, so the preamp is only used normally on bands 20M on up.
Yes you are right, I forgot about that. I think that the hardware AGC kicks in at about 30db over 9. It is software up to about that point however. The K3 has adjustable slope, threshold, decay, so it is very configurable.
I think that the K3 and the Flex are two very good, but different SDR approaches. And yes, I do consider a K3 a SDR even though it's software is contained in firmware. I believe that many Cell phones are now considered SDR's even though their software is contained in firmware. The location of the software (embedded in firmware or external in windows) does not make a difference in it being considered an SDR.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problem with "100 watt SDR transmitters" is that FCC won't type accept them without a firmware layer that controls their capability.
73 W9OY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W0STB on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An easy way to get a good idea of what SDR technology can do for a very cheap price is to get one of the Softrock radio kits.
I spent about 6 months playing with a Softrock 8 receiver, mostly using PowerSDR software. There are other software packages you can use as well.
The performance of this $58 receiver is almost unbelievable.
Another thing you can do for free is check out one of the SDR radios available online. Google "websdr" to find a site in Holland that you can access - also Ken N9VV has an online receiver which you can access using the web plus Skype to get the audio.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by AA4PB on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problem with "100 watt SDR transmitters" is that FCC won't type accept them without a firmware layer that controls their capability.
------------------------------------------------------
Since when does the FCC require type acceptance of amateur radio transmitters?
The FCC did away with "type acceptance" a number of years ago. It is now "Certification" and as far as I know neither is required for amateur radio transmitters. The control operator is responsible to ensure that it meets Part 97 technical standards.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9DG writes: "Do you remember the on air debates in the mid 70’s as the digital displays in transceivers were coming on strong? I distinctly remember many on the air debates where many were saying that there is no need for digital displays and that they liked the analog dial with markings just fine."
And they were right! There's no NEED for a digital display.
But hams liked them, and bought the rigs with them, so they caught on. (Remember external digital displays for rigs like the TS-520S that cost $180?)
Then VFOs became synthesized, and there was no capacitor or inductor shaft to put a dial on anymore.
N9DG: "A similar thing occurred with the debates around solid state finals vs. tube finals. I see a somewhat similar thing occurring with SDR’s today."
A lot depends on market acceptance. If hams buy them, there will be more of them. Remember the first no-front-panel rigs, like the Kachina 505 and Pegasus?
N9DG: "With a little practice you can tell what the signal is doing just by looking at it."
To a limited extent; you can't really tell what it's actually doing.
Panadaptors have been around since the 1940s or so, too. But it is only in the recent past, as rigs have begun to include them, that they've really caught on.
N9DG: "what you can do with PC displays is that when you do see a signal pop up some 10’s of kHz away from where you are listening is to just quickly drop your second RX on it and listen to it. And in future version receivers 3, 4, 5 etc. on the signals you see."
That's a good thing!
N9DG: "With knobs radio you have twist the knob many times just to get there if you do see it, and if you have no spectrum display at all, then you’ll never even know that the signal was ever there."
My K2 has both direct frequency entry and a dial-rate pushbutton so I can shift gears quick. But of course one has to know the signal is there.
A lot depends on what kind of operating one does, too.
N2EY: “I think one of the big differences in amateurs' conception of radio is audio vs. video. To a lot of hams, particularly CW and voice ops, radio is primarily audio - something to be heard. To other hams, radio is primarily video - something to be watched. Neither is "right" or "wrong", just different.”
N9DG: "Correct. But getting to the various CW signals is so much easier and quicker with point and shoot."
Again, it depends on what sort of operating one does.
N9DG: "And with CW Skimmer running I can just sit back and follow the exchanges of dozens of different QSO’s all at the same time, just read the text scroll across the screen for each of them."
Which removes the need to know the code, too.
At what point do we stop being radio operators and become users?
N9DG: "But if I do want to slowly tune the band with a VFO just because I feel like it, then I will use a radio that is simple, no menus, and with less than 20 knobs and buttons, and perhaps with no digital displays at all. And that radio is some 20+ years old and long ago paid for."
My favorite rig is pretty close to that. It's about 16 years old now. Its replacement is in the planning stages now.
N9DG: "But I just can’t bring myself to buy a new radio that does about the same thing but has layers and layers of menus and piles of itsy bitsy buttons and knobs."
Nobody says you should! The great thing, IMHO, is that we have so many choices.
N9DG: "You just buy some of the last generation supported PC hardware and then just run with the last version of the software."
Of course. I'm just pointing out where some of the resistance to SDRs comes from. A "conventional" rig doesn't have the same issues, because it doesn't NEED a computer in order to work.
N9DG: "However when the day comes that it becomes clear that the technology has moved beyond supporting my SDR-1000 then I will just simply buy up some of those 20GHz 16 core processor machines at yard sales and swapfests for a couple dollars a piece and then stash them away in my closet."
Maybe.
N9DG: "Basically do the same thing that people did with tubes when they were no longer being manufactured back in the late 70’s early 80’s. They did that then to keep their old tube only boat anchors going right on up through today."
I had piles of stuff all but given to me from the 1970s to the early 1990s because "nobody uses this anymore". Can't tell you how many QSOs I've had with rigs made from that stuff - and how few failures.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since SDR transmitters can very easily be used spread spectrum and in other modes that are virtually undetectable by any monitoring station. Ham radios are not necessarily just used by hams
73 W9OY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by AA4PB on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If you look at JTRS, the military SDR program, the radios look physically much like traditional radios. You don't see a box plugged into a PC. SDR means that many of the mixers, amplifiers, and filtering is now done in software rather than the traditional hardware. It doesn't necessarily mean "no knobs". It doesn't necessarily mean that the processing is done in a PC. It could be that the processing is done by a program loaded into FLASH memory in the radio. You could plug your tiny HT into a "programmer" and load a program for the type of radio you wanted that day. Push a button and load an "FM", or a "SSB", or a "digital" radio program into it.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K9FON on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
When these SDR rigs are well covered up with dirt in a landfill my old Drakes, yaesu Ft 101EE and my other old knob radios will still be humming along just fine and dandy.
|
| |
|
The early SDR days
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY: “And they were right! There's no NEED for a digital display.
But hams liked them, and bought the rigs with them, so they caught on. (Remember external digital displays for rigs like the TS-520S that cost $180?)”
But the point being that there were many who were implying that they would *never* own a digital display radio. But yet 10 short years later hardly anyone was saying that anymore. And interestingly back then there was this notion of using “add-on” digital displays to the analog display radio. In some ways that seems strikingly similar the efforts today to add PC based SDR capabilities to traditional radios.
N2EY: “A lot depends on market acceptance. If hams buy them, there will be more of them. Remember the first no-front-panel rigs, like the Kachina 505 and Pegasus?”
The Kachina struggled for three key reasons from what I could tell (I even had one of them for awhile). One was that it was simply a radio that was too far ahead of its time. Two, the serial control interface at 9600 baud simply wasn't up to the task of getting commands in and out of it fast enough. And three, the company miss-read, or failed to understand the critical importance of 3rd party SW developers. By some accounts they were down right unhelpful to those who wanted to develop control SW for it.
The Pegasus did considerably better, and I even still have some of them, they have been a part of my shack for nearly 10 years now. But unlike the Kachina Ten Tec did do the right thing and at least provided the information that 3rd party developers needed to write software for it. But they too didn't assist or promote that aspect of the radio nearly enough. And they could have done several things to the firmware in the Pegasus to get some more mileage out of it. But that whole issue is rapidly becoming moot with the Flex and other PC SDR products that we have access to today. But I actually credit my experiences with the Pegasus for steering me down the PC based SDR path. Even though it is only a computer “controlled”, radio it did go a long way towards making oneself to really think about, and ultimately rethink what and how it is that I want to inter-operate with my radios.
One radio from that era that needs mention is the Ten Tec RX-320. Again it is only a black box computer controlled radio. But what is especially noteworthy about it is that it is still in production, over 10 years after its initial introduction. And from what I can tell has been Ten Tec's best selling SWL RX ever. So they must have gotten something right with RX-320.
N2EY: “Panadaptors have been around since the 1940s or so, too. But it is only in the recent past, as rigs have begun to include them, that they've really caught on.”
Back in my early (severely under funded) days of ham radio in the late 70's I dreamed about having a Heath SB-620 Scanalyzer “someday” simply because I really was enamored by the idea of seeing the signal spectrum. Now when I look at a 620 these days I can't believe how incredibly crude and ineffective that tiny little display really is. Same for the Kenwood SM-220. And now even the various screens found on some of the current production model radio front panels seem incredibly basic and limiting to me.
N2EY: “Which removes the need to know the code, too.”
Only to some degree. I still find it useful to fill in the holes of the copy by copying the code myself that it may miss on the frequency that I'm actually listening to. But its real value is being able to get a majority of what is being sent on a large number of different signals all at the same time.
N2EY: “At what point do we stop being radio operators and become users?”
I think that worry has been around for decades. But then I'm far more at peace with CW Skimmer and other similar technologies decoding the signals that came in over my antenna system and came through my own radio gear than I am using DX spotting networks to find DX to work, to me *that* is “cheating”..
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K6XR on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I currently have a sdr radio and a traditional radio. I like both. I prefer the sdr where I can see and hear the signal and click tune with the mouse. it is fast! As with anything in the world that we buy and use, it is different strokes for different folks. knobs or no knobs should not be an issue. Each to his/her own. No need for conflict between users of either. It is what it is.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K7PEH on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just did a very unusual thing -- I read almost all of these messages. I normally do not spend my time in this way but I am very excited about SDR.
This is a very easy topic to have an opinion and I have one. I think SDR is the way of the future. Why build a radio out of hardware if you can do it in software. I am not talking about building a ham radio rig but rather just the idea of using software rather then hardware.
My main interest in SDR though is not to actually have another rig although that is OK. I am interested in the technology itself, signal processing, the math, the programming, and just about everything that SDR entails. I have read dozens of papers on the topic and I have spent enough money on books to about pay for a new Flex-radio 1500 when it comes out in a few months.
I don't care whether a radio has knobs or not; indeed, I love my iPhone and there are no knobs and maybe one important button (well hidden) but my son-in-law says he would never give up the buttons on his Blackberry. I don't understand his position and he doesn't understand mine.
By the way, if you do not have a good idea of what SDR is about or if you are curious about how SDR works, the papers written by Gerald Youngblood (founder and CEO of Flex-radio) are a great resource. They were published in QEX back in 2002/2003 but they are available at the Flex-radio web site. These papers describe the theory and the construction of the rig that became known as the SDR 1000.
There are also a whole bunch of other good papers from QEX (mostly) that provide good material. If anyone is interested, I can provide a list of some of my favorites.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K9COX on July 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have an SDR and my wife has "knobs" that I enjoy twisting.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K7PEH asks:"Why build a radio out of hardware if you can do it in software."
A couple of reasons.
One is that you cannot build a rig completely out of software; there will always be some hardware involved. But you CAN build a rig completely out of hardware, with no software involved. Depending on the implementation, an HDR can be a lot simpler and more rugged than an SDR. (Remember that an SDR requires not just the rig itself but the software development system, the computer that is connected to or embedded in the rig, etc. We're talking about the entire system, not just the RF hardware.)
Because of this, designing and building an SDR requires knowledge of both the hardware and software used, while designing and building an HDR requires knowledge of hardware only. This is not a trivial issue when one has limited resources!
Size and power consumption are another factor. My Elecraft K2 (QRP version) runs on 12-14 volts and draws about 240 mA on receive and 1 A key-down when transmitting a 5 watt carrier. It's smaller than a hardbound book, covers 80 thru 10 meters, has the ATU, crystal and audio filters, built-in keyer and many other features. For a few dollars and mA more I could add 60 meters, 160 meters, SSB, a noise blanker and other things. The K1 is even smaller and uses much less power on receive, but has fewer features.
AFAIK, any SDR that has all those features would be bigger, heavier, more expensive and most of all would consume a lot more power, particularly on receive. Of course at the 100 watt and home-station levels the differences become trivial but for portable and QRP-battery uses they're not.
K7PEH: "I am not talking about building a ham radio rig but rather just the idea of using software rather then hardware."
You just brought up a very good point!
One thing I see in these discussions is lots of verbiage about various manufactured products, but not a lot of homebrewing. Particularly the design-and-build-a-ham-rig-from-the-ground-up kind.
K7PEH: "I am interested in the technology itself, signal processing, the math, the programming, and just about everything that SDR entails. I have read dozens of papers on the topic and I have spent enough money on books to about pay for a new Flex-radio 1500 when it comes out in a few months."
Your path is clear, then. ENJOY!
That's really what it's all about, isn't it?
K7PEH: "I don't care whether a radio has knobs or not; indeed, I love my iPhone and there are no knobs and maybe one important button (well hidden) but my son-in-law says he would never give up the buttons on his Blackberry. I don't understand his position and he doesn't understand mine."
I understand both your positions. Different people like different interfaces, and find different things easier to use. Some folks like chocolate ice cream best, others prefer vanilla, and still others strawberry. And some folks don't like ice cream at all.
What's great is that we have so many flavors to choose from.
Note that the original article in this thread wasn't about the pluses and minuses of HDR vs. SDR at all, but only about the user interface.
I'll leave you with this analogy:
Driving a train that's two miles long and weighs over 10,000 tons is not like driving a car or truck; the engineer has to watch many different things and make decisions based on a variety of factors.
For many years, diesel-electric railroad locomotives used "analog" displays. These were big round lighted gauges of varying size and colors displaying things like train speed, brake pipe air pressure, traction motor current, engine RPM, etc.
Then came the first generation of microprocesor-controlled locomotives. Everything could be displayed digitally on a screen, in exact numbers. And the first generation displays did just that.
The locomotive engineers hated it!
With the big round analog gauges, a quick glance at the gauge would give an quick update of what was happening. The different gauge locations, sizes and colors made it difficult to confuse one with the other. And the gauges were extremely reliable, their failure modes well known, and an individual gauge failure only took out one thing.
But the digital screen presentation meant the end of the quick look update. You have to look right at the screen, focus on the particular readout you want, and interpret it, making sure you don't mix up, say, brake pipe pressure with train speed. More time looking at the screen and less time looking where you're going, looking at signals, etc.
In the end, new screens were developed that mimic the old round gauges, AND give exact digital numbers. Almost everybody likes them.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3EVL on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY said "...One thing I see in these discussions is lots of verbiage about various manufactured products, but not a lot of homebrewing. Particularly the design-and-build-a-ham-rig-from-the-ground-up kind..."
I suggest you take a look at HPSDR (www.openhpsdr.org) to see an example of a collaborative project involving both hardware and software, designed and built from the ground up by hams. In particular, a recent addition to this project on the software side is the KISS Console which is a simplified alternative to PowerSDR that users can poke around with and learn how the software part works and make changes themselves.
Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by AC7CW on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How come we can't have a tube radio with computer controls.. oh wait, never mind..
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"How come we can't have a tube radio with computer controls.. "
There are a lot of them in the modern high power microwave community I bet :-)
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< The problem with "100 watt SDR transmitters" is that FCC won't type accept them without a firmware layer that controls their capability.
I wonder what the current rules exactly are on this. I found this statement from a FCC Order from 2007:
"Amateur radio equipment, including equipment that meets the definition of a software defined radio and that has software that is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer, will continue to be exempt from a certification requirement."
Link to this is here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-66A1.doc
It sounds to me like amateur radio SDR's are exempt from certification. Perhaps there is a more recent document from the FCC?
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The source code for Power SDR is freely available to "poke around with" as much as you like.
In fact that has been the Flex model from the beginning. If you have a good idea there is no problem including that idea into the software A huge amount of PSDR has been written by volunteers who want to see their ideas included in a radio product
I have nothing against HPSDR but getting a product out of that model is exceedingly difficult and it is not cheap. If the designer looses interest in the project and no one else is really interested in ram rodding the thing then that $800 piece of gear you just built is a nice paperweight.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Go ahead and built that SDR transmitter. When terrorists or any other criminal enterprise buy a couple dozen and modify the software of your radio to avoid detection, I guarantee the FBI will be hauling you away in handcuffs unless you have the protection of a firmware step passed on by the FCC
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have a tube radio under software control its called an ACOM 2000
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Go ahead and built that SDR transmitter. When terrorists or any other criminal enterprise buy a couple dozen and modify the software of your radio to avoid detection, I guarantee the FBI will be hauling you away in handcuffs unless you have the protection of a firmware step passed on by the FCC
I doubt that. Anyhow, I am not saying it isn't a good idea to include a firmware layer, I believe it is. I would not want to see any SDR misused for illegal purposes, or else we would see more regulations. I am just saying that I think a direct sampling 100 watt Amateur Radio SDR transceiver is legally possible to do, and I hope we see one soon. (A Perseus Transceiver?)
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3EVL on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9OY: The source code for Power SDR is freely available to "poke around with" as much as you like.
In fact that has been the Flex model from the beginning. If you have a good idea there is no problem including that idea into the software A huge amount of PSDR has been written by volunteers who want to see their ideas included in a radio product
N3EVL: I agree and commend Flex for taking this approach - making PowerSDR open was the best thing they did. My point was that the KISS Console offers an easier entry path for those who might like to get their feet wet with the software.
W9OY: I have nothing against HPSDR but getting a product out of that model is exceedingly difficult and it is not cheap. If the designer looses interest in the project and no one else is really interested in ram rodding the thing then that $800 piece of gear you just built is a nice paperweight.
N3EVL:
I don't know that the intent was ever to get a "Product" although it is close to that in some ways. It certainly pays to get in on the initial round of offering of a particular board to avoid disappointment later.
To date I have: Atlas backplane, Janus ADC/DAC, Ozy USB PC Interface, Penelope TX, Mercrury RX, LPU Power regulator board, and Pandora cabinet - which seems to me a pretty respectable set of offerings from a group of volunteers over a period of 2 or 3 years!
The only things lacking in my HPSDR kit at the moment is a tx/rx relay - other than that it's a full SDR transceiver, albeit only 0.5w! With the imminent addition of "Alex" filters(including 6m preamp and tx/rx switching) and "Pennywhistle" PA it will have a bit more than QRP punch and one of the best receivers out there.
Yes, a little patience is needed, the equipment is definitely experimental in nature and there are no guarantees that a given board will be available later but I consider it money well spent if only for the learning experience (which, ironically, has been mostly about the hardware for me).
Now the project I'm really waiting to get fired up is the companion "Thor" high-efficiency class E amplifier. That, I'm sure will be a learning experience.
Pete
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by SWL2002 on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Flex Radio claims they needed a proprietary firmware layer because the FCC required it. Here's the truth: People were beginning to create SDR-1000 clones and having closed-source, proprietary firmware in the Flex-5000 makes it much harder for the competition to clone.
And now you know the rest of the story...
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3EVL suggests:
"take a look at HPSDR (www.openhpsdr.org)"
I did. All I can say is:
WOW!!! (repeat about 100x for full effect)
Thanks for the link!
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: The early SDR days
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9DG writes: "there were many who were implying that they would *never* own a digital display radio. But yet 10 short years later hardly anyone was saying that anymore."
"Never" is a very long time. What really happened is that the day came when they couldn't buy a newer rig that had an analog dial, yet they wanted the features of the newer rig. So they bought one with a digital display.
N9DG: "there was this notion of using “add-on” digital displays to the analog display radio. In some ways that seems strikingly similar the efforts today to add PC based SDR capabilities to traditional radios."
What drove the external-digital-display idea was the cost of such a display back then. The only way to do it in the 1970s for a market as small as ham gear was to build a multi-input sequential up-down counter from a pile of standard MSI ICs, usually TTL. The ICs weren't cheap back then, nor were the 7 segment LED displays usually used with them. A 'digital dial' for an HF rig that could display 6 digits (say, 14005.2) would require 25 to 35 ICs, plus other circuitry, and 5 volts at more than an amp. Total parts cost well over $50, which meant a selling price of well over $100. IIRC the Heath and Kenwood digital dials cost $180 or so.
Of course once microcontrollers became common in rigs, the cost of a digital dial became less than that of an analog one. End of that story!
N9DG: "The Kachina struggled for three key reasons ....One was that it was simply a radio that was too far ahead of its time. Two, the serial control interface at 9600 baud simply wasn't up to the task of getting commands in and out of it fast enough. And three, the company miss-read, or failed to understand the critical importance of 3rd party SW developers. By some accounts they were down right unhelpful to those who wanted to develop control SW for it."
Point is, it didn't achieve market acceptance.
I'd add a fourth key reason: When the Kachina came out, PCs were still quite new for most people, and very expensive compared to today. (Yes, you could use an older 386 machine with the Kachina, but to really get the most out of it you'd need at least a 486 box) While the rig itself cost $2000, the total package cost of rig+computer was more than many competing rigs. (The tuning knob was $200!)
It was also a new rig concept from an unknown company, kind of like the original Cosmophone transceiver. The Cosmophone never gained market acceptance, but the Collins KWM-2, which appeared shortly after, became the basic paradigm for HF SSB ham transceivers even to this day - partly because it was from Collins.
N9DG: "The Pegasus did considerably better"
(reasons cut for space, they are all good reasons)
I would add only that the Pegasus was from a well-established company and cost half what the Kachina did.
N9DG: "But I actually credit my experiences with the Pegasus for steering me down the PC based SDR path. Even though it is only a computer “controlled”, radio it did go a long way towards making oneself to really think about, and ultimately rethink what and how it is that I want to inter-operate with my radios."
Just as the KWM-2 and S-line did for hams a half-century ago.
N9DG: "when I look at a 620 these days I can't believe how incredibly crude and ineffective that tiny little display really is. Same for the Kenwood SM-220. And now even the various screens found on some of the current production model radio front panels seem incredibly basic and limiting to me."
Of course - but they did exist.
N2EY: “Which removes the need to know the code, too.”
N9DG: "Only to some degree. I still find it useful to fill in the holes of the copy by copying the code myself that it may miss on the frequency that I'm actually listening to. But its real value is being able to get a majority of what is being sent on a large number of different signals all at the same time."
Point is, someone who doesn't know the code could probably operate and make QSOs with it.
N2EY: “At what point do we stop being radio operators and become users?”
N9DG: "I think that worry has been around for decades. But then I'm far more at peace with CW Skimmer and other similar technologies decoding the signals that came in over my antenna system and came through my own radio gear than I am using DX spotting networks to find DX to work, to me *that* is “cheating”.. "
Why? I don't see the difference.
---
Some time back, there was a QST fiction piece about a ham who built a totally automated CW SS station, and it set a record score that no human op could hope to equal. (The op just sat and watched it run, and could shut it down if it malfunctioned.)
At the time, the idea seemed a bit far-fetched, but it's pretty close to possible today - if it hasn;t already been done!
Would using such a station be cheating?
(the article was titled "The Man Who Broke The Bank", and was written by W3FQB. QST of May - 1953
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually that is not the rest of the story
Virtually every SDR transceiver and many of the receivers that has been promulgated including N8LP's LPpan for the K-3 and associated radios use a version of PSDR. There are certainly other programs out there, but the Flex boys are active in many of those program developments like GNUradio as well.
When the HPSDR group built the ATLAS JANUS OZY setup Flex specifically modified PSDR to include those cards into the mix AND flex continues to completely support those cards as part of the PSDR program through many iterations. Sometimes I will do a software update and the only thing that changed was the inclusion of the JANUS OZY cards in the update. Flex could have easily left these card in the dust.
In fact the concept of the AGC in the K-3 was originally developed for PSDR by Harmon as I recall.
It would be nice if people could get their "story" straight.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
More than some robot wining SS, I can see the day where a compilation of operators all located in different locations link their stations together to form one big super station, and then operate multi multi as a group. Each station could concentrate on becoming a force on one or two bands, but the linked stations would then be a superior force on every band. The cost of developing such a station would therefore be shared, and could easily be in the reach of many more operators. Operating could be from the comfort of your own home, and the 40M op would not need to be at the 40M station. In addition you could have fresh ops drop in and drop out from across the country. The stations could also monitor propagation, so the 80M station for example could start its run using a station in Maine and as the grey line moves across the planet could pick up other sites until it drops off in HI 5 hours later. A new contest classification is now being initiated called the extreme class and would subsume this kind of station.
You could develop an AI program or a neural net that uses a device like skimmer to characterize the callsign of every station on a given band. it could then consider propagation, rarity and if there was a pileup etc and try and determine what stations have the highest likelihood of being worked quickly. It could then present the op with a list of stations to be worked, and worked in a way of highest efficiency. Since the F5K does SO2R out of the box you could also be running stations on one band while working multipliers on another. You could also have another RX at a distant QTH listening to your run to help make sure that the callsigns you copy are accurate before they are entered into the log
The guys with the 100 acre farms and 30 towers will no longer be those who dominate based on wealth alone.
Put that in your knob and smoke it.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<In fact the concept of the AGC in the K-3 was originally developed for PSDR by Harmon as I recall.
So the orginal concept of the AGC in PowerSDR did not come from Flex Radio, but from the volunteer effort of someone else?
I think we should give credit to where credit is do. There is no question that PowerSDR would not be here today if it was not for Flex Radio. But I also believe that it is equally true that PowerSDR would not be what it is today if it was not for the hard work, effort, and input of many individuals out there, and they should also be given credit for that. For Instance, if I am not mistaken, the new "Pretty Betty" Interface has had a large input from Beppe IK3VIG. (Which looks great by the way!). That's why I really don't have a problem with other uses of PowerSDR, because I think PowerSDR belongs more to a group then a single company. Not that this is bad, I think it is a great concept. Flex Radio provides the hardware that runs on open source software. But it is open source software, the product and efforts of many.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
That of course should have been "due" and not "do" in the above. I really wish eham would allow editing of posts.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by SWL2002 on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9OY:
As you know Flex Radio derives its income from the hardware, not the software (which is open source). By adding a closed source proprietary firmware layer in the Flex-5000, Flex-3000, and presumably the Flex-1500, other manufacturers cloning the Flex hardware is much less likely. There are at least three companies I know of that cloned the SDR-1000 and could use PowerSDR without modification with their product. These companies did not have to spend a dime on the software development.
I am not criticizing Flex for doing this, only pointing out that the real reason was not because the FCC made them do it (which is the current story being told). It was done as a business decision.
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by PJ2BVU on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Want a real knob for your SDR?
http://www.cqdx.it/woodbox/Tmate.html
Pricey!
The BobKnob mentioned in one of the posts is a virtual one and you need a touch screen to use it.
Jean-Claude PJ2BVU
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W4ZV on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the real world (not a hypothetical fictional world described by some here), knobs still rule. Check out the Top Ten W/VE results by category for the recent ARRL DX CW on page 78 of August QST. Of the 120 calls listed in the 12 Top Ten categories, I only recognize the following as "no knobs" SDRs:
W5ZN (#5 80m, F5k)
W2FU (#6 multi-multi, F5k on 160 & 40 only)
Knobless rigs (beginning with the SDR-1000) have been around >6 years now, yet they have made few inroads into competitive HF contesting (by that I mean with serious folks who actually place in the Top Ten results). There's a good reason for that and knobless SDR companies would be well advised to consider why. Here is a comment from the only other station I can find that used a knobless rig (which makes a grand total of 4 knobless radios mentioned in the soapbox comments):
#######################################################
"Call: N6RV Class: SOAB LP Total Score = 105,894
As always a very enjoyable contest. I particularly like the attention given to
the low bands during this part of the cycle. Even if the scores are down 3 dB
it is always exciting to work the rare ones on 80 and 160. My only regret is
health and other commitments prohibit me from running the full 48 hours. Next
year I will put together a Multi-Single or Multi-Two entry.
I Ran the Flex 5000A and Writelog. I had a hard time with computer freezing. It
was also an extra step to move between the Power SDR window and the writelog
window. If I started tying in a call in the Power SDR window the radio would
QSY into the KHz region. Not good! The keyer has terrible latency in it and was
practically useless for the fast contest exchange. Finally you have to switch
between the keyboard and the key in the a Power SDR set up window. It would be
nice to be able to operate both at the same time.
Maybe a regular radio is better for contesting. The K3 looks like the ideal
box. All my friends who have it are singing it's praises."
http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/3830/2009-February/170413.html
#######################################################
If knobless rigs were truly offered a competitive advantage, more serious contesters would be using them.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SWL2002
I know no such thing and neither do you. The firmware layer was added precisely for the reason stated. I know that for a fact because I was there for the design. The F5K was originally designed without the firmware layer and the FCC demanded a firmware layer be added so the radio could NOT be used spread spectrum or in any other kind of frequency hopping or scanning mode. It delayed the release of the radio by several weeks.
In fact your "logic" shows you to be wrong since versions of PSDR are freely used across ham radio every day to run hardware that has nothing to do with Flex hardware. If the firmware somehow made PSDR proprietary this would not be the case.
A few radios that use PSDR beside Flex.
LP-PAN
Softrock
powersdr-iq
SDR-IQ
HPSDR
Genesis radio
Wonder Radio
In fact I dare you to find me a program that is used by more SDR's than PSDR
I notice you hide behind a disguised name so what gives you the slightest veracity in your comments? My analysis you are an agent of FUD.
People will judge for themselves.
73 W9OY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Things are just getting started Bill When I first started with SDR I would go to the hamfests and talk to people and they wouldn't have the first clue what SDR was all about. Today they are acquiring a vision. Tomorrow they will have a reality.
If you want a knob you got a knob In fact 3 knobs
http://www.cqdx.it/woodbox/Tmate.html
Oh ya isn't K3LR using a rack of Persus radios these days?
You related to SWL2002?
73
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W4ZV on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Oh ya isn't K3LR using a rack of Persus radios these days?
Yes, but not for his operating radios. He's using Perseus to feed spots to his operators, as a substitute for Packet spots (legit only for Assisted and Multiop categories).
Here are actual results (sorted by 160m QSOs in the ARRL DX CW for all operator categories):
http://tinyurl.com/lkkdgv (ARRL Members Only)
W2FU (#7 in that listing) used a F5k.
More results (sorted by 80m QSOs):
http://tinyurl.com/nj6ar4 (ARRL Members Only)
W5ZN (#27 in that list) also used a F5k.
Sorry but results speak volumes more to me than some of the science fiction being written here.
Questions to ponder:
1. When will a knobless SDRs actually a major HF contest?
2. How many knobless SDRs will be in use at WRTC 2010? (my money is on zero)
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W4ZV on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> 1. When will a knobless SDRs actually a major HF contest?
Should say:
1. When will a knobless SDRs actually WIN a major HF contest?
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by W4ZV on July 19, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
> 1. When will a knobless SDRs actually a major HF contest?
Should say:
1. When will a knobless SDRs actually WIN a major HF contest?<
::That's a good question. But remember it takes a lot more than rigs to win a contest. In the hands of the right operator(s) using the right antennas, 20 year old rigs win contests.
I recall operating W3BGN in the ARRL DX back in maybe '81 or '82 (forget, too lazy to look). It was M/M and Steve had a bunch of stuff but I was operating 15m using the Gold Dust Twins (75A4/KWS1), split, which even then were very old.
We placed #3 or #4, as I recall. Using, in some cases, 26-27 year old gear.
Antennas and operators win contests. The gear isn't a big differentiator.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by SWL2002 on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9OY:
You appear to be an off the deep end fanboy with your postings. I was stating a fact. It has nothing to do with FUD. You act as I was criticizing a family member of yours!
The FCC did not make Flex Radio adopt proprietary closed source firmware. Flex Radio chose to use closed source proprietary firmware to keep other manufactures from cloning their hardware like they did to the SDR-1000.
The claim that the FCC required it is an out right fabrication.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<the F5K was originally designed without the firmware layer and the FCC demanded a firmware layer be added.
That's interesting that the FCC did that because it appears that the latest regulations (which I posted earlier) specifically exempts amateur radio equipment , including SDR's, from certification (I think the only exception is amplifiers). Are you able to give us more specific information with regard to that? Was there a specific law/rule that the FCC referenced? Flex was already selling SDR-1000's without firmware, so I just wonder why did the FCC permit the SDR-1000 to be sold without firmware but did not the permit the F5K to be sold without firmware? What did the FCC say was difference was between the SDR-1000 and the F5K? If the FCC is either formally or informally requiring a firmware layer for SDR's, I could see this having an effect on other SDR projects, such as HPSDR and even the Softrock RXTX.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W4ZV on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. When will a knobless SDRs actually WIN a major HF contest?<
WB2WIK:
> That's a good question. But remember it takes a lot more than rigs to win a contest. In the hands of the right operator(s) using the right antennas, 20 year old rigs win contests.
> Antennas and operators win contests. The gear isn't a big differentiator.
I agree...but if the operators don't feel comfortable using the gear, it's a huge differentiator. Sort of like forcing a Formula 1 driver to use a mouse instead of a steering wheel. Most owners wouldn't like the result, no matter how "techy" or "cool" it appeared.
Flex's silly slogan "Real radios don't need knobs" flunks Marketing 101 when most if not all top operators prefer knobs as a human interface that's evolved over nearly 100 years. I notice Flex has now dropped that slogan in favor of "See it, work it, log it"...and for good reason!
To repeat a theme made here previously, most SDRs on the market today do not force an uncomfortable human interface on operators (e.g. the Elecraft K3, Ten Tec Orion, FT2000/9000, IC-7XXX, etc). They're all actually SDRs but well hidden behind a front panel full of real knobs.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W1XZ on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When will a knobless SDRs actually WIN a major HF contest?
Easy: When the ops get their audio settings just the way they want it and have all the receive parameters perfect. So, about 10 years.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N3OX on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"http://www.cqdx.it/woodbox/Tmate.html "
Well there it is...
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY: “I did. All I can say is:
WOW!!! (repeat about 100x for full effect)”
You first found the HPSDR project just now? To that I say “wow”. But it illustrates a theme that underscores a big problem in ham radio today. There is a deeply ingrained tunnel vision for people to not look any farther than the JA big 3 when they are considering new gear. There are other choices out there, and those other choices do offer more cutting edge technology and better performance, both with and without knobs.
N9DG: "The Kachina struggled for three key reasons ....One was that it was simply a radio that was too far ahead of its time. Two, the serial control interface at 9600 baud simply wasn't up to the task of getting commands in and out of it fast enough. And three, the company miss-read, or failed to understand the critical importance of 3rd party SW developers. By some accounts they were down right unhelpful to those who wanted to develop control SW for it."
N2EY: “Point is, it didn't achieve market acceptance. “
Neither did the Hallicrafters FPM-200 or the Davco 30. They were way ahead of their time too..
N9DG: "I think that worry has been around for decades. But then I'm far more at peace with CW Skimmer and other similar technologies decoding the signals that came in over my antenna system and came through my own radio gear than I am using DX spotting networks to find DX to work, to me *that* is “cheating”.. "
N2EY: “Why? I don't see the difference.”
There's a huge difference.... Spotting networks use equipment located at *other peoples* stations, and *other people*, and/or other people's equipment to find, identify, and locate signals. A local CW Skimmer is only analyzing the signals that come down that local station's antenna system and does not use anyone else, or anyone else's equipment to find and identify the signal.
N2EY: “Some time back, there was a QST fiction piece about a ham who built a totally automated CW SS station, and it set a record score that no human op could hope to equal. (The op just sat and watched it run, and could shut it down if it malfunctioned.)
At the time, the idea seemed a bit far-fetched, but it's pretty close to possible today - if it hasn;t already been done!
Would using such a station be cheating?”
Well that is something the contest sponsors will have to grapple with. So far it seems that they want to only draw arbitrary lines around certain technologies while blissfully ignoring others that have moved the “contesting norm” closer and closer to that 1953 fictional fully automated station. I have long felt the distinction for contesting and DX credit purposes is whether everything about the Q was originated and worked from inside of the station's singular location. That includes both the “finding of” and “identification of” the other station, not just making the Q. What technology makes up that station is largely irrelevant.
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4ZV: “I agree...but if the operators don't feel comfortable using the gear, it's a huge differentiator. Sort of like forcing a Formula 1 driver to use a mouse instead of a steering wheel. Most owners wouldn't like the result, no matter how "techy" or "cool" it appeared.
Flex's silly slogan "Real radios don't need knobs" flunks Marketing 101 when most if not all top operators prefer knobs as a human interface that's evolved over nearly 100 years. I notice Flex has now dropped that slogan in favor of "See it, work it, log it"...and for good reason!
To repeat a theme made here previously, most SDRs on the market today do not force an uncomfortable human interface on operators (e.g. the Elecraft K3, Ten Tec Orion, FT2000/9000, IC-7XXX, etc). They're all actually SDRs but well hidden behind a front panel full of real knobs.”
One thing that I keep seeing from some within the HF contesting community are all these reasons why the Flex and/or PowerSDR “can't work” for them. But I have yet to see any constructive suggestions whatsoever for what it would take to make it better match what it is that they want to do. Could that include some knobs? Certainly. Could it also include some features that aren't possible with just knobs and buttons? I do believe so. But it is going to take more than just a bunch of complaining about why it can't work, and perhaps some creative thinking to come up with some ideas that would work. The VHF contesting community certainly has stepped forward in this regard, and because of that VHF and up support in today's PowerSDR is excellent. So why can't/doesn't anyone from the HF contesting community do the same? Is it really that hard to come up with some new ideas? Ideas that the underlying technology of PC based SDR's now makes possible?
|
| |
|
Have yo' cake and eat it too!
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I use a Kenwood TS-940S in conjunction with a Telepost LP-PAN panadapter, Ham Radio Deluxe, and serial control of the radio via a Piexx interface. I essentially have 90% of the functionality of a Flex 5000 at a fraction of the cost. The software, PowerSDR-IF, is a special version of the same software used for the Flex radios. The LP-PAN unit takes the 8.83 MHz IF from the 940 and does the rest.
AND, for those of you hung up on the concept of a knob, get over it. I never use the knob on my 940. The only time I need to touch it is to tune it up when I am feeding 10W of carrier to the remote tuner at the base of my inverted L.
It works like gangbusters. Its fun! My 940 never sounded so good with its audio processed into phase and quadrature (I and Q), squirted into my stereo, and sent to a pair of Optimus speakers flanking my 24" monitor.
Having fun here when not playing manpacks or theremin!
Philip
KA4KOE
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SWL2002: “The FCC did not make Flex Radio adopt proprietary closed source firmware. Flex Radio chose to use closed source proprietary firmware to keep other manufactures from cloning their hardware like they did to the SDR-1000.”
I can't state anything one way or the other regarding the FCC's position and the firmware. But there is a reason not yet mentioned, and that is the 3rd party code that is part of the Firewire interface. The licensing terms of that 3rd party chipset and its support firmware requires that the radio's firmware not be open source. This was not an issue with the SDR-1000 because it used a simple parallel port interface for commands to and from the radio's HW.
FWIW all of the SDR-1000 clones that I'm aware of have failed to achieve much in the way of sales. So that reason alone would not seem to be a big motivator to put any road blocks in the way of those who want use PowerSDR. And even if it was, so what? None of Flex's competitors post any of their SDR code, ... why don't they?
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W4ZV on July 20, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.cqdx.it/woodbox/Tmate.html
N3OX: > Well there it is...
Now you just need to add all those other knobs we need to adjust on-the-fly during contests...AF Gain, RF Gain, Width, Shift, Speed, Power, etc. A good primer would be to study which functions are knobs and which are buttons on traditional rigs.
Technology exists to do both knobs and buttons via touchscreen, but manufacturers first need to study and comprehend the user's application, and not simply try to force the easiest-to-implement computer interface on them.
Both the iPod and iPhone are examples of thinking outside the computer paradigm and making products that are easy for humans to use. The ultimate goal should be to make an interface that meets users needs and hides the fact that it's actually a computer inside. Current computer-based SDRs have a long way to go to reach that level. Too bad we don't have a Steve Jobs at one of the SDR manufacturers.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 20, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<the F5K was originally designed without the firmware layer and the FCC demanded a firmware layer be added.
<Are you able to give us more specific information with regard to that?
I hope I am not violating any eham rules by doing this, but I found a post on the Flex Radio Archives that seems to answer this question and thought it would be interesting to others, so I am going to post a link to it:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio@flex-radio.biz/msg16771.html
The post indicates that the FCC did request that Amateur Radio SDR Manufacturers "self police" themselves with regard to transmit frequency protection, or else far more restrictive rules would be put in place. And a firmware layer would be need to do this.
The post also shows that those at Flex Radio worked very hard at preventing further FCC regulations on SDR and I think they should be commended for that.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KF6QEX on July 20, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Other than time and money to develop, any SDR radio could have the "face" of pretty much any radio you like as long as you had ean existing
faceplace with the knobs , switches and pots
It's easier to design control screens in software than to come up with a remote head for an SDR.
Depending on where the screen interface code is written, here or "off-shore" the screen interface to control the radio is "free".
Contrast that with the cost of designing and actually producing a tangible "radio frontplate" along with the marketing defferentiation appeal of "This is an SDR, it don't need switches; it's all control by software" and it's easy to see why "they" are sticking to screen control only.
In photography they call it "manual focus by wire" but they still give you a ring to turn in order to focus the lens. They could have put two small push buttons on the lens, but then that would take away from what all photographers expect when trying to focusa lens manualy. You turn the focus ring!!
Potentially each SDR could have a control port that the output of an interface board would be connected and on that board you would make all your control connections. Pots,switches, rotary encoders, display.
In a setup screen you would tell the software what port is controlling which function
ie:
VR-1 = AF Gain
VR-2 = RF Gain
VR-3= IF bandwidth etc
Someday it will exist :)
Dimitri
>Technology exists to do both knobs and buttons via >touchscreen, but manufacturers first need to study >and comprehend the user's application, and not simply >try to force the easiest-to-implement computer >interface on them.
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W4DSN on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Knobs? Yes, of course you have to have knobs for a piece of equipment to be ham radio. And, switches, dials, and meters, too. How can it be ham radio if you don't have a dial to twirl, switches to throw and meters to read? Should have some screws, handles and metal trim, too. A couple of lights scattered here and there wouldn't hurt either. It's just not a radio if you can't fiddle with things using your fingers.
The whole thing should also feel warm to the touch, and hum a bit, maybe even vibrating the table it sits on. A nice, amber glow emanating from air vent holes will add to the experience. And, the sound of blowers, continual, robust and manly, not on-off on-off, on-off, ad nauseaum. The solid sound and feel as the switches are thrown and turned, accompanied by heavy metal clinks and clunks, are essential.
Yes, you have to have all these things for something to really be ham radio. If you do not have these things, then it is a computer game, not a ham radio.
And, oh, yes. Please throw in a rare arcing sound, maybe a few cracks and spits here and there, and the smell of ozone and hot metal.
Now, we're talking ham radio!
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KF6QEX on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Other than time and money to develop, any SDR radio could have the "face" of pretty much any radio you like as long as you had ean existing
faceplace with the knobs , switches and pots
It's easier to design control screens in software than to come up with a remote head for an SDR.
Depending on where the screen interface code is written, here or "off-shore" the screen interface to control the radio is "free".
Contrast that with the cost of designing and actually producing a tangible "radio frontplate" along with the marketing defferentiation appeal of "This is an SDR, it don't need switches; it's all control by software" and it's easy to see why "they" are sticking to screen control only.
In photography they call it "manual focus by wire" but they still give you a ring to turn in order to focus the lens. They could have put two small push buttons on the lens, but then that would take away from what all photographers expect when trying to focusa lens manualy. You turn the focus ring!!
Potentially each SDR could have a control port that the output of an interface board would be connected and on that board you would make all your control connections. Pots,switches, rotary encoders, display.
In a setup screen you would tell the software what port is controlling which function
ie:
VR-1 = AF Gain
VR-2 = RF Gain
VR-3= IF bandwidth etc
Someday it will exist :)
Dimitri
>Technology exists to do both knobs and buttons via >touchscreen, but manufacturers first need to study >and comprehend the user's application, and not simply >try to force the easiest-to-implement computer >interface on them.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by G8KHS on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If folk spent more money on antennas and less time worrying about rig a vs rig b then you'd see a real difference in performance.
If you can't hear 'em you can't work 'em
73 de G8KHS John
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you can't hear 'em you can't work 'em"
And you can't hear them if you don't know that they are there, ... or that you can't get to them quickly enough even if you do know that they are there.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by G8KHS on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What I'm saying Duane is that because you have the latest wiz bang radio from x, y or z doesn't mean diddley if you neglect other aspects of your station and just expect that rare dx to be handed to you on a plate.
As for the knobs vs software argument, I'm very happy using both types of MMI. The advantage sdr has for me is that you have more control over how you interface with the radio.
I think we're really very lucky to have such a great choice of equipment available - just enjoy ham radio, one of the best activities ever invented!
73 de G8KHS John
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9DG writes: "You first found the HPSDR project just now? To that I say “wow”."
Why?
Amateur radio is many, many things. Not everyone is aware of all of them. SDR is just one part of it.
N9DG: "There is a deeply ingrained tunnel vision for people to not look any farther than the JA big 3 when they are considering new gear. There are other choices out there, and those other choices do offer more cutting edge technology and better performance, both with and without knobs."
The funny part is that in 42 years licensed I've never bought a ham rig made by Kenwood, Yaesu or Icom. I've boughtownedusedbuiltrestored TenTec, Elecraft, Heathkit, National, Hallicrafters, EF Johnson, RME, Gonset, military surplus and homebrew rigs, though.
So I'm kind of aware of alternatives.
As for cutting-edge technology, a lot depends on the kind of hamming one does and what resources are available. Many hams, including myself, are antenna-limited, meaning that the main limitation on their station performance is the antenna, not the rig.
N2EY: “Point is, it [the Kachina] didn't achieve market acceptance. “
N9DG: "Neither did the Hallicrafters FPM-200 or the Davco 30. They were way ahead of their time too.."
Maybe. A lot of good rigs went by the wayside because they had specific flaws, or a combination:
- Price too high
- No matching transmitter
- From an unknown company
- Too different from existing rigs
The rigs that succeeded in the marketplace were those which built a reputation among hams from the bottom up, such as Collins, Drake and Heathkit.
N9DG: "I think that worry has been around for decades. But then I'm far more at peace with CW Skimmer and other similar technologies decoding the signals that came in over my antenna system and came through my own radio gear than I am using DX spotting networks to find DX to work, to me *that* is “cheating”.. "
N2EY: “Why? I don't see the difference.”
N9DG: "There's a huge difference.... Spotting networks use equipment located at *other peoples* stations, and *other people*, and/or other people's equipment to find, identify, and locate signals."
Why is that so different? Often a rare one is found by hearing/seeing other stations go after him, not by hearing the rare one all on one's own. All a spotting system does is help automate that process.
When I first became a ham, QST still had the "How's DX?" column. Much of it was devoted to where and when the DX could be found, particularly the rarer ones. While the information might be weeks or months old, if the DX had a regular operating pattern such info could be priceless.
Whenever a DXpedition goes out, there are bulletins and webpages galore giving all sorts of details about where and when to work them. Knowing their operating schedule ahead of time can be a big help in working them.
How is any of the above different than a spotting network, other than the real-time component?
N9DG: "A local CW Skimmer is only analyzing the signals that come down that local station's antenna system and does not use anyone else, or anyone else's equipment to find and identify the signal."
Agreed! But the *effect* is the same as a spotting net, in that it finds the DX for you. In fact it may be more effective, because it will only report stations that are copiable at *your* QTH.
N2EY: “Some time back, there was a QST fiction piece about a ham who built a totally automated CW SS station, and it set a record score that no human op could hope to equal. (The op just sat and watched it run, and could shut it down if it malfunctioned.)
At the time, the idea seemed a bit far-fetched, but it's pretty close to possible today - if it hasn;t already been done!
Would using such a station be cheating?”
N9DG: "Well that is something the contest sponsors will have to grapple with."
I'm asking your opinion, and that of other readers.
If someone builds a completely automatic contest/DX station, should it be allowed to compete directly with human operators? Or should there be a new category?
I mean, consider the possibilities:
1) You leave a receiver and computer running 24/7, and it tirelessly searches for DX you haven't worked. It analyzes all signals heard, so even if it can't hear the rare one, it hears other hams working the rare one.
If it finds a new one, ("new" being whatever definition you want it to be), it text-messages your cellphone and asks if it should try to work the new one. If you say no, or don't respond, it just goes on searching. If you say yes, it fires up the big rig, turns the beam towards the DX (trying various paths and antennas to see which is better) and gets ready to hurl the RF. Then it calls you on the cell so you can hear it try to work the new one - and so you can say you're the control operator.
2) In a contest, you just sit back and watch while it runs the whole show. It keeps track of every station you haven't worked yet and figures out which to work next. Never gets tired, never has to eat or QWC, and it compares the received data to license database info, previous logs, and info it has copied while the station worked somebody else. It constantly computes whether it's statistically better to call CQ or S&P. If your station can handle the RF issues, and the rules permit it, such a system could be working stations on several bands simultaneously, yet you could claim "single operator" because you're the only human involved.
If the system were good enough, you might see the day when a ham who doesn't know a dit from a dah wins a DX contest with such a system.
And that's just the beginning.
N9DG: "So far it seems that they want to only draw arbitrary lines around certain technologies while blissfully ignoring others that have moved the “contesting norm” closer and closer to that 1953 fictional fully automated station."
What technologies do you mean? I don't see any rules against any particular technology. I do see rules where the use of spotting nets puts the op in a different category, so s/he isn't competing with true single-op or unassisted stations.
Besides, aren't all contest rules (other than following FCC regulations) truly arbitrary?
N9DG: "I have long felt the distinction for contesting and DX credit purposes is whether everything about the Q was originated and worked from inside of the station's singular location. That includes both the “finding of” and “identification of” the other station, not just making the Q."
That's your opinion and I respect it.
But what about the examples I gave above that go back long before spotting nets? Heck, if I go to a hamfest or club meeting and a buddy says he worked a ZA8 on 7022 at 0400Z, and I go home from the meeting and work the same ZA8 at about the same time and QRG, should it not count because I had help finding the rare one?
N9DG: "What technology makes up that station is largely irrelevant."
I take that to mean that you'd be OK competing against the fully-automated station, then.
What do others think?
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What I'm saying Duane is that because you have the latest wiz bang radio from x, y or z doesn't mean diddley if you neglect other aspects of your station and just expect that rare dx to be handed to you on a plate."
Oh, I understand that fully.. no debate there. But what I was attempting to point out is that the age old adage of: "you can't work them if you can't hear them" goes *beyond* just "hearing them", you do need to *find* them to begin with. And yes absolutely, to find them the rest of the station plays a critical role. But when all of the other things about two different stations are equal, then it will be the one with the ability to find (and I do mean “find”, and not “told” about) them sooner that will be the one more successful. So that becomes a key differentiator between the gear that is attached to the rest of the station... And that was all that I was trying to say..
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by G8KHS on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Fine Duane, agreed, any extra tool such as a really good bandscope with good filtering and the ability to instantly qsy to the wanted station frequency are good things.
The ideal rig for me if I had to have only one would be an sdr with an additional stand alone front panel with knobs that you could use either MMI or just parts of both as I required.
Guess I want my cake and eat it eh? ;-)
73 de G8KHS John
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
G8KHS writes: "If folk spent more money on antennas and less time worrying about rig a vs rig b then you'd see a real difference in performance."
Not exactly.
For a lot of hams, putting up an HF antenna that's significantly better than what they have means moving, which can be a truly enormous investment. Couple of thousand for a rig is nothing by comparison.
Of course it depends where you live and what space you have now.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY: "Amateur radio is many, many things. Not everyone is aware of all of them. SDR is just one part of it.
The mention of the existence of HPSDR has been made many times on this discussion board amongst others. I know so because I mentioned HPSDR many times myself in responses to various SDR topics/questions in the past.
N2EY: "As for cutting-edge technology, a lot depends on the kind of hamming one does and what resources are available. Many hams, including myself, are antenna-limited, meaning that the main limitation on their station performance is the antenna, not the rig."
But for the hands on experimenter that I get the impression that you are I just would have thought that you would have found the HPSDR project sooner, that's all. If it was just a matter of it not being your cup of tea I can understand that. But I was truly surprised by the "wow" exclamation apon your discovery of the HPSDR project since it has been going since around 2006..
N2EY: "Maybe. A lot of good rigs went by the wayside because they had specific flaws, or a combination:
- Price too high
- No matching transmitter
- From an unknown company
- Too different from existing rigs"
But my point is that those two examples both embodied design elements that later became the industry norms. Solid state with tube finals hybrid of the FPM-200 (and later SBE-34), and 100% solid state RX of the Davco..
N2EY: "The rigs that succeeded in the marketplace were those which built a reputation among hams from the bottom up, such as Collins, Drake and Heathkit."
And each of those started out as "unknowns" in their own day, and perhaps with "not quite ready for mainstream acceptance" technology or designs. But then each of those examples also fell by the wayside for a multitude of reasons that often include having not recognized the fundamental shifts in technology, and the sometimes rapid "flip" of customer preferences..
N2EY: "Why is that so different? Often a rare one is found by hearing/seeing other stations go after him, not by hearing the rare one all on one's own. All a spotting system does is help automate that process.
So if the spotted network instantly went away could those same stations still find that rare DX as quickly? I think not, they at least will then need to "read the band" and its activity to find the DX for themselves. As to whether they do so by shadowing other ops or not is not really relevant. They themselves are finding the DX on the band that they are working on, the info about the DX is not being passed to them via outside means over the web, phone, or a packet network.
N2EY: "When I first became a ham, QST still had the "How's DX?" column. Much of it was devoted to where and when the DX could be found, particularly the rarer ones. While the information might be weeks or months old, if the DX had a regular operating pattern such info could be priceless.
Whenever a DXpedition goes out, there are bulletins and webpages galore giving all sorts of details about where and when to work them. Knowing their operating schedule ahead of time can be a big help in working them.
How is any of the above different than a spotting network, other than the real-time component?"
It *is* precisely the "real-time" component that is the issue. What spotting has created is a "follow the spotting network" operating style and culture of DX'ing. Seems like that so many do not want to "go hunting" anymore, but rather go to a game farm and pick off a few fenced in critters to mount on their trophy wall. And yes I know this not entirely new, it obviously has been that way for decades, but it has only been in the recent decades that it has reached the level it has today.
N2EY: "Agreed! But the *effect* is the same as a spotting net, in that it finds the DX for you. In fact it may be more effective, because it will only report stations that are copiable at *your* QTH.
I disagree that the "effect" is the same, it is, as you just noted is actually "better". And it this fact that it is actually better that I find most appealing about it. I for one like to see operators use only equipment contained within the confines of their own stations, not a community of other stations transferring information about activity via other means, often non-amateur to them.
N2EY: "I'm asking your opinion, and that of other readers.
My position would be that I as an "operator" must actively be doing something to make each of the Q's. And that all of the technology that is being used is wholly contained within the defined location of their station. So technology like skimmer (that is exclusively local to my own station) would be perfectly legal for use any contesting category as long as it only provides me information about who/what is on the band. But I still need to manipulate controls within my station to work the other ops..
N2EY: "If someone builds a completely automatic contest/DX station, should it be allowed to compete directly with human operators? Or should there be a new category?
I believe that *fully* automated stations would be appropriate to be put into in their own category.
N2EY: "I mean, consider the possibilities:
For possibility "1". That scenario fails the wholly contained within my station's location criteria.
For possibility "2" That would be an example of a new "fully automated" category.
N2EY: "If the system were good enough, you might see the day when a ham who doesn't know a dit from a dah wins a DX contest with such a system.
That would be kinda cool actually.
N2EY: "And that's just the beginning."
Yep. But I think that maintaining "active engagement" of the human being participants will be the key thing. Sure it can be automated to the "N-th degree". But participation will probably wane because the fun is no longer in the operating competition itself, but will instead be in the building of the system. Once it is built then there's not much more to do.
N2EY: "What technologies do you mean? I don't see any rules against any particular technology. I do see rules where the use of spotting nets puts the op in a different category, so s/he isn't competing with true single-op or unassisted stations.
I disagree with the notion that CW Skimmer is assistance. But yet that is a technology that the sponsors so far have deemed to treat as being the same as if it were assistance. "Assistance" in my book is using information from *other ops*, in other locations, that is being *specifically and purposely* transferred via "out of band" means to other ops, doing/using that *is* assistance. Having superior technology wholly contained within my own shack is not, it is just a "better radio"..
N2EY: Besides, aren't all contest rules (other than following FCC regulations) truly arbitrary?
Yes, absolutely. But the contest sponsors have the challenge of providing a superset of rules that defines what a contest is. They need to do so in such a way that contest actively engages its participants, and yet remains interesting. But while doing so, to not inadvertently stifle technical innovation. To me the easiest, and I believe durable criteria to formulate contest rules around is:
1. A requirement for "active engagement of the operator for making each and every Q".
2. A requirement that all of the equipment used be within the station's defined location.
3. And finally to have a "sterile" station environment where all of the contest information about who, what, where, when of the contest activity comes in only on the band(s) in competition and never involves having information fed to the participants over other means, i.e. spotting networks etc.
N2EY: "But what about the examples I gave above that go back long before spotting nets? Heck, if I go to a hamfest or club meeting and a buddy says he worked a ZA8 on 7022 at 0400Z, and I go home from the meeting and work the same ZA8 at about the same time and QRG, should it not count because I had help finding the rare one?
Once again it really comes down to the real-time aspects of it. "Tips" from meetings and other "off line" discussions don't matter all that much..
N2EY: I take that to mean that you'd be OK competing against the fully-automated station, then.
Precisely- I'll pit my fully automated station against another's ;).. As mentioned above, there is a place for a category for fully automated stations, not unlike there is for assisted vs. unassisted today.
N2EY: What do others think?
Hmmm, maybe this topic needs a new article as this exchange has surely drifted well away from SDR, knobs or not..
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W4YA on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
From the ads I have seen you must need a 24" screen just to display all the useless stuff that these things generate. I hope there is a way to turn most of the unused data off.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N4BFD on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What sort of useless information are you speaking of?
If powersdr is taking up a entire monitor, either it is a very small one, or it is just running in full screen mode. The information it shows from the main display is hardly different than my TS-830, except for the panadapter.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by G8KHS on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY Writes: "Not exactly. For a lot of hams, putting up an HF antenna that's significantly better than what they have means moving, which can be a truly enormous investment. Couple of thousand for a rig is nothing by comparison. Of course it depends where you live and what space you have now. "
Good point Jim, not everyone can fit a killer antenna system in to a small lot, many of us have more modest aspirations.
Getting the balance right is a sensible thing to work towards.
I've seen quite a few UK station configurations in my time, some of them excellent and others very very poor.
The TS940S fed into a so called wire dipole inside an apartment with a very suspect matcher comes to mind during the mid 80's, also I lose count of the number of stations I used to only hear on 2m fm using really expensive multimodes into tiny vertical antennas for repeater working only when a mobile fm only radio would have been plenty good enough.
Apologies for being a little off topic guys but I just wanted to re-enforce the point that the antenna is just as important as the rig.
73 de G8KHS John
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N2EY on July 21, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
>G8KHS writes: "If folk spent more money on antennas and less time worrying about rig a vs rig b then you'd see a real difference in performance."
Not exactly.
For a lot of hams, putting up an HF antenna that's significantly better than what they have means moving, which can be a truly enormous investment. Couple of thousand for a rig is nothing by comparison.
Of course it depends where you live and what space you have now.
73 de Jim, N2EY<
::Sure it does, that's true. But "moving" is one of the very best things many can do. It broadens one.
Since birth, I've moved 19 times. In my adult life, 15 times. Never regretted any of those moves, as they provided new opportunities.
To me, it's truly sad when I hear hams on the air who are older and still living within 50 miles of where they were born. In most cases, that means they never actually experienced anything. Sad, for them.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WW2PT on July 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> A K3 is a firmware defined radio not a SDR. Apples and Oranges.
Firmware isn't software? That's a unique interpretation.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK writes: "But "moving" is one of the very best things many can do. It broadens one."
Yes, it does. But not everybody has the resources to to move just so they can have a better amateur radio antenna system.
And although money is a big part of it, it's not the only resource needed in order to move.
Remember too that THE major cause of the 'housing crisis/financial crisis' is people who, for a variety of reasons, bought more house than they could afford.
WB2WIK: "Since birth, I've moved 19 times. In my adult life, 15 times. Never regretted any of those moves, as they provided new opportunities."
How many of those moves were of your own choosing, and how many were forced upon you by circumstances? There's a big difference between moving because you want to and have the resources, and moving because you cannot stay where you are.
WB2WIK: "To me, it's truly sad when I hear hams on the air who are older and still living within 50 miles of where they were born."
Why? I live within 10 miles of where I was born. 5 miles if you consider the hospital rather than the house my family lived in. I have family who live even closer to their place of origin.
But that doesn't mean we haven't had lots of varied experiences, that we've never traveled, or that we've always lived around here.
WB2WIK: "In most cases, that means they never actually experienced anything. Sad, for them."
I think you're assuming too much. There are lots of different experiences.
Building a community requires a certain amount of shared experience, and when people are too transient, community doesn't happen. This is one of the reasons for HOAs and CC&Rs - people don't trust that their neighbors will be good neighbors, because they don't get a chance to know them and build up a sense of community and good-neighborliness.
But my main point was that moving-to-have-a-better-antenna isn't always a realistic option.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9DG: "The mention of the existence of HPSDR has been made many times on this discussion board amongst others. I know so because I mentioned HPSDR many times myself in responses to various SDR topics/questions in the past."
I'm sure that's true. But eham.net is so big that I just don't have the time to read every thread, let alone every post. I read perhaps a few percent of what's here.
N9DG: "But my point is that those two examples both embodied design elements that later became the industry norms."
Agreed. But they also emobodied problems that kept them from wide acceptance in the market.
N2EY: "The rigs that succeeded in the marketplace were those which built a reputation among hams from the bottom up, such as Collins, Drake and Heathkit."
N9DG: "And each of those started out as "unknowns" in their own day, and perhaps with "not quite ready for mainstream acceptance" technology or designs."
They usually started with small, low-cost items and worked their way up. Drake, for example, made high-pass filters and such, then branched out into receivers with the 1-A. Heath started with test equipment, added some very basic ham gear, and worked up to more sophisticated stuff.
Collins was the exception, sort of, but to them ham gear was a sideline, really. Collins' existence didn't live or die on the acceptance of the amateur market. They had an advantage in that things developed for military and commercial use (like the mechanical filter and PTO) were adapted to amateur products at low cost (to them).
N9DG: "But then each of those examples also fell by the wayside for a multitude of reasons that often include having not recognized the fundamental shifts in technology, and the sometimes rapid "flip" of customer preferences.."
Collins fell by the wayside because the company was bought by Rockwell.
Drake and many others fell by the wayside because of competition from imports.
Heath fell by the wayside because of technology change. It used to be that kits cost less because there was a lot of hand labor involved in building electronics. Balanced against that saving was the cost of designing rigs that could be built and aligned without expensive tools and test equipment, plus the cost of producing assembly manuals. When automated PC board stuffing became common, and designs got more complex, the savings disappeared. For example, the highly popular HW-101, which started out costing $259 in the late 1960s, eventually rose in price to $449. Add the cost of a power supply and speaker and it was over $500. By about that time, a TS-520 cost about $600, had more features, a much better VFO, and you didn't have to build it.
Will respond more as time permits. Gotta run now.
N9DG: "Hmmm, maybe this topic needs a new article as this exchange has surely drifted well away from SDR, knobs or not.."
Perhaps you could start one!
But I don't see it as drifing much. The whole SDR/knobs/visual-vs.-aural UI/what is the role of the operator discussion is really about the same thing: what do people like? what do they see as 'ham radio'? what do they think the rules should be? what will gain acceptance in the amateur market, and what won't, and why?
What's even more important than the technology is the 'people factors'. Telling hams that they MUST accept SDR, that it's "the future" and "better" isn't the way to get them to do so. You'll just get a replay of the old AM-vs.-SSB war, which actually slowed down the acceptance of SSB for many years.
---
Consider that one of the fastest growing parts of amateur radio is vintage gear. Rigs and parts that used to be almost given away at hamfests are now commanding high prices and being restored/built and used on the air in considerable numbers.
It's easy to look at that trend and say "it's nostalgia", "they're living in the past", "they can't understand modern technology" or even "Luddites". And in a few cases that might be close to the truth.
But in vintage radio you find lots of folks who don't fit any of those categories. Often they have 'modern' stations that are quite impressive - and gathering dust while the vintage stuff gets lots of use.
They're doing vintage radio for other reasons, usually summed up by "I just like it".
Which is a good enough reason to do anything in amateur radio that's legal to do. Old, new, complex or simple.
The trick is to understand the why.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N8FNR on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"From the ads I have seen you must need a 24" screen just to display all the useless stuff that these things generate. I hope there is a way to turn most of the unused data off."
Let me tell you about some of the "useless screens" I run. During a brief opening on 6M last weekend I was monitoring 96khz of 6M with the panadapter on my Flex-5000. Was watching 50.080 and up. I saw several CW signals in CW Skimmer and got a few new grids, one of which is rare. All of those signals were fading in and out and were not around for long. If I did not have the panadapter and Skimmer running I could have only contacted those stations by pure chance.
Now how is that for useless?
BTW, I usually have PSDR running (the software for the 5000), Skimmer and DXLab DXKeeper running and still have some empty room left on my 19 inch CRT.
Zack
N8FNR
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by G4LJW on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting topic - I've just had an interesting time reading most of the posts. It strikes a chord with me as I work in pro audio for TV, and as has been mentioned, we have a similar situation with regard to deciding between the mouse and other control options.
One system I am lucky enough to use at work is shown here:
http://euphonix.com/pro/post/mc_pro/
- the interesting thing with this is the software-definable knobs can quickly change function according to which application you want to control. Some sections can also be "locked" to an application, in order to keep controlling it even when in the background. Another useful feature is the progammable buttons also have user-definable labels in miniature LCDs, which also change according to the application being controlled.
Generally for sound mixing, a single mouse control is never going to be fast enough, as we normally want our hands on at least 2 or 3 things at once. Also, we need to be able to grab controls without having to look where they are first.
Having said that, many people using sound editing systems at home can use the software perfectly well with just the mouse - but they don't have the time constraints that we do when a client is paying over £100 per hour for a job!
Going back to the Euphonix example - maybe we could look forward to having some kind of control panel for radio with a similar ability to be customised, and which can also be used for multiple applications, and not just PowerSDR,
best wishes,
Jon G4LJW.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N2EY on July 22, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
How many of those moves were of your own choosing, and how many were forced upon you by circumstances?<
::In my case, except when I was a child living with my parents (no choice except to move with them, or run away from home!), every time I've moved it's been by choice: Change in scenery, improvement in weather, for a better employment climate or opportunity -- whatever. But always by choice, not by necessity.
>But that doesn't mean we haven't had lots of varied experiences, that we've never traveled, or that we've always lived around here.<
::Of course it doesn't. My statements were opinions formulated by a lot of observation, and talking with people. There are surely exceptions.
>Building a community requires a certain amount of shared experience, and when people are too transient, community doesn't happen.<
::Maybe it happens even better, because you have a bigger cross-section of people. I guess it depends on one's own experience and what they consider to be "community."
>This is one of the reasons for HOAs and CC&Rs - people don't trust that their neighbors will be good neighbors, because they don't get a chance to know them and build up a sense of community and good-neighborliness.<
::That's an interesting interpretation, but I don't agree. CC&Rs started a hundred years ago mostly to promote segregation, which is a pretty nasty reason to start something. Restrictive covenants didn't become more popular over the years due to peoples' mistrust of each other -- if you really research the history I think you'll find, as I did, they became popular because it was easier for developers to get the huge construction loans and also building permits needed when they included the word "CONFORMING" in every other paragraph of applications and filings.
>But my main point was that moving-to-have-a-better-antenna isn't always a realistic option.<
::Maybe not, but it could be in most cases. There's almost nowhere that has restrictions and also isn't within a short drive of another place close by that doesn't have any, and is just as nice. Before roads and cars, it might have been more difficult; but today I cannot imagine that most people wouldn't gladly move ten minutes away to enjoy more personal freedom on a number of planes.
73
Steve WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
(continuing response)
N9DG writes: "It *is* precisely the "real-time" component that is the issue."
Why?
N9DG: "What spotting has created is a "follow the spotting network" operating style and culture of DX'ing. Seems like that so many do not want to "go hunting" anymore, but rather go to a game farm and pick off a few fenced in critters to mount on their trophy wall."
Like a previous vice-president....
N2EY: "But the *effect* is the same as a spotting net, in that it finds the DX for you. In fact it may be more effective, because it will only report stations that are copiable at *your* QTH."
N9DG: "I disagree that the "effect" is the same, it is, as you just noted is actually "better". And it this fact that it is actually better that I find most appealing about it."
The effect is the same in that you get information about where the new ones are without having to do anything yourself. Why does it matter whether it's another operator or an automated system getting the info for you?
N9DG: "I for one like to see operators use only equipment contained within the confines of their own stations, not a community of other stations transferring information about activity via other means, often non-amateur to them."
But isn't that just a personal preference?
What about automated database lookup so that you know what state or section a station is in by the call?
N9DG: "My position would be that I as an "operator" must actively be doing something to make each of the Q's."
Even if all it takes is pushing one key on the keyboard to tell the automated system to work the next one?
N9DG: "And that all of the technology that is being used is wholly contained within the defined location of their station. So technology like skimmer (that is exclusively local to my own station) would be perfectly legal for use any contesting category as long as it only provides me information about who/what is on the band. But I still need to manipulate controls within my station to work the other ops.."
OK, fine.
But the way I see it is that we're getting to the point where the operator does almost nothing. More important, where operator skill, knowledge and such have no role at all.
N9DG: "I believe that *fully* automated stations would be appropriate to be put into in their own category."
Works for me!
N9DG: "For possibility "1". That scenario fails the wholly contained within my station's location criteria."
Only because of the remote-control aspect. Why prohibit remote control?
One of the things we're going to see more and more are remote-controlled stations via the internet, where a ham has a station set up out in the boonies but controls it from a no-antennas home. For many hams, moving to a place where they can have a decent antenna farm isn't practical, but having a second property way out in the country is. Particularly if it's on low-cost land. Such a remote location would need only power and a broadband connection; things like water, septic, heat and such would not be essential.
If the remote station and the control point are both part of one ham's station, what does it matter that they are geographically separate, or that the link between them is not amateur radio? Of course the "station location" would be the location of the radio, not the control point, since it is from there that the RF is transmitted and received.
N9DG: "For possibility "2" That would be an example of a new "fully automated" category."
OK
N2EY: "If the system were good enough, you might see the day when a ham who doesn't know a dit from a dah wins a DX contest with such a system.
N9DG: "That would be kinda cool actually."
I disagree. I think it would be very sad.
N9DG: "But I think that maintaining "active engagement" of the human being participants will be the key thing. Sure it can be automated to the "N-th degree". But participation will probably wane because the fun is no longer in the operating competition itself, but will instead be in the building of the system. Once it is built then there's not much more to do."
I think there is a line that must not be crossed. Here's why:
Contesting and DXing are really a form of sport more than anything else. Non-American hams coined an excellent word for it: Radiosport.
The problem I see is that sports are supposed to be about the players rather than the sporting goods store. And the rules of the sport are needed to insure that it stays that way.
I could win the Boston Marathon - on rollerblades. I could win the Tour de France - on a motorcycle. There are plenty of boats that could win the America's cup with a crew of just one or two - but they are motorboats. Etc.
When radiosport becomes more about the technology than the operator, it stops being a sport.
N9DG: "I disagree with the notion that CW Skimmer is assistance. But yet that is a technology that the sponsors so far have deemed to treat as being the same as if it were assistance. "Assistance" in my book is using information from *other ops*, in other locations, that is being *specifically and purposely* transferred via "out of band" means to other ops, doing/using that *is* assistance. Having superior technology wholly contained within my own shack is not, it is just a "better radio".."
I disagree. The thing about Skimmer and similar technology is that the *effect* is the same as, or even better than, having a spotting net. To me, what matters is that the operator doesn't have to do anything to find or identify new stations to work. Doesn't matter if the finding and identifying is done by a machine or a human, it's not being done by the "operator", so it's assistance.
N2EY: Besides, aren't all contest rules (other than following FCC regulations) truly arbitrary?
N9DG: "Yes, absolutely."
That's my point.
N9DG: "But the contest sponsors have the challenge of providing a superset of rules that defines what a contest is."
See above about radiosport.
N9DG: "They need to do so in such a way that contest actively engages its participants, and yet remains interesting. But while doing so, to not inadvertently stifle technical innovation."
Perhaps there need to be multiple sports. The Boston Marathon doesn't stimulate bicycle innovation, but the Tour de France sure does! Both have their place. Why not the same thing in radiosport?
N9DG: "1. A requirement for "active engagement of the operator for making each and every Q". "
But that could be as simple as a 99.99% automated station requiring that the "operator" push a Y or N key in response to the system, before each QSO. Everything else could be automated, and it would still be "active engagement of the operator" - right?
N9DG: "2. A requirement that all of the equipment used be within the station's defined location."
Why disallow remote control? Particularly when such stations are bound to become more common in the future, and are technically innovative? One of the benefits of the "knobless radio" is that it can be remote controlled.
N9DG: "3. And finally to have a "sterile" station environment where all of the contest information about who, what, where, when of the contest activity comes in only on the band(s) in competition and never involves having information fed to the participants over other means, i.e. spotting networks etc."
Does the "etc." include database lookups? What about logs from previous contests?
N9DG: "Once again it really comes down to the real-time aspects of it. "Tips" from meetings and other "off line" discussions don't matter all that much.."
I disagree! For a rare one, it could make all the difference. Particularly if my buddy only told me, rather than blabbing it to the spots. I show up on the right QRG at the right time and there's not much of a pileup because few others know.
N2EY: I take that to mean that you'd be OK competing against the fully-automated station, then.
N9DG: "Precisely- I'll pit my fully automated station against another's ;).. As mentioned above, there is a place for a category for fully automated stations, not unlike there is for assisted vs. unassisted today."
Be careful what you wish for...you may get it. I can imagine a situation where a ham automates a contest/DX station and winds up mowing the lawn, painting the bathroom, paying bills, shoveling snow and doing other chores for the whole contest weekend because he's not needed in the shack anymore.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K7PEH on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
But my main point was that moving-to-have-a-better-antenna isn't always a realistic option.<
::Maybe not, but it could be in most cases. There's almost nowhere that has restrictions and also isn't within a short drive of another place close by that doesn't have any, and is just as nice. Before roads and cars, it might have been more difficult; but today I cannot imagine that most people wouldn't gladly move ten minutes away to enjoy more personal freedom on a number of planes.
I got a kick out of that last sentence, I mean the part "...I cannot imagine that most people wouldn't gladly move ten minutes away to enjoy more personal freedom..."
Ten minutes away! That would be nice if I could move just a mere 10 minutes away to achieve some more personal freedom or enough land to put up a nice antenna. Anything within one hour of down-town Seattle is going to cost a premium so I would need to move at least an hour away to afford the land -- an hour north you can buy 5 acres for about $250,000 (land only, no house). Around here 5 acres, if you could find it, would cost several million dollars. Actually, I don't think five undeveloped acres exists close in (within an hour).
Of course, a nice antenna does not require 5 acres but if I am going to move I think I would do it in style and start growing antennas. Right now, it is not worth it to me that much to move. I have mini-beam, a hexbeam antenna and an 80-meter dipole so I am OK. Not as nice as my neighbor (several blocks away) who has three towers on his property (you can see them from space, or at least from the satellite views -- go lookup W7LFA, he won't mind). He has 3 acres but he bought it back when I was only 10 years old.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N8FNR on July 22, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Let me tell you about some of the "useless screens" I run. During a brief opening on 6M last weekend I was monitoring 96khz of 6M with the panadapter on my Flex-5000. Was watching 50.080 and up. I saw several CW signals in CW Skimmer and got a few new grids, one of which is rare. All of those signals were fading in and out and were not around for long. If I did not have the panadapter and Skimmer running I could have only contacted those stations by pure chance.
Now how is that for useless?<
::So-so, if you ask me! 96 kHz, or even 192 kHz, is not a wide enough scan for a band like 6m. I use my FT-736R in the "frequency scan" mode (rig is vintage 1987) to scan 50.050 to 50.250 all the time I'm in the shack, puttering around or using other bands. It takes a few seconds per scan, and keeps me well aware of what's going on on the band without me looking at anything. I scan well below .080 to catch the beacons.
I've never missed a 6m opening if I was anywhere near the rig, even in the next room or eating in the kitchen...
Not that the S/A function isn't a fun thing, because it is. But the technology to provide similar "monitoring" functionality has been available for 25 years or more, and in many ways I find frequency scanning more effective than a spectrum display (to find activity) because I can "hear" the results even if I'm not near the rig.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by K7PEH on July 22, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
I got a kick out of that last sentence, I mean the part "...I cannot imagine that most people wouldn't gladly move ten minutes away to enjoy more personal freedom..."
Ten minutes away! That would be nice if I could move just a mere 10 minutes away to achieve some more personal freedom or enough land to put up a nice antenna. Anything within one hour of down-town Seattle is going to cost a premium so I would need to move at least an hour away to afford the land -- an hour north you can buy 5 acres for about $250,000 (land only, no house). Around here 5 acres, if you could find it, would cost several million dollars. Actually, I don't think five undeveloped acres exists close in (within an hour).<
::I'll bet that's an exaggeration, but then I don't live in Seattle (never wanted to, I hate rainy WX!). But I'll wager if I spend 60 minutes to property searches in zip codes within 10 minutes of Seattle I'll find unrestricted properties at prices I'd consider reasonable compared with here in Los Angeles. If you think Seattle is expensive...well, it is, but doesn't even make the Top Ten list where L.A. currently holds the #1 position (Forbes Magazine, Money Magazine, etc). Here in L.A., I can find an undeveloped 5 acres instantly, as those exist lots of places (within city limits) and there are no restrictive tower ordinances in the city. Many beautiful places are covenant-free, mostly because they're old enough they were built before CC&Rs became so popular. It's easy to buy a covenant-free home in Beverly Hills. ;-)
73
Steve WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K7PEH on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
::I'll bet that's an exaggeration, but then I don't live in Seattle (never wanted to, I hate rainy WX!). But I'll wager if I spend 60 minutes to property searches in zip codes within 10 minutes of Seattle I'll find unrestricted properties at prices I'd consider reasonable compared with here in Los Angeles. If you think Seattle is expensive...well, it is, but doesn't even make the Top Ten list where L.A. currently holds the #1 position (Forbes Magazine, Money Magazine, etc). Here in L.A., I can find an undeveloped 5 acres instantly, as those exist lots of places (within city limits) and there are no restrictive tower ordinances in the city. Many beautiful places are covenant-free, mostly because they're old enough they were built before CC&Rs became so popular. It's easy to buy a covenant-free home in Beverly Hills. ;-)
Steve -- you would find property available but you can't do anything with it. King County here as a growth limitation on property that you buy (grandfathered development is OK). For example, if I bought property that was 5 acres, I can only develop 35 percent of that five acres -- this is by law. By developing, it means that I cannot even cut down berry bushes that are outside of my 35 percent constraint. Everything must be natural. This law has been in the courts on a number of occasions but so far it still exists. Now, add to that problem the areas that are protected as national wet lands protection areas which covers quite a bit up here. So, you can find some land within one hour of Seattle but that does not mean you can do anything with it.
If you were to do a property search in this general area though, you would not find as many "hits" as you typically find in other metro areas. The greater Seattle area is a very densely built up area. In Contrast, a few weeks ago I was in Southern California (Orange County, also around Ontario) and even though I have been there a number of times in the past, I was surprised at how open the land area is compared to around here. Our main problem around here is topography: it is hard to build on the steep slopes of hillsides which are about the only real open land available within reason for cost.
As far as weather -- right now it is 75 degrees, perfect cloudless, blue skies, and I can't remember when it rained last (and, my front lawn is brown from lack of water). But, rain around here is a fact of life most of the year -- but we who live in the northwest love it -- as a friend who was visiting from southern California said to me "Your rain is great, you can walk around in it all day and never get wet". My normal dress which is blue-jeans and t-shirts is the same thing I wear whether it is raining or not. Several weeks ago when we were in southern California, we left 80 to 85 degree weather with clear blue skies to have cloud cover and rain threatening every day we were there.
But, I do like our summer months up here. I can still be sitting outside at 9:45 PM and read a book by the light of the day (as I was last night) on the back deck. A month ago, I could have been doing that until after 10 PM at night. Of course, during the winter months, it is dark by 4 PM.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To WB2WIK:
It's just not that simple.
Yes, there are places where a ham can find an unrestricted property for sale for a decent price that's not far from where the ham lives now.
There are also places where such properties are extremely rare and/or expensive.
Online real estate searches don't tell you things
like what the neighborhood is REALLY like, what
the trends are (is it getting better or going
downhill?), how much fixup and maintenance the place needs, or how good a ham radio location a place
really is.
A move that seems minor to you may be a major thing for somebody else. Things like school district, proximity to work (for both adults in the family), access to health care, extended family, etc., may be deal-killers.
The XYL (or OM) factor must be considered too. The days when Dad made the decision and Mom simply obeyed are long gone, if indeed they ever existed.
The rest of the USA isn't necessarily like LAX. And IIRC, California is having quite a budget problem right now....
The personal financial end of things isn't simple either. (Remember that the cause of the "mortgage crisis" is people borrowing more money than they could pay back).
Sure it's a great time to buy real estate - if you can get a loan that you can actually pay back, and if you can sell the place you're in (or don't have one to sell). And if your job and financial situation are secure.
The financial cost of moving to a new place is often a deal-killer.
First there's the additional debt, because usually the new place costs more than the old one. (One reason so many hams live in restricted housing is that it's CHEAPER than unrestricted! Or at least it seems that way...)
Then, if the place you're in needs any work at all, there's the cost of getting it ready to sell. In a slow market, it's very important that the place look great.
Add in all the fees, taxes, commissions, etc. associated with moving. Yes, you can do some of the stuff yourself, but many hams don't have the real estate expertise to do so. (Look at how many hams don't really understand the basics of HOAs and CC&Rs!) And even if you do as much as possible yourself, there are still unavoidable taxes and fees.
There's the actual cost of moving, which can vary from the cost of a rental truck and some pizzas to a full-scale moving company. Don't forget the costs of setting up in the new place.
Finally there are the costs of living in the new place, which may have higher taxes, energy costs, commuting costs, etc.
Sometimes the numbers work out. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the individual situation.
That said, I think it's important to look at one's situation realistically and evaluate all the factors. Maybe a move IS the best way to go for a particular situation. Fact is, the buyer who doesn't have to move is in the strongest position.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N2EY on July 22, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
To WB2WIK:
It's just not that simple.
Yes, there are places where a ham can find an unrestricted property for sale for a decent price that's not far from where the ham lives now.
There are also places where such properties are extremely rare and/or expensive.
Online real estate searches don't tell you things
like what the neighborhood is REALLY like, what
the trends are (is it getting better or going
downhill?), how much fixup and maintenance the place needs, or how good a ham radio location a place
really is.<
::Yeah, that's very true. No argument. However since I do have a R/E license I have access to other data bases not very accessible to the general public, and they show a lot about demographics, comparables, inside views, school systems, etc. And I've really never found anyplace that's not very suitable for hams with towers and big antennas, within a few miles of where people complain they can't have them. I have not done much searching in AK or HI, however, it's mostly the 48 states.
>A move that seems minor to you may be a major thing for somebody else. Things like school district, proximity to work (for both adults in the family), access to health care, extended family, etc., may be deal-killers.<
::If people are narrow minded, I'd definitely agree. But most have no clue as to what a good school system is, and 99% of how kids do in school, and what grades they get and what colleges might accept them, is based on their home life and not on the system. There aren't any changes in health care and other stuff if you're only moving a few miles.
>The XYL (or OM) factor must be considered too. The days when Dad made the decision and Mom simply obeyed are long gone, if indeed they ever existed.
The rest of the USA isn't necessarily like LAX. And IIRC, California is having quite a budget problem right now....<
::Yep, and it's not Xanadu by any means. We have great weather, and that's pretty much why I'm here. Lots of other stuff are less than great, but I figured we could change most things except the WX. Our cost of living sucks and we now have the highest taxes in the country, bully for us.
>The personal financial end of things isn't simple either. (Remember that the cause of the "mortgage crisis" is people borrowing more money than they could pay back).
Sure it's a great time to buy real estate - if you can get a loan that you can actually pay back, and if you can sell the place you're in (or don't have one to sell). And if your job and financial situation are secure.<
::Of course that's all true, but that also hasn't changed...been that way my whole life, probably always will be that way.
>The financial cost of moving to a new place is often a deal-killer.<
::Now, there I disagree. There often isn't any cost at all, if you know what you're doing. I've never had any "cost" associated with any move I've ever made.
>First there's the additional debt, because usually the new place costs more than the old one. (One reason so many hams live in restricted housing is that it's CHEAPER than unrestricted! Or at least it seems that way...)<
::Nah, I don't think that's true. People aren't very wise about real estate transactions, and that's a pity, their loss, and shame on our educational system for not making people better informed about a very important aspect of life.
>Add in all the fees, taxes, commissions, etc. associated with moving<
::I've always done all of that myself. There aren't any fees or taxes associated with moving. R/E commissions can be minimal or waived if you do it right. I've never paid for a title search, since my first one 35 years ago, as an example. Courier and escrow fees? Forget it, you can bypass all of that. An informed buyer is a smart buyer.
>Yes, you can do some of the stuff yourself, but many hams don't have the real estate expertise to do so. (Look at how many hams don't really understand the basics of HOAs and CC&Rs!) And even if you do as much as possible yourself, there are still unavoidable taxes and fees.<
::What taxes and fees? I've never paid any with regard to "moving." We all pay taxes, but you only pay for the number of days you actually lived in a home, you're not responsible for any extra days you didn't live there.
>There's the actual cost of moving, which can vary from the cost of a rental truck and some pizzas to a full-scale moving company. Don't forget the costs of setting up in the new place.<
::To me, "setting up" is fun and doesn't cost anything. Yes, I sure have paid for moving vans and stuff. It's not much. I've moved a 3000 s.f. household of stuff (53' trailer full) coast to coast for $2000. Local moves are much less.
>Finally there are the costs of living in the new place, which may have higher taxes, energy costs, commuting costs, etc.<
::Well, they might, or they might not. If you make a "local" move of only a few or several miles, probably no difference.
>Sometimes the numbers work out. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the individual situation.<
::I've moved an awful lot of times, it's always worked out fine. In many cases, I saved money by moving.
>That said, I think it's important to look at one's situation realistically and evaluate all the factors. Maybe a move IS the best way to go for a particular situation. Fact is, the buyer who doesn't have to move is in the strongest position.<
::Unless you're facing foreclosure, nobody has to move. I felt compelled to move many times, and probably will continue to do so. I actually and honestly feel sorry for those who haven't exercised their options, especially in these days of high unemployment -- people feel "stuck" where they are, without even realizing a great job might be waiting for them 2000 miles away, where they would do far better and be able to support their family in a much improved environment. That's the pity!
73
Steve WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9DG writes: "It *is* precisely the "real-time" component that is the issue."
N2EY: “Why? “
The “real-time” component of it makes it the same thing as being a mulit-op. It is just that the other ops of the multi are widely distributed.
N2EY: “The effect is the same in that you get information about where the new ones are without having to do anything yourself. Why does it matter whether it's another operator or an automated system getting the info for you?”
For same reason it matters if another op is sitting next to you or not and is operating a second radio vs. you yourself mastering the art of SO2R, SO3R, or skimmer. And that everything signal wise is coming in over my own station's equipment, not someone else's. Spotting networks just remove the requirement for them to be physically next to you and gives them additional antenna system resources..
N2EY “But isn't that just a personal preference?”
Perhaps it is a personal preference. But I think it comes closest to matching what the early radio ops were doing for the most part in the first few decades of amateur radio. Were there skeds? Sure, but I don't believe they were all that common outside of those who pushing the edges to see if something could even be done. And I certainly doubt skeds or other real or near real-time spotting was all that common or routine until phone calls got easier and cheaper.
N2EY: “What about automated database lookup so that you know what state or section a station is in by the call?”
And I wonder how many busted Q's can be attributed to those who use historical exchange data vs. current off air. Personally I've never found them to be useful in contesting. And certainly if you are talking about web lookups vs. personal databases then the web look up scenario is once again and example of reaching outside of the station's circle.
N2EY: “Even if all it takes is pushing one key on the keyboard to tell the automated system to work the next one?”
It may come close to that. But guess what? If it was that advanced then I'd be looking at more technology to feed me more stuff to deal with to keep me busy.
N2EY: “But the way I see it is that we're getting to the point where the operator does almost nothing. More important, where operator skill, knowledge and such have no role at all.”
On the contrary. My experiences with my 50-432 MHz weak signal station setup where it provides spectrum sweeps of all 4 bands all at the same time actually gave me more to do as a VHF contest op. It allowed me to find signals much quicker across all of the bands. So By virtue of finding more I was able to keep busier making Q's. Basically it boosted my S&P capabilities because I could setup on a “run” frequency calling CQ and then let the radios and SW controlling them show me the signals to investigate. I'd been doing that since circa 2003 with a few Ten Tec Pegasus radios and N4PY software. Without a computer and SW I would have never found away to spin 4 VFO knobs all at the same time.
N2EY: “If the remote station and the control point are both part of one ham's station, what does it matter that they are geographically separate, or that the link between them is not amateur radio? Of course the "station location" would be the location of the radio, not the control point, since it is from there that the RF is transmitted and received.”
I wasn't going to bring up remote control in the interest of keeping the discussion simple. But since you have... My position is really quite simple there too. I'm OK with fully remoted stations as long as the control point is exclusively connected to the remote station. In other words the connections to the remote control point are simply an extension of the signals and interfaces from the radio gear that is at the remote location. Plus that all RF to and from the remote station is from the remote station location, no local to the control point “extra” RX's for example. And of course that whoever uses a remote station doesn't claim the Q's made from them to be anything other than from where the RF comes and goes from that remoted RF HW.
N2EY: “I disagree. I think it would be very sad.”
Why?
N2EY: “I could win the Boston Marathon - on rollerblades. I could win the Tour de France - on a motorcycle. There are plenty of boats that could win the America's cup with a crew of just one or two - but they are motorboats. Etc.
When radiosport becomes more about the technology than the operator, it stops being a sport.”
Unlike those examples radiosport events cannot be held on a tightly controlled or condition uniform “playing field” geographical differences alone of where the participants are precludes it. The closest to trying to do that are the WRTC events where the teams are located reasonably close to each other such that geography differences are greatly eliminated. Another aspect of Radiosport that near as I can tell is unique to it is this concept of “cooperative competition”, i.e. ops needing to help their competitors to some degree by working them.
N2EY: “I disagree. The thing about Skimmer and similar technology is that the *effect* is the same as, or even better than, having a spotting net. To me, what matters is that the operator doesn't have to do anything to find or identify new stations to work. Doesn't matter if the finding and identifying is done by a machine or a human, it's not being done by the "operator", so it's assistance.”
But then isn't the radio that you use also a “machine” that “assists” you? Because certainly nobody can demodulate RF in thier head (OK there are some weird exceptions!).. So then where do you draw the technology “line”? At some arbitrary point of technology evolution, say crystal detectors? Regenerative RX's OK but superhets are not? Or are tubes OK and solid state is not? Are wide filters OK but narrow ones not? Or is DSP OK, or does it need to be analog detection. Is more than one RX allowed or are you only allowed one? And if you are only allowed one RX is it OK that you can copy 3 or 4 sigs at time in a wide passband (because your brain can let you do that) or are you required to use a vary narrow filter so you that can be restricted to only copying one signal at time? Are CW readers OK, or not (near as I can tell major contest sponsors are OK with CW readers, but heaven forbid that it can decode more than a signal or two at a time). Are memory and voice keyers allowed? Or are they too “assistance”? Paper vs. computer logging?
N2EY: “Perhaps there need to be multiple sports. The Boston Marathon doesn't stimulate bicycle innovation, but the Tour de France sure does! Both have their place. Why not the same thing in radiosport?”
That is what the various categories within existing radio contests try to do to some extent. But there again radiosport is kinda unique in that all of the participants are all playing one widely distributed, and widely varying playing field. And then on top of that you have those who want to run in the game with their bicycles, and then others with dirt bikes, and yet others with race cars, etc. Short of having highly regimented rules about what equipment is allowed I don't see it coming to pass. Because beyond just issues around SDR and automation they would need to address limiting ERP and somehow “equalizing” propagation variables. Just not possible.
N2EY: But that could be as simple as a 99.99% automated station requiring that the "operator" push a Y or N key in response to the system, before each QSO. Everything else could be automated, and it would still be "active engagement of the operator" – right?
Strictly speaking, yes. But I think you will find that those who are competitive will seek ways to use up more of their time between button pushes to even better their score. And for those who reach the “perfect” automated station, the ops will get bored and get out.
N2EY: Why disallow remote control? Particularly when such stations are bound to become more common in the future, and are technically innovative? One of the benefits of the "knobless radio" is that it can be remote controlled.
See my earlier remote station comments.
N2EY: Does the "etc." include database lookups? What about logs from previous contests?
Local database, yes. Previous logs yes. But I question their true usefulness and they can be a trap if the data is out of date. And for what it's worth my “database” of who is where is all in my head from because I can usually remember where they were located the last time I worked them.
N2EY: “I disagree! For a rare one, it could make all the difference. Particularly if my buddy only told me, rather than blabbing it to the spots. I show up on the right QRG at the right time and there's not much of a pileup because few others know.”
Naw, your “exclusive tip” from your buddy these days won't beat people like me who use PC based SDR's with point and click tuning to investigate those rare DX's “smears” on the waterfall display immediately after they first appear on the band :)..
N2EY: “Be careful what you wish for...you may get it. I can imagine a situation where a ham automates a contest/DX station and winds up mowing the lawn, painting the bathroom, paying bills, shoveling snow and doing other chores for the whole contest weekend because he's not needed in the shack anymore.”
I seriously doubt it will ever become a widespread practice except maybe for contests of robots against robots. But then that shifts the contest focus further into it in being a station “building” contest vs. “operating”. Today those two areas of “effort” for highly successful contest stations are more balanced. Will someone do it someday? Sure. But I just don't see it “taking over”
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK writes: "I've really never found anyplace that's not very suitable for hams with towers and big antennas, within a few miles of where people complain they can't have them."
No argument there - the problem is: for how much money?
WB2WIK: "But most have no clue as to what a good school system is, and 99% of how kids do in school, and what grades they get and what colleges might accept them, is based on their home life and not on the system."
No, that's just not true. Not for all kids, anyway. Most kids will learn a lot more in a school that's not falling apart, has adequate supplies and good teachers, and isn't full of drugs, violence, gangs and other destructive influences.
Yes, SOME kids manage to rise above horrible backgrounds and succeed in life. That's very admirable - and rare.
Some may say that things like college admissions correlate more with family demographics, and that may be true - because the families with more resources send the kids to better schools.
WB2WIK: "There aren't any changes in health care and other stuff if you're only moving a few miles."
Not in health care. But in things like neighborhoods and job access, a lot can change.
WB2WIK: "Lots of other stuff are less than great, but I figured we could change most things except the WX. Our cost of living sucks and we now have the highest taxes in the country, bully for us."
The problem is that CA has hamstrung itself by enacting dumb laws that are next-to-impossible to change. As for the highest taxes, that depends on how you measure them. Prop 13 has resulted in tremendous discrepancies in RE taxes for similar properties.
Main point is that the rest of the USA isn't necessarily like LAX
N2EY:"Sure it's a great time to buy real estate - if you can get a loan that you can actually pay back, and if you can sell the place you're in (or don't have one to sell). And if your job and financial situation are secure."
WB2WIK: "Of course that's all true, but that also hasn't changed...been that way my whole life, probably always will be that way."
The point is that things like affordability and security vary all over the place.
N2EY: "The financial cost of moving to a new place is often a deal-killer."
WB2WIK: "Now, there I disagree. There often isn't any cost at all, if you know what you're doing. I've never had any "cost" associated with any move I've ever made."
The problem is that everyone isn't a licensed Real Estate agent.
N2EY: "First there's the additional debt, because usually the new place costs more than the old one. (One reason so many hams live in restricted housing is that it's CHEAPER than unrestricted! Or at least it seems that way...)"
WB2WIK: "Nah, I don't think that's true."
It's true, at least in the areas I've searched. Restricted properties cost less and appreciate less (at least in purchase price) BECAUSE they're restricted!
WB2WIK: "People aren't very wise about real estate transactions, and that's a pity, their loss, and shame on our educational system for not making people better informed about a very important aspect of life."
There's a real-world example of the differences in schools!
The big problem for most people, and the reason we need regulations, is that most people who aren't RE agents don't do more than a handful of real estate deals in their lives. So they don't get a lot of practice and never get good at it. The rules change over time, and new rules are added, so the info they had when they moved 10 years ago doesn't apply today.
Meanwhile, the agents, lenders, etc., do RE transactions all the time and know all the tricks, ins and outs.
WB2WIK: "I've always done all of that myself. There aren't any fees or taxes associated with moving. R/E commissions can be minimal or waived if you do it right."
Not everyone can be a licensed RE agent and do it all themselves.
There ARE taxes and fees involved. Here in Radnor Township, to give just one example, there is a 1% real estate transfer tax. Half paid by the buyer, half by the seller. If you sell a $400K home and buy a $600K one, that's $5000 in tax you have to pay.
I've never met an agent that would waive their commission for a home they were selling. Reduce, yes, waive no. Why should they work for nothing?
WB2WIK:"To me, "setting up" is fun and doesn't cost anything. Yes, I sure have paid for moving vans and stuff. It's not much. I've moved a 3000 s.f. household of stuff (53' trailer full) coast to coast for $2000. Local moves are much less."
By setting up I mean new stuff that has to be bought for the new place because the stuff from the old place doesn't fit or is the wrong type.
Moving costs depend on the resources you have.
N2EY: "Finally there are the costs of living in the new place, which may have higher taxes, energy costs, commuting costs, etc."
WB2WIK: "If you make a "local" move of only a few or several miles, probably no difference."
Not in energy costs and taxes! In many climates, how a house is built makes an enormous difference in energy costs. Different municipalities tax at different rates, too.
WB2WIK: "I've moved an awful lot of times, it's always worked out fine. In many cases, I saved money by moving."
I'm glad for you, Steve, but that's not the universal experience.
WB2WIK: "Unless you're facing foreclosure, nobody has to move. I felt compelled to move many times, and probably will continue to do so."
"Compelled to move" is a better way of saying it.
If a person loses a job and is offered another, better one someplace else, and there are no other prospects, they may feel compelled to move.
If a person sees the neighborhood crumbling around them, with rising crime, deteriorating quality-of-life, inadequate services and falling or static RE prices in a rising market, they may feel compelled to move before things get worse.
Etc.
WB2WIK: "I actually and honestly feel sorry for those who haven't exercised their options, especially in these days of high unemployment -- people feel "stuck" where they are, without even realizing a great job might be waiting for them 2000 miles away, where they would do far better and be able to support their family in a much improved environment. That's the pity!"
I agree 100%! But there's a Catch-22 situation in hard times:
The person who doesn't have a job often doesn't have the resources to move unless there's a job at the other end of the move.
The person who has a job isn't going to take the risk of moving away from it.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N2EY on July 23, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
WB2WIK: "But most have no clue as to what a good school system is, and 99% of how kids do in school, and what grades they get and what colleges might accept them, is based on their home life and not on the system."
No, that's just not true. Not for all kids, anyway. Most kids will learn a lot more in a school that's not falling apart, has adequate supplies and good teachers, and isn't full of drugs, violence, gangs and other destructive influences.<
::Maybe I've just been lucky. By kids all went to Blue Ribbon Charter public schools where the dropout rates were typically 0% and the only times the police ever had to visit were on Free Doughnut Days. And these are public schools.
>Some may say that things like college admissions correlate more with family demographics, and that may be true - because the families with more resources send the kids to better schools.<
::Could be. Here in CA we have about 30 state universities which are excellent and can be as low-cost as "absolutely free" if the applicant/family is "low income;" the threshold for that benefit today is $75,000. Most are not that easy to get into, and this will become worse with the budget crunch. The best days may be behind us, I guess time will tell.
>WB2WIK: "There aren't any changes in health care and other stuff if you're only moving a few miles."
Not in health care. But in things like neighborhoods and job access, a lot can change.<
::How can job access change if someone moves a few miles -- unless they walk to work?
>The problem is that CA has hamstrung itself by enacting dumb laws that are next-to-impossible to change. As for the highest taxes, that depends on how you measure them. Prop 13 has resulted in tremendous discrepancies in RE taxes for similar properties.<
::Yeah, but that's probably as it should be. It's ridiculous for a city, county or state to increase real estate taxes simply because values escalated: This is a benefit they receive for doing absolutely nothing more, or better. It's completely unfair, which is why taxpayers in CA revolted, and the result is Prop 13. Prop 13 keeps more than a million elderly people in the homes they have fully paid for years ago; if taxes kept up with inflation, most of them could not possibly afford to continue living in their own homes. Nuts!
>Main point is that the rest of the USA isn't necessarily like LAX<
::Sure isn't, but maybe it should be. At least with regard to some things. When I lived in NJ, I paid $6500 in annual R/E taxes when my neighbor across the street (different township) who had exactly the same kind of house and property, paid $3500. No difference except which side of the street it was on. That's ridiculous. (These numbers are pretty low because it happened >25 years ago -- I don't know what their taxes are now, but I'll bet they're not lower.)
>The point is that things like affordability and security vary all over the place.<
::Absolutely! Can't argue with that. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. I guess people who aren't risk-takers by nature lead more passive lives. It would drive me nuts, personally. ;-)
>N2EY: "The financial cost of moving to a new place is often a deal-killer."
WB2WIK: "Now, there I disagree. There often isn't any cost at all, if you know what you're doing. I've never had any "cost" associated with any move I've ever made."
The problem is that everyone isn't a licensed Real Estate agent.<
::One needn't be. One should be an informed seller, and buyer, to take advantage of everything available to both sellers and buyers. House-swapping today is extremely common. This is where, through a legal process, people literally swap homes, along with titles. No R/E commission, no transfer taxes; in most places you can accomplish this for a $500 flat fee. I know a few people who have done it already. "The new way" to move.
>It's true, at least in the areas I've searched. Restricted properties cost less and appreciate less (at least in purchase price) BECAUSE they're restricted!<
::I do agree with that. It's true in most places, homes with restrictive covenants do cost a bit less, and do not appreciate as quickly, as those that are covenant-free. It's only natural -- covenant-free housing is more desirable, for almost anyone who can think for himself. However, the disparity isn't very much, from what I can see.
>WB2WIK: "People aren't very wise about real estate transactions, and that's a pity, their loss, and shame on our educational system for not making people better informed about a very important aspect of life."
There's a real-world example of the differences in schools!<
::My kids had Life Skills courses in public school (HS) where they learn to write resumes; do budget planning; make stock investments; conduct real estate transactions; and even have a baby! (Yes, the baby is an electromechanical doll with a computer and a wireless interface that monitors how far "mom" ever got from baby -- and what her response time is if the baby cries -- and has a g-force monitor to see if the baby's ever been mishandled or dropped, etc. It's really funny. They get graded based on the "score" kept by the computer inside the baby! The babies are programmed to cry a lot, keeping "mom" up all night. Well, now they know!)
However, this is scratching the surface. People who are investing in real estate should educate themselves. Tons of books available in every public library, free for borrowing. You needn't graduate from a R/E school or class to sit for the license exams.
>There ARE taxes and fees involved. Here in Radnor Township, to give just one example, there is a 1% real estate transfer tax. Half paid by the buyer, half by the seller. If you sell a $400K home and buy a $600K one, that's $5000 in tax you have to pay.<
::Now, isn't that silly? An example of being taxed, with nothing in return. Seems to me a bunch of guys dumped tea in Boston Harbor some time ago regarding a similar matter. There's nothing like that here. Or anywhere I've lived, actually.
>I've never met an agent that would waive their commission for a home they were selling. Reduce, yes, waive no. Why should they work for nothing?<
::It's called bartering. You get their work for free, you volunteer to do something for them for free, and that task might be something as simple as bringing a friend to them, to contract as their agent for another house sale. Works fine, I see it all the time in this market. And the "house swapping" thing has become very big.
>WB2WIK: "If you make a "local" move of only a few or several miles, probably no difference."
Not in energy costs and taxes! In many climates, how a house is built makes an enormous difference in energy costs. Different municipalities tax at different rates, too.<
::They do, in some places; they don't in others. Obviously CA has Prop 13 which is a flat tax that is a constant everywhere in the state. It's not a bad idea. The fact that the state is effectively bankrupt really has nothing to do with Prop 13 and everything to do with decades of spending more than they could take in, spending an enormous sum on secondary education (largest university system in the world), and denying oil and gas exploration for the past 30 years when that could have brought in many billions of dollars. Some of that will be changing, now. But Prop 13 isn't going away.
>If a person loses a job and is offered another, better one someplace else, and there are no other prospects, they may feel compelled to move.<
::Sure. But one problem with a lot of folks is they have no idea if the grass is greener elsewhere, because they don't know anything about elsewhere. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't" syndrome -- and they have absolutely no idea what they're missing. I shouldn't care, but it's frustrating to see.
>I agree 100%! But there's a Catch-22 situation in hard times:
The person who doesn't have a job often doesn't have the resources to move unless there's a job at the other end of the move.<
::Yep, that's part of the problem. Unlike our ancestors who hitched horses to wagons and headed West without having the foggiest idea what they'd find when they got there, people today (Americans, anyway) have simply become lazy and lost their sense of adventure. Well, not everyone: There's a certain 17 year-old who just circumnavigated the globe by himself on his own sailboat (which he bought & fixed with his own money made working after school, weekends and summers), the youngest person in the world to ever do so. He's from Thousand Oaks, CA, about ten miles from me.
73
Steve WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK: "But most have no clue as to what a good school system is, and 99% of how kids do in school, and what grades they get and what colleges might accept them, is based on their home life and not on the system."
N2EY: "No, that's just not true. Not for all kids, anyway. Most kids will learn a lot more in a school that's not falling apart, has adequate supplies and good teachers, and isn't full of drugs, violence, gangs and other destructive influences."
WB2WIK: "Maybe I've just been lucky. By kids all went to Blue Ribbon Charter public schools where the dropout rates were typically 0% and the only times the police ever had to visit were on Free Doughnut Days. And these are public schools."
Thanks for proving my point, Steve!
There ARE lots of great public schools in the USA - and lots of awful ones. That has an enormous impact on home prices, taxes, and where people choose to live.
N2EY: "Some may say that things like college admissions correlate more with family demographics, and that may be true - because the families with more resources send the kids to better schools."<
WB2WIK: "Could be."
I think it is.
WB2WIK: "Here in CA we have about 30 state universities which are excellent"
Every state should follow CA's lead on state universities. But such systems cost big money!
WB2WIK: "How can job access change if someone moves a few miles -- unless they walk to work?"
Some jobs require that the person live in a certain municipality.
Some people need to use transit rather than driving everywhere, and access to transit depends on where you live.
WB2WIK: "It's completely unfair, which is why taxpayers in CA revolted, and the result is Prop 13."
And a state that's bankrupt.
The Big Problem is that people have disconnected spending from taxation. People want the benefits of spending, like the state universities, public parks, freeways, a strong military, etc., but don't want to pay the taxes to support them. In CA, they created a bricks-without-straw situation, where one proposition limits taxes while another mandates spending.
WB2WIK: "Prop 13 keeps more than a million elderly people in the homes they have fully paid for years ago; if taxes kept up with inflation, most of them could not possibly afford to continue living in their own homes. Nuts!"
The result is that two identical, adjacent homes can have wildly different taxes simply because of how long the owners have lived in them. What you get is the newcomers subsidizing the long-termers - and a system that simply imploded.
WB2WIK: "But nothing ventured, nothing gained. I guess people who aren't risk-takers by nature lead more passive lives. It would drive me nuts, personally. ;-)"
The fundamental reason for the current recession is that too many people took too many risks.
WB2WIK: "House-swapping today is extremely common.... no transfer taxes;"
Sorry, in the places I know of that have RE transfer taxes, they still apply even for a swap.
The Big Problem with house swaps is the same as with barter: you have to find somebody who wants to do the deal. The person whose house you want may not want the house you're in. Etc.
WB2WIK: "homes with restrictive covenants do cost a bit less, and do not appreciate as quickly, as those that are covenant-free. It's only natural -- covenant-free housing is more desirable, for almost anyone who can think for himself. However, the disparity isn't very much, from what I can see."
From what I've seen, it can be considerable, particularly for homes that aren't brand new. One reason is the slower appreciation adds up over time; another is that people realize that while the house itself may cost less, the HOA fees and other costs more than make up the difference. For example, a friend of mine had to replace the front windows in his restricted house, and the rules required that they be EXACTLY the same as the ones that failed. But the manufacturer no longer made them, because they failed too often, so he had to have them custom made at a considerable premium in price, time and effort.
WB2WIK: "My kids had Life Skills courses in public school (HS) where they learn to write resumes; do budget planning; make stock investments; conduct real estate transactions;"
Thanks for proving my point yet again. Good schools teach such things, bad schools don't or can't.
WB2WIK: "the baby is an electromechanical doll..."
I've heard of them; from what I hear, the kids take the doll home with all smiles and cuddles, then bring it back a few days later with dark circles under their eyes, exhausted and burned-out from its demands. BWAAHAAHAA!
WB2WIK: "People who are investing in real estate should educate themselves. Tons of books available in every public library, free for borrowing. You needn't graduate from a R/E school or class to sit for the license exams."
Agreed, but the problem is that the game changes faster than the books do.
WB2WIK: "Now, isn't that silly? An example of being taxed, with nothing in return."
Don't get me started about silly taxes and govt. expenditures.
WB2WIK: "There's nothing like that here. Or anywhere I've lived, actually."
Point is, such taxes and fees do exist in some places, and raise the price of moving, even in the same community. They keep RE taxes down for those who don't move, at the expense of those who do.
WB2WIK: "one problem with a lot of folks is they have no idea if the grass is greener elsewhere, because they don't know anything about elsewhere."
True enough! But a lot of folks DO know about elsewhere.
WB2WIK: "Unlike our ancestors who hitched horses to wagons and headed West without having the foggiest idea what they'd find when they got there, people today (Americans, anyway) have simply become lazy and lost their sense of adventure."
No, that's not true. Not at all.
The folks who hitched horses to wagons and headed west had a very clear idea of what they expected to find when they got there. Sometimes the new place met their expectations, sometimes it didn't. Many of them never even got there, because they died on the way from disease, thirst, starvation, exposure, fire, flooding, attacks by Native Americans, etc., etc.
Those who went west did so for a number of reasons. Some went in search of cheap land. Some went in search of gold, silver, and other ways of getting rich fast. Some went to escape religious persecution, even in a country that claimed freedom of religion. Some went to escape having to fight in the Civil War. Some went to escape the law.
And some went for the adventure.
Taking risks and having adventures is great for those who succeed. For others it's not so great.
Americans are NOT lazy, nor have they lost a sense of adventure. They've simply had the deck stacked against them for a long time.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Well, not everyone: There's a certain 17 year-old who just circumnavigated the globe by himself on his own sailboat (which he bought & fixed with his own money made working after school, weekends and summers), the youngest person in the world to ever do so. He's from Thousand Oaks, CA, about ten miles from me.
73
Steve WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N2EY on July 24, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
WB2WIK: "Maybe I've just been lucky. By kids all went to Blue Ribbon Charter public schools where the dropout rates were typically 0% and the only times the police ever had to visit were on Free Doughnut Days. And these are public schools."
Thanks for proving my point, Steve!<
::My point is that public schools are exactly as good as private schools. The difference between the communities is minimal here, since we have this sprawling thing called LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District) which dictates that every single school is held to the same standards, has the same supplies, teachers hired with the same qualifications, paid at the same rate, etc. Some buildings are old, some are new, but there's not much difference once you get inside. How the kids actually perform is almost entirely up to their parents. I will never believe otherwise, after raising four kids.
>There ARE lots of great public schools in the USA - and lots of awful ones. That has an enormous impact on home prices, taxes, and where people choose to live.<
::I don't really believe that, and I've been in the R/E game a long time. If people buy houses for "the good school system," they are fools, and kidding themselves. Poor areas where the majority are single-parent households and working two jobs to keep the lights turned on suffer from poorer school performance because the parents aren't there to help the kids. Wealthier areas where there are more 2-parent households and the parents are home more, and more dedicated to helping their kids, have kids who perform better in school. There are exceptions, as there are exceptions to everything, but this is pretty much the way it is.
>WB2WIK: "Here in CA we have about 30 state universities which are excellent"
Every state should follow CA's lead on state universities. But such systems cost big money!<
::Of course they do. CA's budget problems are probably resolved for the time being with a new budget that actually increases student fees and makes some cuts, but this was a long time coming. Remember we have 27 universities here ranked in the "Top 500 Universities in the World" on every major list published by every country on the planet, and for the past several decades, tuition was literally "free" for those who couldn't afford to pay it (if they were CA residents). That costs a lot of money to maintain, but what a great investment. I'd rather cut almost everything else and leave that in place, because it's the best investment in our future we could possibly make.
>WB2WIK: "How can job access change if someone moves a few miles -- unless they walk to work?"
Some jobs require that the person live in a certain municipality.
Some people need to use transit rather than driving everywhere, and access to transit depends on where you live.<
::That's silly. Moving a few miles won't change access to public transportation, other than maybe one more bus change. I don't know of any job that requires a person to live in any particular municipality. Maybe "mayor" or "city administrator?" Very few jobs have such a requirement.
>WB2WIK: "Prop 13 keeps more than a million elderly people in the homes they have fully paid for years ago; if taxes kept up with inflation, most of them could not possibly afford to continue living in their own homes. Nuts!"
The result is that two identical, adjacent homes can have wildly different taxes simply because of how long the owners have lived in them.<
::AFAIC, that's exactly how it should be. No other system is nearly as fair. Adjacent homes having wildly different taxes is not unusual anywhere in the country. I already gave a real-life example of how it was for me in New Jersey, where I paid double the taxes of my neighbor with an identical home and property directly across the street, simply because he was in a different township. To me, THAT is what's ridiculous. Paying based on the actual cost of the home when it was purchased, and not what it might be worth "today" is the only thing that makes sense. People cannot be responsible for variations in the housing market, and find themselves waking up to a $50K tax bill simply because the market bubbled.
>WB2WIK: "But nothing ventured, nothing gained. I guess people who aren't risk-takers by nature lead more passive lives. It would drive me nuts, personally. ;-)"
The fundamental reason for the current recession is that too many people took too many risks.<
::Think so? I can't blame the public. I can blame lots of entities. I had stock in Worldcom and Enron. People invested in "securities" that weren't, and should have been more closely regulated. Banks loaned people money they obviously couldn't afford to pay back, and a lot of those people had no idea what they were getting into. It wasn't risk-taking, it was just bad judgment. Risk-taking is wondering if the world is really round, and getting on a sailboat to find out if you'll go over the edge or not.
>WB2WIK: "House-swapping today is extremely common.... no transfer taxes;"
Sorry, in the places I know of that have RE transfer taxes, they still apply even for a swap.<
::Where the heck is that? Certainly no place I'd ever want to live! Here in CA, there is no RE transfer tax. When I lived in NJ, MA and FL, there weren't any there, either.
>The Big Problem with house swaps is the same as with barter: you have to find somebody who wants to do the deal. The person whose house you want may not want the house you're in. Etc.<
::Well, of course! It's an exercise in compatibility, as are all barters. But it does work, and it's very popular here.
>WB2WIK: "My kids had Life Skills courses in public school (HS) where they learn to write resumes; do budget planning; make stock investments; conduct real estate transactions;"
Thanks for proving my point yet again. Good schools teach such things, bad schools don't or can't.<
::I don't think there are bad schools. I haven't come across any. I think there are unmotivated students, the products of unmotivated parents.
>WB2WIK: "People who are investing in real estate should educate themselves. Tons of books available in every public library, free for borrowing. You needn't graduate from a R/E school or class to sit for the license exams."
Agreed, but the problem is that the game changes faster than the books do.<
::Not really. Actually once you have an R/E license, it's good for life. The rules don't change often. Only a nincompoop wouldn't keep up with the minor changes that do occur, because they don't occur often, and they're easy to understand.
>WB2WIK: "There's nothing like that here. Or anywhere I've lived, actually."
Point is, such taxes and fees do exist in some places, and raise the price of moving, even in the same community. They keep RE taxes down for those who don't move, at the expense of those who do.<
::This is more the exception than the rule in most of the United States. I've lived lots of places. I've never even heard of a R/E transfer tax before.
>WB2WIK: "one problem with a lot of folks is they have no idea if the grass is greener elsewhere, because they don't know anything about elsewhere."
True enough! But a lot of folks DO know about elsewhere.<
::If they do, then they should be living in Utopia, or looking to move elsewhere.
>WB2WIK: "Unlike our ancestors who hitched horses to wagons and headed West without having the foggiest idea what they'd find when they got there, people today (Americans, anyway) have simply become lazy and lost their sense of adventure."
No, that's not true. Not at all.
The folks who hitched horses to wagons and headed west had a very clear idea of what they expected to find when they got there.<
::I don't agree. Think the Donner expedition knew what was ahead of them? That's just one example, there are thousands. In reality, most didn't. They heard "lots of land, lots of opportunities," and they gave it a shot.
>Taking risks and having adventures is great for those who succeed. For others it's not so great.<
::Of course! That's why it's called a "risk." Some work out, some don't. But for those who haven't taken any...they have no idea what they might be missing! IMO, that applies to life, love, housing, jobs...everything.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KX9RJ on July 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I used to work for a medical device company. We had a vice-president who came from another company which had done extensive human factors study on user interfaces for entering data into instruments. The goals were to establish the most efficient and least error-prone method - in other words, being fast and correct. The best combination found was a linear "analog" slider combined with a rotary "analog" knob, and a digital display, with no keypad! They found that the experienced clinician would yank the slider to the approximate data value, then fine-tune with the knob, all while watching the digits in the display. This eliminated errors due to keypad bounce or repeated keypresses, and was more exact than a pointing device such as a stylus (or mouse).
I also worked at the student station while in college (KCOU). Anyone who has had to "run combo" (operate the control board and DJ) at a broadcast radio station appreciates the value of rotary knobs. You can read copy (news or ad), and simultaneously operate the control board without looking at it. You simply reach for the knob (which position you learn by feel) and rotate it for volume control. You can do this blind, with experience. Linear sliders don't work here because you would have to look at the slider to see how far up or down it is, and then you can't read your copy. The angle of your hand on a rotary knob does not require vision - you know its position by feel. The huge Voice of America knobs on the old Gatesway board are classic!
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK writes: "My point is that public schools are exactly as good as private schools."
Sorry, that's too broad a statement. What matters is the schools a particular family can manage send their kids to.
WB2WIK: "The difference between the communities is minimal here, since we have this sprawling thing called LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District) which dictates that every single school is held to the same standards, has the same supplies, teachers hired with the same qualifications, paid at the same rate, etc."
I know, and that's a wonderful thing. As I understand it, a family can move anywhere in the LAUSD and the kids can stay in the same school as long as the parents can get them there (if the school is beyond a certain distance). And the LAUSD is an enormous district, both geographically and in the number of students.
Unfortunately, most of the USA doesn't have school districts like that. In fact, I suspect that LAUSD is unique.
In almost all of the USA, school districts are based on a municipality or two. Their funding, quality of education, supplies, teachers and other factors vary from truly excellent to simply awful.
WB2WIK: "How the kids actually perform is almost entirely up to their parents."
In LAUSD, with its uniform funding, supplies, etc., that's probably true.
Elsewhere, there are other factors.
WB2WIK: "I will never believe otherwise, after raising four kids."
Hardly a representative sample ;-)
What happens in other places is that the involved parents who can afford to move go to municipalities with good public schools. Or they send their kinds to good private schools. So the same principle of parent-determination operates, just in a different way.
The side effect is that a house in an excellent public school district often costs more than one in a not-so-hot school district. A lot of that is because people will pay more to live in the better school district.
That's the reality in most places.
Here's just one real-life example:
A local ham I know moved from one house to another in the Philly suburbs. Houses and yards about the same size, both on quiet streets, older but in good condition, etc. Same county (Delaware).
But the house the ham bought cost more than twice as much as the house the ham sold.
The reason for the move: School district. And it has paid off.
WB2WIK: "CA's budget problems are probably resolved for the time being with a new budget that actually increases student fees and makes some cuts, but this was a long time coming."
The question is whether or not it's a long-term fix, or a temporary band-aid fix.
WB2WIK: "tuition was literally "free" for those who couldn't afford to pay it (if they were CA residents). That costs a lot of money to maintain, but what a great investment."
I agree 100%.
But not everyone can, or should, move to CA.
WB2WIK: "Moving a few miles won't change access to public transportation, other than maybe one more bus change."
Yes, it can. Much of the country has no transit at all. In others, that "one more bus change" can add a lot of time to a commute.
WB2WIK: "Prop 13 keeps more than a million elderly people in the homes they have fully paid for years ago; if taxes kept up with inflation, most of them could not possibly afford to continue living in their own homes."
I don't think that's true. People's incomes, including Social Security, have increased over time.
And remember that those people have paid off their houses, so unlike younger folks they don't have the added burden of mortgage plus taxes.
The bigger question is how much the young should subsidize the old. "Senior citizens" already get discounts and benefits in a wide variety of ways. Many of them are independent of their income or assets. Meanwhile younger folks are taxed more and charged more to make up the difference.
I'm not saying all the discounts, tax breaks and other goodies (like Medicare and Social Security) should go away. But there should be some sort of limit on how much burden younger people have to bear so the old folks can get goodies REGARDLESS OF INCOME OR ASSETS.
N2EY: "The result is that two identical, adjacent homes can have wildly different taxes simply because of how long the owners have lived in them."
WB2WIK: "AFAIC, that's exactly how it should be. No other system is nearly as fair."
Why should it be that way? What it does is to reward those who don't move, at the expense of those who do.
WB2WIK: "I paid double the taxes of my neighbor with an identical home and property directly across the street, simply because he was in a different township. To me, THAT is what's ridiculous."
The only way to avoid that would be to have one uniform tax code for the entire country. Otherwise, you'll always have tax oddities because of political boundaries.
WB2WIK: "Paying based on the actual cost of the home when it was purchased, and not what it might be worth "today" is the only thing that makes sense.
People cannot be responsible for variations in the housing market, and find themselves waking up to a $50K tax bill simply because the market bubbled."
There's a middle ground to all that.
The fair way is this:
First, there needs to be better regulation to avoid booms and busts in real estate. The current problems, and the bubble that preceded them, are a direct result of lack of regulation of mortgages.
Second, houses should be tax-assessed based on fair market value. But they should not be reassessed every ten minutes! More like every ten years, or when there's a considerable change to the property.
Third, the reassessment/tax rate process should be revenue-neutral. What this means is that an increase in a property's assessment should not necessarily mean more taxes unless the property has been significantly improved.
The way this works around here is as follows:
Whenever a property is significantly improved or downgraded, the assessment is changed to reflect that. For example, an addition to a house results in an assessment based on the percentage of value the addition would make to the price of the house. If a home is torn down and not rebuilt, the assessment drops to the value of the land. Etc.
Every 10 years, all the homes in the township are reassessed at fair market value. The tax *rate* is then adjusted so that the total tax collected for the entire township is the same as it was before the reassessments. This prevents the township from getting windfalls from RE bubbles or shortfalls from hard times.
If the township needs more money, the politicians have to behave like responsible adults, make the case, and pass the required tax increases. And take the heat for them. They cannot hide behind accounting tricks, propositions, party lines, etc. Those who live in the township know they have to pay for the things they want; they don't just fall out of the sky.
The result has been that we don't see enormous RE tax jumps. And we have lots of ordinary folks living in homes they bought 30, 40, 50 years ago.
From what I see of the CA budget mess, the Big Problem is that people want lots of benefits (like the state university system) but don't want to pay for them. That's how a child behaves, not a responsible adult.
More to come...
This does have a direct connection to SDRs and many things related to ham radio. The connection is this: There's resistance to change, based on the experience of changes not going well. There's a promotion of change, based on the idea that progress requires change. And there's a limit to what people can do, because almost nobody has infinite resources, and many people have limited resources.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY: "The fundamental reason for the current recession is that too many people took too many risks."
WB2WIK: "Think so?"
It's exactly what happened. Perhaps it would be better stated as "took too many bad risks" or "took on too much risk"
N2EY: "I can't blame the public. I can blame lots of entities. I had stock in Worldcom and Enron. People invested in "securities" that weren't, and should have been more closely regulated."
Not just regulated, but prosecuted for wrongdoing.
But we've been told for almost 30 years that "regulation" and "big government" were the Bad Guys who were opposed to The American Way.
I seem to remember a former governor of CA who got elected and reelected to the White House on those ideas. Now it turns out they weren't such good ideas in the first place.
WB2WIK: "Banks loaned people money they obviously couldn't afford to pay back, and a lot of those people had no idea what they were getting into."
Nope.
What happened is:
1) The lenders had access to cheap-and-easy money, and made their profit up-front. Then they sold the loans, good and bad, to others.
2) The borrowers were convinced (by a variety of sources) that the old rules about credit limits, boom and bust cycles, etc., didn't apply anymore. And for a while, that was sort-of true.
People bought houses with short-term ARMs, and when they had to refinance, found that interest rates had gone down and their income had risen, so the risk turned out to be a good one.
People bought houses at the right time and place, sold them a few years later and made serious $$ on the deal.
Trouble is, the game didn't last forever.
WB2WIK: "It wasn't risk-taking, it was just bad judgment."
It was both. Hindsight is 20-20.
WB2WIK: "Risk-taking is wondering if the world is really round, and getting on a sailboat to find out if you'll go over the edge or not."
No, that's bad judgement, because their are much easier and less-dangerous ways to show that the earth is round. Just watch an eclipse; that's one way.
N2EY: "in the places I know of that have RE transfer taxes, they still apply even for a swap."
WB2WIK:"Where the heck is that?"
The township I live in has them, for one. Don't try to fool them by selling your homes to each other for $1, either; they're wise to that trick.
WB2WIK: "Here in CA, there is no RE transfer tax. When I lived in NJ, MA and FL, there weren't any there, either."
That's only four states out of fifty.
But that's not the point.
The point is that such things DO exist in some places. And as extensive as your experience may be, some of your statements about the various aspects of RE don't apply everywhere. Or even in most places outside CA or LAX.
WB2WIK:"I don't think there are bad schools."
Well, that depends on how you define "bad". Perhaps it would be clearer to state "schools that don't/can't educate to the level needed by 21st century students"
WB2WIK: "I haven't come across any."
How many have you had to deal with, directly, outside LAX, in the past 30 years or so?
WB2WIK: "I think there are unmotivated students, the products of unmotivated parents."
I agree 100%. But it is not just the parents who are responsible for the lack of motivation.
N2EY: "the problem is that the game changes faster than the books do."
WB2WIK: "Not really. Actually once you have an R/E license, it's good for life. The rules don't change often."
What I mean is that the person who isn't in the RE game professionally can have a difficult time figuring out which new things are good and which are real trouble.
For example, why weren't there regulations in place 5 years ago to prevent people from getting in over their heads? Such rules used to exist; many people found that the banks simply would not lend them more than a certain amount of money to buy a house, and that they had to provide extensive documentation of income and assets to get any mortgage in the first place. Where did those rules go?
N2EY: "such taxes and fees do exist in some places, and raise the price of moving, even in the same community. They keep RE taxes down for those who don't move, at the expense of those who do."
WB2WIK: "This is more the exception than the rule in most of the United States."
Probably, but the point is that the exceptions do exist - and in more than a few places.
WB2WIK: "I've lived lots of places. I've never even heard of a R/E transfer tax before."
How recently have you lived outside of LAX or CA?
N2EY: "The folks who hitched horses to wagons and headed west had a very clear idea of what they expected to find when they got there."
WB2WIK: "I don't agree. Think the Donner expedition knew what was ahead of them?"
They knew what they expected to find on the other side of the mountains. They knew a lot about what it would take to get there.
What happened to the Donner party is that they made mistakes about when to cross the mountains and which route to take. And the weather caught them.
If they'd been just a few days earlier, we'd have never heard of them, because they would have made it across without trouble.
WB2WIK: "But for those who haven't taken any...they have no idea what they might be missing! IMO, that applies to life, love, housing, jobs...everything."
Of course! But the question still arises as to which risks to take and which to avoid.
This relates to ham radio in several ways, but the most relevant is what has happened to ham rigs since the end of WW2.
Some rigs turned out to be real performers, while others were lemons. Some rigs kept their value well for many years, others didn't. Some rigs earned a reputation for reliability, giving decades of good service, while others became hangar queens, always in need of something.
And there have been a parade of new technologies that never went anywhere, new companies that folded and left no support behind, new rigs that became all but worthless and useless very quickly.
Some rigs have even come full circle, with their value dropping to nearly nothing, then recovering to the point where they often sell for more than they cost new.
Such things are a major reason hams tend not to want to spend big bucks on the latest technology. While the numbers aren't as big as in RE, most hams don't have big budgets for rigs, and don't want to be stuck.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W1RKW on July 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Remember the expression, "What a waste of bandwidth"? Glad high speed internet is cheap.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, "resistance to, or embracing change" is surely relevant in these side discussions.
SDRs are the way of the future and there's no reason a great SDR cannot have a physical user interface instead of, or in addition to, a GUI. I prefer a PUI rather than a GUI, and I'd probably prefer the "rig" to be self-contained rather than an extension of a computer, so it can be more portable and be transported more easily. I expect mobile rigs will be SDRs at some point in the future.
Re physical locations and relocations, Americans don't travel as much as people from many other parts of the world, that's for certain. Not exactly sure why. When I'm on the air, I note, for example, that just about 100% of the JAs I work have been to the U.S., most "many" times. I doubt 10% of the American hams I work have ever been to Japan. Most of the Europeans I work have been here and even have their favorite restaurants and hangouts in L.A., New York City or wherever. I don't think 20% of the American hams I work have ever been to Europe at all.
What's even more astonishing to me is how many American hams I work who haven't traveled much beyond their own backyards. I log some of this info in the "comments" section of my logbook. Many notes stating, "Never been west of the Mississippi River," or "only time been to California was when he was in the service, and it was a stopover on the way to Vietnam" or similar.
A lot of U.S. hams I contact state they know Los Angeles because they've been to the airport. ;-)
Oh well.
I wouldn't encourage anyone move to CA unless it was for a job opportunity or they had kids approaching college age and want to meet the 3-year residency requirement to get them into a University at very low cost, or possibly free. That's not a bad reason, but all the chips need to fall into place.
I moved for the WX, myself. Really no other reason.
I like having to decide which T-shirt to wear each day, even in January, and taking midnight swims with the XYL throughout the year.
It's definitely not for everybody. We have to drive several hours to go skiing, for example. It would be nice if the snow was closer, sometimes.
73
Steve WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K7PEH on July 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't know why we should let Jim have all the fun in debating these issues with Steve so I am going to throw in my two-cents worth.
Steve Says >>> Re physical locations and relocations, Americans don't travel as much as people from many other parts of the world, that's for certain. Not exactly sure why. When I'm on the air, I note, for example, that just about 100% of the JAs I work have been to the U.S., most "many" times. I doubt 10% of the American hams I work have ever been to Japan. Most of the Europeans I work have been here and even have their favorite restaurants and hangouts in L.A., New York City or wherever. I don't think 20% of the American hams I work have ever been to Europe at all.
Steve, I think you are missing out on one little thing. The US is the destination for about the whole world. Given that fact, we native Americans don't have to travel, we are already here.
More seriously though, people travel to the US for a lot of reasons but I suggest that two rank very high: higher education and business. If you removed those reasons for travel of all travelers in the world I am willing to bet that Americans travel more then citizens from any other country. And, in saying this I must also say that a German traveling from Germany to France, or even Spain for that matter does not count. I travel farther then that just to get to most other states in the US.
Another related comment -- I was a member of an international standards group (an XML dialect used for the power industry) and I was the US representative. Other members were from Norway, Germany, Austria, England, and France. The language of all meetings, and all written papers, were in English. The guys from Norway spoke English better then I did though and everyone was fluent although the French engineers had the most difficulty. Our meetings were always in Europe though, actually, always in Germany, France, or England.
Steve says >>> A lot of U.S. hams I contact state they know Los Angeles because they've been to the airport. ;-)
Yes, I have been there. I have been to all the airports (the major ones) in the greater LA area (I was at the Ontario airport in the middle of June and it had changed quite a bit since the last time I was there.
But, I do know the LA area as I attended a summer session at UCLA in 1968 and spent most of my time wandering around the area. Those were great memories -- my uncle, who lived in Thousand Oaks, loaned me his car for my use that summer.
Steve says >>> I moved for the WX, myself. Really no other reason.
I moved from California (San Jose) to the greater Seattle area in 1978 because of the WX. The entire year, prior to that move, it did not rain in SJ. I had heard rumors that they had rain up in the Seattle area so we packed up and moved. OK, not the real reason we moved but we do like the WX better in the Seattle area. Right now, it is 86 degrees, tomorrow it is supposed to be 90 and by Wednesday they are suggesting the temperature will hit triple digits. No, not the WX I wanted but we get this too from time to time.
Steve says >>> I like having to decide which T-shirt to wear each day, even in January, and taking midnight swims with the XYL throughout the year.
That is all I wear. My standard dress for work or play: t-shirts and levi jeans. You can do that here and be quite comfortable. You can even take a midnight swim but not many swimming pools here -- Lake Washington is just about 10 minutes from my house. Lake Sammamish is about 10 minutes from my house (oh, these times are traveling at midnight when there is no traffic). These are big lakes: Lake Washington is about 25 miles long, average of 3 miles wide. Lake Sammamish is about 20 miles long, average of 3 miles wide.
Steve says >>> It's definitely not for everybody. We have to drive several hours to go skiing, for example. It would be nice if the snow was closer, sometimes.
A number of years ago a few guys from my team at work and I would be bored with work so we would go skiing. It was a 45 minute drive from our office to Snoqualmie Pass where there were three major ski areas. Also, during the middle of the week like that, absolutely no lines for the ski lifts.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK writes: "SDRs are the way of the future and there's no reason a great SDR cannot have a physical user interface instead of, or in addition to, a GUI."
I think SDRs are *a* way of the future, but maybe not *the* way of the future.
WB2WIK: "I prefer a PUI rather than a GUI, and I'd probably prefer the "rig" to be self-contained rather than an extension of a computer, so it can be more portable and be transported more easily."
AGREED!
WB2WIK: "Americans don't travel as much as people from many other parts of the world, that's for certain. Not exactly sure why."
1) Distance. In much of the USA, it's a fur piece to a foreign country, and besides the Caribbean islands the choices are few (Canada, Mexico). In Europe, there are lots of foreign countries that are not at all far away.
The USA is also so big that even getting from one end of CONUS to the other is quite a trip compared to, say, Oslo to Athens.
Such distances increase the cost and time to the point that many Americans just stay home.
2) Language/education. Most native-born middle-class-and-up Americans are only fluent in American English (if that!), while in many countries it's common to speak two or more languages, and not just from a year or two of high school classes. While lots of people everywhere do speak English, the language issue does slow Americans down.
3) Transportation. America is still definitely a car-centric culture, with air transport for long distance/over water/high speed travel. Yes, other options exist, but they're not nearly so available as in Europe or elsewhere.
So when Americans think about going someplace, their natural thought is how far of a drive it is, or how much plane tickets cost, plus a car rental at the far end.
But in other countries, the rail and transit systems, combined with the shorter distances, open up all sorts of low-cost, easy travel opportunities.
4) Exchange rate. The US dollar isn't as all-powerful as it was years ago, making foreign travel more expensive. I got a clear example of this last summer, when I went to NYC for a day of tourism and a show. Everywhere I went, there were folks from the UK. Met a nice bunch from Manchester on the observation deck of the Empire State building, more walking up Broadway, and at the theatre, the whole row in front of me was an extended family from outside London on holiday. Turned out that, for them, seeing a show in NYC was cheaper than similar tickets in London!
5) Fear of crime. I don't know how US crime statistics compare to those of other countries, but I do know that people I've met from Europe and Japan are astonished at how afraid Americans are of being the victims of crime, particularly violent crime. If people are afraid at home, how much scarier is a foreign place?
6) Culture. A lot of Americans are absolutely convinced that the USA, or for that matter their little part of it, has the best of everything, in every way, and there's no reason to go anywhere else. "We're #1" is a hard mindset to change.
(This comes out very clearly when folks try to talk about health-care reform; many Americans simply refuse to believe that other countries may have better systems than we do, no matter what information is presented. Often the image of other countries' healthcare is a mishmash of old info from many different places all rolled into one.)
There's also the faux "foreign" culture of DisneyInc. Millions of Americans consider the pilgrimage to Disney World/EPCOT to be the dream vacation. (I dunno about Disneyland; from what I saw in 1980 it was just an amusement park).
Some families I know have gone to DW multiple times, even to the point of going EVERY YEAR. Yet the same folks have never been to Europe, or even Canada, despite the fact that Canada is much closer to them, and Europe would cost about the same. (Plus if they go to the UK or Ireland, everyone speaks English anyway.)
And now the big one:
6) Lack of time off from work. America consistently ranks at the bottom of paid-time-off allowed to workers in developed countries. Often the limited time off allowed to an American worker must also be used for sick time, child/elder care, home maintenance and other projects as well as vacation.
To really get to know a place, one needs to spend some time there. Between the limited time off, the long distances and the exchange rate, that's simply not in the cards for many Americans.
WB2WIK: "What's even more astonishing to me is how many American hams I work who haven't traveled much beyond their own backyards."
The same factors I listed above can apply to travel within the USA as to foreign countries. You'd think that most Americans would have at least visited many places within, say, 1000 driving miles of home. But the above factors conspire against it.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N2EY on July 26, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
WB2WIK: "Americans don't travel as much as people from many other parts of the world, that's for certain. Not exactly sure why."
1) Distance. In much of the USA, it's a fur piece to a foreign country, and besides the Caribbean islands the choices are few (Canada, Mexico). In Europe, there are lots of foreign countries that are not at all far away.<
::Sure, I get that. But I work stations in the Philippines, Singapore, Australia -- everywhere -- who have all been to the States. How many of "us" have been there? (Well, I have, but one reason is my wife is a "DU" and we go back to visit her family.) Even my 22 year-old daughter has been to Guam, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Japan and the Philippines after taking a 6-month working stint in Guam earlier this year. This is "real" travel. Visiting the Grand Canyon or Disney World isn't.
<6) Culture. A lot of Americans are absolutely convinced that the USA, or for that matter their little part of it, has the best of everything, in every way, and there's no reason to go anywhere else. "We're #1" is a hard mindset to change.<
::I do agree with that, and it's very sad. We're not #1. We're just another place to be born, to live, and to die. Those who haven't traveled much have absolutely no idea what they're missing, or what opportunities they're missing. Life could easily be better someplace else, but if you don't go there, it's impossible to know.
>6) Lack of time off from work. America consistently ranks at the bottom of paid-time-off allowed to workers in developed countries. Often the limited time off allowed to an American worker must also be used for sick time, child/elder care, home maintenance and other projects as well as vacation.<
::Well, that is a problem, and I tend to agree. I know my uncle in Munich has 16 weeks paid vacation, after working for Pepsi Cola Bottling Company there (as a mechanical engineer) for 25 years. 16 weeks! They "start out" with 4 weeks off, and it grows from there. That's a lot of time off, with pay. Americans don't get this, you're right.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK: "This is "real" travel. Visiting the Grand Canyon or Disney World isn't."
I think the Grand Canyon could qualify as "real" travel. Definitely not Disney World.
WB2WIK: "We're not #1. We're just another place to be born, to live, and to die."
I think the USA is #1 in a lot of things. But not #1 in everything!
Ironically, one of the major factors that drove America's success was the willingness to adopt and improve things developed elsewhere. For example, our language and much of our governmental structure were copied from Britain.
WB2WIK: "Those who haven't traveled much have absolutely no idea what they're missing, or what opportunities they're missing."
Or what good ideas could be brought back from those places.
WB2WIK: "my uncle in Munich has 16 weeks paid vacation, after working for Pepsi Cola Bottling Company there (as a mechanical engineer) for 25 years. 16 weeks! They "start out" with 4 weeks off, and it grows from there."
I suspect that most Americans don't get 16 *days* of paid vacation. From what I've been told by folks who live there, the French and many others consider anything less than 4 weeks vacation to be barbaric.
The sum total of all these factors is that, for many Americans, travel beyond a certain distance/time circle is simply not a realistic option.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N2EY on July 27, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
WB2WIK: "This is "real" travel. Visiting the Grand Canyon or Disney World isn't."
I think the Grand Canyon could qualify as "real" travel. Definitely not Disney World.<
::The Grand Canyon is a worthy visit, but it's only one of our dozens of National Parks. I think it's worth seeing all of them, and with my family, we have. It took more than fifteen years to knock them all off, but as a result the kids have been to AK and HI, and ME to FL, across TX to southern CA and back up the coast to WA. Not sure we have a common "favorite," each of us has his/her own favorite. But from Acadia to Zion, we've visited them all. Cost: Very little. Experience: Priceless.
>WB2WIK: "Those who haven't traveled much have absolutely no idea what they're missing, or what opportunities they're missing."
Or what good ideas could be brought back from those places.<
;:Exactly. Many places "do it better" than the U.S., although overall -- all things considered -- the U.S. is a great place to live. It's also a really big place to live, with an awful lot to see and experience. Pity many "foreigners" have seen more of it than most Americans have.
>WB2WIK: "my uncle in Munich has 16 weeks paid vacation, after working for Pepsi Cola Bottling Company there (as a mechanical engineer) for 25 years. 16 weeks! They "start out" with 4 weeks off, and it grows from there."
I suspect that most Americans don't get 16 *days* of paid vacation. From what I've been told by folks who live there, the French and many others consider anything less than 4 weeks vacation to be barbaric.<
::A lot of Europe simply shuts down for a month in the hottest part of summer and everybody's on vacation. I suppose one reason is a lot of places in EU aren't air conditioned. An amazing number of places aren't.
>The sum total of all these factors is that, for many Americans, travel beyond a certain distance/time circle is simply not a realistic option.<
::If we all made it our goal, it would be very realistic. Example: Instead of buying that new car, maintain the old one and take a $5K vacation somewhere. Never know, you might find someplace you like a lot better than where you live, and end up moving there for the overall betterment of your family!
We moved here without having a clue as to what we'd do when we got here, although I'd been to L.A. dozens of times, just visiting. We didn't have any family here, and only a few friends. No job, or even any interviews lined up. We just knew we wanted to be here.
It all worked out.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on July 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Probably the difference is in the feeling of accomplishment. In SDR you select a frequency by the click of the mouse and everything is done for you. Yes I know there are lots of bells and whisles you can play with so dont get upset at that statemen.In tuning a radio the old way it takes some skill to optimize the radio although in many cases it isn't called for. It's kind of like flying, if your into that, what fun is it to get on an airplane and have someone else fly it, even if you own it, specially if you own it hihi. I would rather fly on instruments because I like the challenge of turning the knobs and controlling the aircraft to see how exactly I can follow the planned route on instruments without computers actually selecting the course and flying it. I totally enjoy the radio by physically controlling it myself,(non SDR), I also have two SDR receivers that put most high end receivers to shame including the ft950, 2000 and even the ICOM 7800 and ft9000. I use them when observing other stations. They even tell me the bandwidth of the signal because they aren't filter limited to 3k although I can adjust it down to 10 cycles if I wish. Static crashes, in SDR a thing of the past for the most part. Power line noise is reduced to almost nothing in SDR. SDR has its place in the ham shack, it is outstanding in pulling in stations you cant even see on an ICOM spectrum display but I still prefer the knobs myself although I use both
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC9EOT, interesting comments but don't confuse DSP with SDR (it kind of sounded like you were discussing "both" at the same time).
Lots of "all hardware and lots of knobs" rigs use DSP, in fact nowadays it's standard on all HF transceivers, implemented in various ways with varying frills and success. The noise blanking and filtering abilities you discuss are all based on DSP, with or without SDR.
Only difference is in most of the standard DSP rigs, the code that makes them work is embedded (firmware) and may or may not be field upgradable; also the popular SDRs use code that's open source so the whole world can contribute to improvements, not just the original equipment manufacturer.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W9AC on July 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And still some of us have not embraced some SDR designs because T/R switching time (e.g., CW QSK) is still not fast enough to satisfy our desire to send at QRQ speeds with the ability to hear between keyed elements. Seemingly, transmission in *TOR modes is another limitation of the design. For example, according to the data I've seen from Flex, the T/R switching time of the 5000A is roughly twice that of non-SDR and quasi-SDR receivers.
For this one reason, I will likely wait for the implementation of a true direct-RF-sampling transceiver with the SDR/DSP functioning at the firmware level, and mostly independent of the PC. The ADAT ADT-200A is one such SDR transceiver now in full production. With positive reviews from folks like Ulrich Rhode, it's got my attention. Moreover, feedback from Phil Covington indicates that a forthcoming companion TX module to the existing QSR1 receiver will offer T/R times in 8 ms range.
I'm sure Flex will ultimately push processing power to direct RF-sampling as well -- it's just a matter of time. They are so far ahead on the commercial learning curve that when they do offer a more advanced product, they can utilize all their past successes and failures to produce a really competent transceiver.
Others have suggested a plug-in panel device for us ops who have a fixation for switches and knobs. I've suggested that to a few manufacturers, including non-SDR rig manufacturers like Kenwood where the TS-480 could be offered with a larger detachable panel option. Such an option would likely increase base station sales of a rig primarily intended for the mobile and portable markets. As W9OY points out, at least one 3rd-party vendor has begun to take up that challenge.
All of the above said, I have to further agree with K8AC who advocates the use of a panel and/or knob option for SDR transceivers. The rig would work fine without a panel for those who no longer see the need. And for those of us who do, we'll pay the incremental cost for the option. It's a win-win for all involved.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<don't confuse DSP with SDR (it kind of sounded like you were discussing "both" at the same time)
What is an "SDR" can be confusing, as I have seen a lot of different views on this. Terms such as "Firmware Defined radio" and "DSP Only Radio" can make for good marketing, but a commonly accepted definition is that SDR's can be "implemented using software on a personal computer or other embedded computing devices" (Definition from Wikipedia). I would think that even if "the code that makes them work is embedded (firmware)", they would still fit that definition, if that code does Detection, AGC, Filtering (same as the Flex). Many Cell Phones are considered SDR's and I believe that the FCC considers many other devices that have firmware as being SDR's. Depending on what definition of "SDR" is accepted, we already have a number of SDR radios with knobs on the market today.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Remember Wikipedia is written entirely by the public, so you or I can change the definition any time we wish.
I think an SDR is one whose features are defined entirely by the software, thus its features and performance can be easily changed via code. It could have its own built in computer, or an outboard one. Flex and others have chosen "outboard," to keep the price point of the hardware they're selling very attractive. Obviously, a Flex SDR if complete with the computer and high grade monitor will cost much more than $1000 in addition to the "box" itself. That part is just "marketing," and it's not bad.
Now that many highly integrated ASICs have hundreds of functions on single chips, it would be possible to make a self-contained, very elegant SDR in a single package for pretty low cost: Watch this space, I'm sure it's coming.
I think it would be possible to make the whole rig at QRP level (maybe 5W output) the size of an average notebook computer. The 100W PA would take extra space and require extra power, but the "low power" version could be that self-contained, and also that small.
That would get my interest.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N2EY on July 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY: "I suspect that most Americans don't get 16 *days* of paid vacation."
WB2WIK: "A lot of Europe simply shuts down for a month in the hottest part of summer and everybody's on vacation. I suppose one reason is a lot of places in EU aren't air conditioned. An amazing number of places aren't."
The USA used to be like that, and yet we didn't shut down. I suspect that most of Europe doesn't get that warm in summer anyway. Not usually, either.
I think it's really a cultural choice.
It should also be remembered that in much of the rest of the developed world the societal support for families is much greater than in the US. (We talk a lot about 'family values' but policy works against them). Things like paid family leave, affordable child care, elder care, retirement, serious long-term financial support for education up through university level, trade schools and much more are all over the place elsewhere. This means a person's vacation time really gets used for vacation, rather than hoarded in case someone gets sick, etc.
N2EY: "The sum total of all these factors is that, for many Americans, travel beyond a certain distance/time circle is simply not a realistic option."
WB2WIK: "If we all made it our goal, it would be very realistic."
Not for everyone. But for a lot more Americans.
WB2WIK: "Example: Instead of buying that new car, maintain the old one and take a $5K vacation somewhere."
That's fine if it's an option. But a lot of folks can just afford to keep the old buggy running, and only buy a new one (which only be 'new' to them) when there's no other option. And for most Americans, a car is in the 'necessity' category, while travel is in the 'luxury' category.
There's also the "stuff" factor, meaning that for many people it's easier to spend money on an object than on an experience.
WB2WIK: "Never know, you might find someplace you like a lot better than where you live, and end up moving there for the overall betterment of your family!"
Yep. Or, you might discover that you REALLY like it better where you are!
There's a connection to SDRs in that. If a ham gets an SDR and doesn't like it, s/he can always sell it and go back to a "conventional" rig. Perhaps what stops some is that they'll lose some money in the process, which means they paid money for an experience rather than a thing.
WB2WIK: "We moved here without having a clue as to what we'd do when we got here, although I'd been to L.A. dozens of times, just visiting. We didn't have any family here, and only a few friends. No job, or even any interviews lined up. We just knew we wanted to be here."
When did you move? I'm glad it worked out for you.
I've been to LAX and other parts of CA, and while I like certain aspects, I wouldn't choose to live there. The natural disasters (earthquakes, mudslides, fires) are one reason. Smog, traffic, high cost of living and the lack of seasonal change are others. Plus in LAX and surrounding areas you're totally dependent on Hoover Dam; if something ever happened to it, your water supply would be reduced to a trickle and millions would have to move really quick.
For me the real deal-killer is the mismanagement of basic things. Like the totally predictable and avoidable electricity deregulation mess of a few years back, and the current fiscal crisis. There's no excuse for such a rich state with such resources to bungle things like that.
But that's just me.
---
There's another factor in all this: Family unity.
It's great if everybody wants to do something, such as going without McDonalds for two years to save up for a trip to Ireland, or packing up and moving across town or across the country because life over there has more of what they want than life where they are.
But not all families are like that. For example, one parent may want to go while the other doesn't, and family resources may not be adequate to do both. (The days when Dad could make such a decision solo are long gone for most Americans). In healthy families the result is a compromise, but compromise isn't always possible.
There may be unique circumstances that bind a family to a particular area, such as family, religion, career, etc.
There is also a certain value in staying put and being part of a community over a long period of time. IMHO one of the reasons so many Americans accept CC&Rs and HOAs is that they don't know or trust their neighbors, and they mistakenly think such rules can create a healthy, friendly community.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Remember Wikipedia is written entirely by the public, so you or I can change the definition any time we wish.
That's also the definition used on Flex Radio's website (under the Flex 3000 description). :)
<I think an SDR is one whose features are defined entirely by the software.
I think that is impossible!. We can not have a radio that is entirely (only) software, part of it is always going to be hardware, so least part of it's features is going to be hardware defined. Even a direct sampling receiver is limited in frequency coverage and dynamic range by hardware, so part of it is "hardware defined". The question is, how much of it needs to be in software before it is considered software defined, and I don't think there is an exact answer for that. Even the Flex 5000 has a DDS and Mixer! I think a good case can be made that many of the radio's on the market are SDR's, but I can understand differing views on that.
I don't mean this to be a slam on Flex, I have a Flex 3000 and like it. I just think that an SDR can be more then just software running in Windows! It can run on software embedded in the radio (firmware) and still be a considered an SDR.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by N2EY on July 28, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY: "I suspect that most Americans don't get 16 *days* of paid vacation."
WB2WIK: "A lot of Europe simply shuts down for a month in the hottest part of summer and everybody's on vacation. I suppose one reason is a lot of places in EU aren't air conditioned. An amazing number of places aren't."
The USA used to be like that, and yet we didn't shut down. I suspect that most of Europe doesn't get that warm in summer anyway. Not usually, either.<
::It usually doesn't, but it certainly can. Spain, for example, gets *very* hot in summer, especially in the south. In France it was only a few years ago that several people died of the heat at this time of year, simply because they didn't have air conditioning and there was no place for them to go to escape the "unusual" heat at the time, which was nearly 100 degrees F. It made all the headlines.
>WB2WIK: "Example: Instead of buying that new car, maintain the old one and take a $5K vacation somewhere."
That's fine if it's an option. But a lot of folks can just afford to keep the old buggy running, and only buy a new one (which only be 'new' to them) when there's no other option. And for most Americans, a car is in the 'necessity' category, while travel is in the 'luxury' category.<
::You're probably right, but it's sad, isn't it? Travel shouldn't be a luxury, it should be a requirement for anyone who wants something to talk about when they get older. It's impossible to teach Geography without having traveled, it's a sham. And it's really crazy for people to speak about world wide politics and conditions when they've never been to any of the places they're speaking about...it's all baloney and hearsay. Experience it, then talk about it. Nobody who hasn't been to Somalia really knows what it's like. CNN is not the great educator we wish it was.
>There's also the "stuff" factor, meaning that for many people it's easier to spend money on an object than on an experience.<
::Of course. There's material things, and then there's educational experiences, never to be confused.
>WB2WIK: "Never know, you might find someplace you like a lot better than where you live, and end up moving there for the overall betterment of your family!"
Yep. Or, you might discover that you REALLY like it better where you are!<
::Yes, Kahil Gibran said that.
>There's a connection to SDRs in that. If a ham gets an SDR and doesn't like it, s/he can always sell it and go back to a "conventional" rig. Perhaps what stops some is that they'll lose some money in the process, which means they paid money for an experience rather than a thing.<
::I hope we have all paid for experiences and enjoy the riches and benefits thereof. I've bought and sold tons of stuff, usually at a loss, to try it out. I think most of us have. Most of us have also purchased depreciating assets, like a new car, computer, rig, TV set, stereo system, etc. These will all one day have a retail value of "nothing," but life wouldn't be as interesting without them.
>WB2WIK: "We moved here without having a clue as to what we'd do when we got here, although I'd been to L.A. dozens of times, just visiting. We didn't have any family here, and only a few friends. No job, or even any interviews lined up. We just knew we wanted to be here."
When did you move? I'm glad it worked out for you.<
::We moved here in July 1988, a bit more than 21 years ago now. The straw that broke the camel's back was Easter Sunday 1987 when we had a snow storm in NJ, and I was plowing snow from our overly long driveway. I remember coming inside and telling the XYL, "Are we crazy? We can do better than this." And we started packing the next day, not exactly knowing where we were going but we knew we both wanted to move someplace sunny and warmer, wherever it was.
>I've been to LAX and other parts of CA, and while I like certain aspects, I wouldn't choose to live there. The natural disasters (earthquakes, mudslides, fires) are one reason. Smog, traffic, high cost of living and the lack of seasonal change are others.<
::Every place has natural distasters, there is absolutely no place immune to them. In NJ, we had rainstorms, snow storms, lighting storms, wind storms...hail, ice, sleet. We also had mosquitos by the millions, and they spread some interesting diseases. And it was a "drought" any time it didn't rain for more than four weeks, LOL. Seriously, that was considered a drought. We had water shortages where we could only water the grass on alternate days of the week, and it was against the law to wash your car...all because it didn't rain for four weeks. That's really funny.
>Plus in LAX and surrounding areas you're totally dependent on Hoover Dam; if something ever happened to it, your water supply would be reduced to a trickle and millions would have to move really quick.<
::I'm not sure where that data came from, but it's very wrong. Most of our water comes from the Owens Valley in eastern central CA, from snowmelt in the eastern Sierra. Billions and billions of gallons of it, which come down the California Aquaduct into the L.A. area. Our backup supplies include the Colorado River, underground springs, a few local reservoirs, and other sources. I've been here 21+ years now and we have "never" had a water shortage, or a drought. It doesn't rain (normally) from April through November. If it rains 0.1" any time in the Spring, Summer or Fall, it's considered a miracle. But in 21 years, there has never been a shortage. We've never had restrictions, never had to water on alternate days, etc.
>For me the real deal-killer is the mismanagement of basic things. Like the totally predictable and avoidable electricity deregulation mess of a few years back, and the current fiscal crisis. There's no excuse for such a rich state with such resources to bungle things like that.<
::Yep. It's politics. CA bought tons of power from Enron. "Nobody can see a billion Watt-hours, so who would know if you don't deliver it?"
>There's another factor in all this: Family unity.
It's great if everybody wants to do something, such as going without McDonalds for two years to save up for a trip to Ireland, or packing up and moving across town or across the country because life over there has more of what they want than life where they are.
But not all families are like that. For example, one parent may want to go while the other doesn't, and family resources may not be adequate to do both. (The days when Dad could make such a decision solo are long gone for most Americans). In healthy families the result is a compromise, but compromise isn't always possible.<
::That might be true, but thankfully, not in our family. We make family decisions based on my suggestions and nobody's ever argued with me, LOL.
>There may be unique circumstances that bind a family to a particular area, such as family, religion, career, etc.<
::Yes, I know that, and I honestly feel that's the unfortunate part. People have no idea what they're missing if they've never tried anything new. Thankfully I taught my 60 year-old brother-in-law to ski. He never tried it in 60 years. You know what? It's very hard to start skiing at that age. Everything works against you. He fell, he got buried in snow. He ached like hell the next morning. And a week later he gave me a huge hug for introducing him to something he absolutely loved.
73
Steve WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I think a good case can be made that many of the radio's on the market are SDR's, but I can understand differing views on that."
From a "pure" SDR definition perspective most current model radios do indeed fit the most common definitions that I've seen for "SDR". But for me I'm less concerned about the strict definition of SDR than I am the actual application or implementation of it. If for example the SDR does little or nothing more or different than all the non-SDR's have been doing for decades, then it is not what I'm looking for in an SDR. But on the other hand the key "test" of an SDR for me is whether it brings any new *major* functionality to radio that has not been implemented before, or that it does so over the course of some years after it has been released. So that is what I look for in an SDR, and that also to me represents the true promise of SDR. And no minor firmware enhancements to existing features is not "new functionality". Instead it is the SDR that is continualy changing in some often major ways is what I look for in a SDR.
So if the manufacturer of an SDR is not continualy changing the "S" in thier "SDR" models to *routinely*, and *significantly* change the "D" in their "SDR", ... then all that they really have left is just an "R". And realistically a "just an R" radio can usually be done in a simpler, often completely analog way... So why use SDR if you have no intentions of doing any *continuing* work to the S and D parts of your SDR? About the only one that I can see is some cost reductions, which is a good one to be sure, but that alone totally misses a very big piece of the true promise for what SDR brings to the table...
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 30, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<So why use SDR if you have no intentions of doing any *continuing* work to the S and D parts of your SDR?
Because I think that being software upgradeable is just one of SDR's features. Another advantage of SDR is that it allows a user to adjust the software according to needs, band conditions, and preference. For instance, on my other radio (a K3), I can adjust the AGC, Equalizer, Filtering, TX Bandwidth, Noise Reduction and many other settings according to conditions and the way I prefer. This would be very difficult to do on non SDR rigs, perhaps requiring hardware changes. Also, some features would be difficult or impossible to implement on a non-sdr rig. It would be difficult to get a 50hz filter in an analog rig!
Although I think that there are manufacturers that do make frequent and significant software improvements, I don't think SDR is just about the manufacturer making changes but also about the ability of the user to make changes as needed as to how the radio work's.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 30, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by KD8K on July 30, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
<So why use SDR if you have no intentions of doing any *continuing* work to the S and D parts of your SDR?
Because I think that being software upgradeable is just one of SDR's features. Another advantage of SDR is that it allows a user to adjust the software according to needs, band conditions, and preference. For instance, on my other radio (a K3), I can adjust the AGC, Equalizer, Filtering, TX Bandwidth, Noise Reduction and many other settings according to conditions and the way I prefer. This would be very difficult to do on non SDR rigs<
::No, it's not. I think you're confusing SDR with DSP. I can adjust all those things on the fly without an SDR rig, instantly. No hardware changes required.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< I think you're confusing SDR with DSP. I can adjust all those things on the fly without an SDR rig, instantly. No hardware changes required.
I don't think that just because a rig uses DSP that excludes it from being an SDR. In fact when I go to change AGC settings in PowerSDR, it is under a TAB called DSP! PowerSDR is certainly considered an SDR. I would say that if detection and AGC is done in software, regardless of where that software is located, it is an SDR. In fact, there was an article on SDR in the September 2008 QST which specifically mentioned the K3 and the 7800 as being an SDR's!
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by W6RMK on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SDR = some significant part of the radio's function is defined in "software". A DSP radio that used hardware Multiply-Accumulate chips or a FFT chip wouldn't meet the definition. An analog radio that has lots of internal reconfiguration controlled by software would (although most consider that SDR has to do some signal processing in software). A radio with an FPGA that does the signal processing, with the FPGA programmed in VHDL or Verilog is as much a software radio as one that uses a x86 programmed in C or Matlab or Simulink.
An analog radio that happens to use software as part of the user interface is not an SDR (e.g. my old FT757 has a microcontroller that turns quadrature encoder pulses from the knob into commands to a PLL synthesizer for the LO)
Distinguish SDR from "reconfigurable" or "reprogrammable". You can have an SDR that is not reconfigurable (e.g. if the software is in ROM, like in my IC7000), but where the ultimate functionality is most certainly defined by software.
And of course, none of this has anything to do with whether it has knobs or not. Knobs are just the User Interface. An Icom PCR1000 is pretty much a standard analog radio internally, but is controllable ONLY through an RS232 connection.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by KD8K on July 31, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
< I think you're confusing SDR with DSP. I can adjust all those things on the fly without an SDR rig, instantly. No hardware changes required.
I don't think that just because a rig uses DSP that excludes it from being an SDR.<
::Of course not. I agree, and I didn't say that these are exclusive in any way. SDRs all use DSP. However DSP rigs aren't necessarily SDRs, and the features you discussed as being SDR features were actually all DSP features.
It doesn't really matter if we're having fun.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<SDRs all use DSP
<and the features you discussed as being SDR features were actually all DSP features
Although some could be, I did not consider them all DSP only features. For instance, I do not consider adjustable AGC, with AGC done in software (slope,decay, etc) as a DSP only type feature, but perhaps that's something that one of the DSP/SDR experts can answer.
In the end I think that the overall Idea is that the software is not merely controlling the radio but becomes the radio.
<It doesn't really matter if we're having fun
Yes, that's what it is all about! (and learning something along the way!)
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by KD8K on July 31, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
<SDRs all use DSP
<and the features you discussed as being SDR features were actually all DSP features
Although some could be, I did not consider them all DSP only features. For instance, I do not consider adjustable AGC, with AGC done in software (slope,decay, etc) as a DSP only type feature, but perhaps that's something that one of the DSP/SDR experts can answer.<
::It's a fine line, for sure. My little Ten Tec Jupiter isn't really SDR but it has adjustable slope, decay, etc for AGC. Its electronic keyer is DSP. Its modulation and demodulation are DSP, its IF filtering is DSP; its noise blanker is DSP. Pretty much every adjustable function it has is DSP. But I don't really consider it SDR because these functions are embedded (firmware) and not easily re-programmed to alter them (at least, not by the user). It doesn't require any connection to a computer, as all processing is built in.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<My little Ten Tec Jupiter isn't really SDR
<But I don't really consider it SDR because these functions are embedded (firmware) and not easily re-programmed to alter them (at least, not by the user). It doesn't require any connection to a computer, as all processing is built in
I definitely can understand that view. Just a final thought. Just an opinion, but I think that a lot of what may be considered SDR may come down to the perception of the end user. A Windows based SDR 'feels like' a software radio, whereas an embedded 'SDR' 'feels like' an analog radio because of it's user interface and where the software is stored. A rig may do just about everything in software but if the user interface is knobs & buttons like old analog radios, instead of a computer, it may not be viewed as an SDR because it is a computer interface(Windows) that people usually equate with 'software'. But, in reality, there may not be a whole lot of difference between them. Both are doing detection, AGC and filtering using software, one in windows the other using software inside the radio. The end result is the same. If the software is called DSP inside the radio and SDR outside the radio, I am not sure it really matters. Both are using software, both can be upgraded, both has a user interface to change configuration(I have to rely on programmers either way, windows or embedded). However, the way the user perceives the difference between them can be dramatically different because of the way the user interacts with the software. It may very well be the User interface, and not the internals of the radio, that is thought of when considering what is or is not an SDR.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"My little Ten Tec Jupiter isn't really SDR but it has adjustable slope, decay, etc for AGC."
Technically it is indeed an SDR per most SDR definitions out there. The Jupiter like the Pegasus that proceeded it do have some latitude for "re-definition" of what is done to the signals at the 12 kHz IF (where the A to D and D to A take place). So it should be entirely possible to implement some new audio mode within that passband. Or at least one that could be handled by the ADSP2185 DSP processor. For example if Ten Tec was willing to offer a version of the firmware that provides steeper filter skirts they certainly could do so. They would likely however need to surrender full QSK while running in that mode because of the added latency. That same DSP processor and A to D of the Pegasus/Jupiter was also used in the RX-331/340. The 331/340 did have tighter filter skirts, but then those radios did not need to accommodate QSK either.
Arguably the first amateur radio market SDR (PC controlled) was the Kachina 505 circa 1997. The firmware (including its DSP) in that radio was actually field update-able via a PC card that held the new firmware. Though I don't think that many 505's were updated. The Pegasus was the first amateur market radio that was firmware update-able via RS-232 in 1999.
And near as I can tell the first attempt to market a PC based (not just PC controlled) SDR into amateur radio was the Comer Communications “Radware” radio circa 1994. It was being developed to run with Windows 3.1. And it like the first generation Flex was based on an off the shelf sound card for the A to D and D to A. So just how many remember that PC based SDR effort??
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“If the software is called DSP inside the radio and SDR outside the radio, I am not sure it really matters. Both are using software, both can be upgraded, both has a user interface to change configuration(I have to rely on programmers either way, windows or embedded). However, the way the user perceives the difference between them can be dramatically different because of the way the user interacts with the software. It may very well be the User interface, and not the internals of the radio, that is thought of when considering what is or is not an SDR.”
Perhaps another way to think about it is that all SDR's do use DSP, but not all DSP implementations are SDR's. Whether the SDR is implemented in one box, or a collection of boxes, with or without knobs, a PC or not, isn't really relevant. Where the rubber meets the road for SDR's today is more related to the attitude and policies that the manufacturer takes towards the development of the software. For example:
1.The manufacturer has little or no interest in further software development once the radio is released. Or they are only interested in making some minor feature changes and bug fixes.
2.The manufacturer's position is that they intend to continually develop new software for it; and at times completely redefine how the radio functions, and/or is offering some widely varying functions and user interfaces to meet some widely differing user needs and uses.
If the manufacturer is like #2 then that manufacturer can rightly claim to have fully embraced SDR. Only a couple of ham radio manufacturers today can claim that. And they aren't any of the “big 3”.
But if the manufacturer is following path #1, then real value of having used the SDR design approach has been largely lost. And therefore any differentiation between whether that particular radio is an SDR or not is largely moot.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by KD8K on August 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Perhaps another way to think about it is that all SDR's do use DSP, but not all DSP implementations are SDR's. Whether the SDR is implemented in one box, or a collection of boxes, with or without knobs, a PC or not, isn't really relevant.
Yes, I do totally agree with that. My point was meant not so much as a technical definition but more of a user perception type of thing. A radio that may fit the technical definitions of an SDR, but still not be viewed as such to the end user because of the way the user interacts with the software. If it has analog type knobs and buttons, it just may not seem like a SDR, even though a large part of the features of the radio may in fact be implemented in software.
<where the rubber meets the road for SDR's today is more related to the attitude and policies that the manufacturer takes towards the development of the software.
I do agree. I guess my thought, right or wrong, is that even an unsupported SDR is still an SDR. It can still take advantage of previous software enhancements with features that may not be available in analog or DSP radio's. But I do agree with you that without further updates the 'spirit' of SDR has been lost.
73!
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on August 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios) Reply
by WW2PT on August 1, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
But is Pluto really a planet?<
::Nope, it's a dog invented by Walt Disney.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K2WH on August 2, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When using a knob-less SDR, you are no longer a ham radio operator. You are a computer manipulator and the computer is the ham radio operator.
Problems with the computer or computer software and you are off the air with your black knob-less box. Call Dell to fix your radio? I don't think so.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K7PEH on August 2, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>When using a knob-less SDR, you are no longer a ham radio operator. You are a computer manipulator and the computer is the ham radio operator.
Aargh!! As Charlie Brown would explain when frustrated by Lucy. Oh, but maybe K2WH is kidding.
I have nothing against people and their preferences. I have button, knob, dial, and meter rigs too and I do like them. But, I am absolutely fascinated by SDR. I am very much enthused in the technology on the software side, I mean the DSP side of things. Don't tell me that my Pro III has DSP chips, it is not the same. I mean, I am currently experimenting with my own digital filters using software and Matlab on my Apple Mac. I don't have an SDR rig yet to feed it signals so I actually generate my own SSB signals mathematically -- no, they are not real voice but it allows the math and the software to do its trick. And, knowing how I constructed the signal allows me to do an extra dimension in debugging my Matlab code.
This is not real SDR though as the solution path on my work is much too slow for real-time work but it is fun learning that it can be done. Being a programmer with Physics and Math degrees certainly helps in this work but I just started learning digital signal processing about six months ago so I still consider myself very much a neophyte.
I am waiting for the new Flex Radio SDR1500 to come out and then I can experiment with that.
I am convinced that the future is SDR. In 10 years, virtually all radios will be SDR (maybe less time). Sure, there will be radios with knobs and controls and face plates but the real advances will be in DSP and SDR technology.
Saying that this kind of future is not for you is like someone working a spark-gap transmitter saying that electron tubes and power amps and pi-network circuits will never become anything and should be ignored.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K2WH on August 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting comments. Some on here believe SDR's will be common and most radios will be SDR's in the near future perhaps 10 years.
With that thought in mind, (perhaps i'm out of the loop on this), what other radios besides the current Flex crop of ham radios are out there? I only know of the Flex group. And, if Flex is the only making SDR's I would think the time line would be way out there beyond the 10 year time line.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K7PEH on August 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>With that thought in mind, (perhaps i'm out of the loop on this), what other radios besides the current Flex crop of ham radios are out there? I only know of the Flex group. And, if Flex is the only making SDR's I would think the time line would be way out there beyond the 10 year time line.
What other radios? How about virtually every cell phone on the planet. A cell phone is an SDR. Indeed, reading about cell phone radio technology is almost identical to reading about Flex radio technology.
Although Flex-radio is the first obvious vendor in the ham radio market, it is indeed servicing only the ham radio market. The next market area that will explode is the car radio market place. Indeed, there are some SDR technologies in place right now for FM radios.
Another example is your TV set which is especially true now with digital TV (a digital signal encoded on an analog radio wave decoded into digital again). So, we can safely say that virtually all future TV sets are SDR technology. But, the blur here is heavy as it is hard to distinguish between "radio" technology and just plane digital processing.
But, then we can go on with other examples such as WiFi transceivers, Bluetooth transceivers, or even that Radar sign reporting your speed as you pass by.
Now, you might say that this is not SDR. But, to me, SDR is a device that interprets or generates RF using a very minimum of analog circuitry. For a receiver, this minimum is possibly a pass-band filter and a direct-conversion A/D function with maybe an RF amplifier in there as well. No need for IF, various roofing filters, mixers, BFOs, or even audio amplifiers in many cases (where audio is not the product of the radio).
I will admit that it is very difficult to predict the future. If you choose a horizon far enough into the future you can safely predict almost anything and many people do just that. However, SDR is indeed taking over the radio technology industry in a very heavy way and amateur radio will be part of that. I see Flex-radio as only the beginning but certainly not unique. As testified by many in this very forum, the line between radios such as Tentec Orion, or K3, and SDR is argumentative and blurred. That will become more so as time marches on. In a few years, what will the latest Tentec transceiver really look like -- I say it will be mostly if not all SDR. Oh, it may still have buttons and dials but it will also have an LCD screen that will make the current Orion II look ancient (which by the way is not hard to do).
By the way, if you think an SDR is something that must feed a signal into your home computer then you are limiting your imagination. SDR is all about digital processing, the use of a home computer is only a convenience right now for the amateur community, certainly not the future goal.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WA4JM on August 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Although Flex-radio is the first obvious vendor in the ham radio market..."
I thought Ten-Tec was the first SDR? The Pegesus turned Jupiter...
When the Jupiter added AM, 60 meters, MARS capability, Mic Pre-Amp, CW Coder/Decoder, this was all acheived by the owner re-flashing the code in the radio. That's Software Defined in my book.
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K2WH on August 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I will admit that it is very difficult to predict the future. If you choose a horizon far enough into the future you can safely predict almost anything and many people do just that. However, SDR is indeed taking over the radio technology industry in a very heavy way and amateur radio will be part of that. I see Flex-radio as only the beginning but certainly not unique. As testified by many in this very forum, the line between radios such as Tentec Orion, or K3, and SDR is argumentative and blurred. That will become more so as time marches on. In a few years, what will the latest Tentec transceiver really look like -- I say it will be mostly if not all SDR. Oh, it may still have buttons and dials but it will also have an LCD screen that will make the current Orion II look ancient (which by the way is not hard to do).
Seems your comment above is pushing the SDR idea back to a radio with controls. If it has a screen, and you get rid of the computer accessory, then your back to a bulked up ICOM-756pro.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by WW2PT on August 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's see if I understand this correctly...
If I were to build a front panel-type assembly with knobs, buttons, LCD display, mouse and keyboard connections, etc, which interfaces to an Flex 5000 via FireWire, and this device effectively replaces the PC and PowerSDR software with embedded microprocessors and proprietary (but upgradeable) firmware, and this system performs all functions of PowerSDR on a PC but allows me to use the Flex 5000 as a stand-alone radio that does not require any external computer/software to function, then it is no longer a "software-defined radio?"
|
| |
|
RE: Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
|
|
|
by K7PEH on August 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Seems your comment above is pushing the SDR idea back to a radio with controls. If it has a screen, and you get rid of the computer accessory, then your back to a bulked up ICOM-756pro.
The debate that has transpired here on whether SDR is defined as a radio with controls (buttons and dials) versus a computer GUI with keyboard and mouse is one of silliness. But, it is fair that people like to argue such things and that is OK.
To me, an SDR is what sits between the antenna and the human user and I consider the physical devices, such as buttons, dials, switches, graphic screen, keyboard, and mouse to be merely helpful aids in using and controlling the SDR (wouldn't it be nice if such things and instrumentation were not needed at all --- oops, I need to go watch the movie "Forbidden Planet" again to see how the Krell did that).
Whether y | |
