Where is the Meat?

$\'\'$

eHam.net Home | FAQ | Log In Help! | Please Subscribe!

Welcome Anonymous Become a member! or Login!

$\'\'$

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

$\'\'$

Where is the Meat?

from KI6YN on June 25, 2004
View comments about this article!

Last night I had a QSO where in I got a lousy signal report from a station that was close to a station I had just worked and had given me a 579; this second QSO gave me a 539. The operator identified his rig as an Icom 7800. (I have no way of knowing for sure if he indeed had a 7800). He was using a 3-element beam.

When the QSO ended, I looked up the Icom 7800 on the Icom website. I wanted to see what the specifications were for a $10,000 radio. Funny thing, the really important specifications weren't listed. I printed out the specs and then went to the Ten-Tec website and printed out the specifications for my Orion. It was hard comparing nine pages of specifications and plots from Ten-Tec with a two and a half pages from Icom. What a difference in the amount of information and the way the specifications were stated.

One thing that is really obvious, Icom has done a wonderful job of packaging. I was amazed at all the buttons and knobs as well as the beautiful display on the 7800. While the Orion is no slouch with respect to looks, it paled alongside the 7800. But when one started looking at what was missing from the specifications, the biggest question to be asked was, "Why is the 7800 almost $6,500 more than the Orion?" I don't think it is my lack of understanding rigs -- I am an electronics engineer with over forty (40) years of experience. I work in satellite ground station design and operation.

The first thing that struck me as strange is this $10,000 radio's specifications had no mention of what the bandwidth was for measuring the sensitivity. One thing that stood out was that the Orion had the same sensitivity as the 7800 with the Orion's preamp off! Of course, I have no idea what the bandwidth was for the 7800 with its preamp on, but it was 2.4 KHz for SSB on the Orion. Ten-Tec gives gains for both preamp on and off, Icom only with preamp on. What about the all important measurements along with spacing used and bandwidth settings for IP3 and IMD3? No mention of these values by Icom and yet Ten-Tec quantifies them and states the settings used for measurement. As a matter of fact, Ten-Tec has plots as part of the specifications. Remember, as pointed out above, most values are meaningless unless the conditions under which they were measured are known; a reasonable baseline has to be established or the comparisons are not valid.

OK, the 7800 has a zillion knobs, buttons and huge color display; just how is all that going to pull the weak ones out of the noise or separate the close signals in a strong signal environment? What happens if one of the knobs buttons is accidentally activated and all of a sudden, you hear nothing or distortion? Just how long is it going to take you to figure out what is wrong? A good rig has to be very intuitive as well as capable having excellent attributes that can be easily invoked.

I have no idea of how good or bad the 7800 is; in point of fact, I don't know if the 7800 might have better specifications than the Orion. What I know, is that there must be a reason why Icom is not making the total specifications known. Remember, the Ten-Tec intercept values were stated for 5 KHz spacing, a very real world value, most manufacturers state the value for 20 KHz spacing, an almost worthless number. I heard that Yaesu is coming out with a new rig in the same price class as the 7800 -- wonder what the specifications for that will look like? One thing I know for sure, a lot of people will be impressed when they see the 7800 in somebody's shack; I wonder if any experienced amateur radio operator or technical person would also be impressed?

NOW YOU MUST BE ASKING YOURSELF WHAT THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE IS! Simply this, be realistic and judge something on its merits and the honesty and integrity of the manufacturer. Yes, it is good to buy American when it is the best, but let the thing stand on its own merits. There isn't one car made in America today that I'd buy; but you can bet your bottom dollar that there are darn few radios that can compete with Ten-Tec or Elecraft. I still smile at the old Drake TR7 placed just above my Orion; I use it once in awhile. It is also nice to look at and sounds swell!

Member Comments:

This article has expired. No more comments may be added.

Where is the Meat?

by EXPAT on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

...or Where´s the Beef? Indeed, a good idea to call on the manufacturers to provide more details, I am looking at a lot of rigs these days and have found some of the specs (not only the "less than 10 percent audio distortion") on the Icom 706 and Kenwood 2000 uninspiring or meaningless...which fits in with the "good but hardly special" TX/RX quality comments posted on this site about these radios. Most companies will do and say literally anything they think they can get away with to make money, moral or not, so keep the pressure on! Hey, it´s your money...Randy

Where is the Meat?

by AK7P on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I concur with your observations on the Icom specs; I have always wondered about the RX sensitivity being tested with the preamp on only. Sounds to me like they should of called the preamp the first RF amp stage and just removed the panel button. The 20 kc spacing on IMD is close to worthless as well. I have an Icom 706 and its a nice little rig with a receiver as wide as a barn door, no match for my R4C front end.

Good DX,
Mike AK7P

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W9PMZ on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"NOW YOU MUST BE ASKING YOURSELF WHAT THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE IS!"

You were mad that you got a 539 from another station when you had just got a 579???

73,

Carl - W9PMZ

RE: Where is the Meat?

by AC5E on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Well, first of all, there are many reasons you may get a bad report from someone. The only audio reports you should trust are from experienced hams close enough to hear you well, far enough away not to suffer overload, and honest enough to give you a factual report. Otherwise, personal tastes, propagation, and even envy make the reports you get untrustworthy.

Next, ALL manufacturers without exception should provide clear and complete specs on everything. Especially the warts and hangnails.

While one can somewhat understand a small antenna maker's failure to spend the big bucks for a full size test range report, I have always suspected the major tranciever makers failure to do so is an indication they have something to hide.

That's why independent labs tests are so important. While I have some qualms about tests in advertiser supported publications and more reservations about handing a brand fanatic one of his brand rigs to test, the simple fact is those independant tests are vitally important if a potential buyer is to make an informed decision.

Now, there are several independant reviews giving very specific information on the Orion vs IC-7800. One is at w8ji.com and an internet search should turn up several more. You may be interested to know that without exception all these tests, including ARRL labs tests, show the Orion meets or exceeds all specs.

And for an indirect answer to that question - while I am only interested in performance, on the basis of the independant reviews I have no plans to replace my Orion with IC-7800's. Although I might stack a couple of IC-751's along with a pair of Timewave DSP boxes at the fourth operating position in the new shack.

73 Pete Allen AC5E

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KT0DD on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The cost difference between the Orion and the IC-7800, and the future Ft-9000DX is the markets they targeted. The High end Icom and Yaesu rigs are priced for the commercial / governmental markets, even though Amateurs are buying them.

There is an anti- gouging law on the books that a company cannot sell something to the U.S. Government for one high price, and turn around and sell to the consumer for a much lower price.

I really don't see $6500. worth of differnce(to me) between the Ten Tec and The Icom. It's all maketing.
At least Ten Tec targete hams, and isn't trying to fool anyone. 73.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KT0DD on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Sorry for all the typos above I DO know how to spell, Guess I better clean my keyboard or get more coffee or something. That's atrocious. 73.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by K8JDC on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"There isn't one car made in America today that I'd buy;"

I think that statement is more revealing than any other in your article. Your insinuation is that there isn't a single car made in America that is worthy of your consideration. That sound you just heard was your credibility going out the window...

JDC

Where is the Meat?

by NL7GB on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

TenTec is the little company that could... and did.
Elecraft is another company that could... and did.

The honest, clear specs are only part of the story, and they have my admiration for their productive integrity. Kudos to both.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by N4GI on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Relying on any mfg produced data is naieve. Here's some "meat" for you:

http://www.sherweng.com/presentation.html

compiled ARRL comparisons also listed here:
http://www.elecraft.com/

no affiliation with the above,

73,
Blake N4GI

Where is the Meat?

by N5XYO on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

At first I thought this was another "self-justification" article on why I spent so much money for a rig. It was of course, but as a previous poster pointed out, the author had another agenda...Rice-box radios just don't measure-up to the last remaining US rigs. I have examples of both in my shack.
Specifications are not the only criteria to measure the "value" of a rig , but when they start costing over 3 grand...some need to quote the specs, as just looking "neat" doesn't quite cut it. 73 John

Where is the Meat?

by WA8HHH on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

You’re not likely to get common reporting criteria established among the manufacturers. This isn’t what they’re about. Please keep in mind that the design engineer has one thing in mind, the manufacturing side of the business has to deal with reality, and the advertising and marketing types have to create a desire for the product. Put another way, the theoretical design goal not achieved by manufacturing is reinstated by marketing. There is no room for a level playing field here.

Then there is always the other factor to consider: Owner’s ego. I’ve been around long enough to know that a Collins radio always earned a signal report 1 or 2 S-Units better than Drake, E.F. Johnson, Hallicrafters, National or (God forbid!) Heathkit radio. The S-Line cost the most so logic tells you it has to have the strongest signal going. If the suggested price for the FT-9000 is as high as rumored, expect further signal report reductions when working one of those!

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KC8VWM on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I used to focus on radio specs when making radio purchases.

It is important to keep in mind that todays radios are designed much differently than radio's of yesterday.

For example, It is hard to compare manufacturing specs for a Yaesu FT-101 to an Icom 706 MK II G.

Radio equipment used to drift and part manufacturing tolerances were rather loose. It was like every individually manufactured radio had it's own set of technical specifications and each radio was different in some respect.

Technology in the past 10 -20 years has changed this drastically. Capacitors & resistors are now manufactured using high tech equipment, PC board solder connections are made using computerized and laser guided soldering equipment. We have come a long way from the human hand that once manually assembled electronics parts.

Today's radio's are for the most part cloned, not assembled.

Radio specifications used to be a good "estimate" for the entire model or line of radio.

Specifications are now more accurate than they used to be. Tolerances and specifications now reflect actual & more reliable information.

For the most part, specifications does not seem to be the main factor in making a purchasing decision.

Word of mouth, user experience, and purchase price seem to remain dominate in this area of decision making.

73

Charles - KC8VWM

RE: Where is the Meat?

by K0BG on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Funny thing. During a recent overheard conversation on 17 meters, one owner of the new Icom 7800 stated the one thing he liked most about the radio was the ability to change the colors on the display to anything he wanted. When ask how it's on-air receive capabilities compared to his old rig, he replied, it's a little better.

Unless the user has an appreciation of the specs, and would know what to listen for, the knowledge of them is moot.

Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com

RE: Where is the Meat?

by NJ0E on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

i think that it is a characteristic of human nature,
that we like to see the choices we make as consumers
validated by encountering others who have made the
same choice we have. we feel that we have something
in common, for example, if we own a transceiver made
by company 'a', and find ourselves in a qso with
another amateur using a radio also manufactured by
'a'. this feeling is even stronger if it happens to
be the same model. we feel a kinship with them that
we would not feel if, for example, they were using a
transceiver manufactured by company 'b'.

this feeling of validation is particularly important
to us if we have purchased at the "top of the line"
of what manufacturer 'a' has to offer (or on the
opposing side, if we are comparing it to an amateur
who has purchased manufacturer b's "top of the line").
how many 'jupiter' owners have you encountered who
sweat bullets over whether they should have bought
a 'ts970d' or 'ic746' instead? nope, it's the 'orion',
'ic7800', or 'ft9000dx' guys who sweat this stuff
the most.

i think this kind of association also extends to
photographers and camera manufacturers, automobiles,
rv's, and so on.

as hams, i think it's best if we try recognize that
we all possess this attribute to an extent, and
perhaps guard against it somewhat as we are able. i
try to practice this by commending the other fellow's
setup as i can, unless their signal is awfully chirpy
or has obvious problems ('UR FT857 ES YAGI DOING FB
JOB HR OM' <i'm a cw guy>).

the factors that influence our transceiver choices
are hugely complex and personal; economics, ego,
color, form factor, specifications, nationality of
the manufacturer, appearance, "feel" of the controls,
kit or assembled, etc. though we all like to persuade
ourselves that we've made the 'clearly intelligent'
choice from the alternatives available.

73's all
scott nj0e - a calvinist ham ;)
& pleased ten tec omni 6 owner

Where is the Meat?

by W8VVE on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"There isn't one car made in America today that I'd buy" Oh....if only you would have left this out of your comments...

Where is the Meat?

by KX2S on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Wow this must be the site for LOSERS to meet.
Give me a break.
If you are not happy with your reports stay off the air.
TWO fixes needed here.

1. 300' rotating Tower with stacked 6 or more element monobanders for all bands.

2. Very large amp so you can run lots of power.

You must remember the antenna is 99% of your station.

D'ont matter what the specs are on your rig if you got the antenna system they are gonna hear ya

Where is the Meat?

by K7JBQ on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Just two quick notes:

1) S meters in today's rigs are notoriously "generous." This leads to many ops getting steamed when they receive an honest report.

2) The remark about the quality of American cars would have made sense 20 years ago, when Japanese quality was much better than American. Those days, to put it mildly, are gone.

I've spent my career as an automotive journalist, and not only would I happily drive an American car today, in fact I do.

73,
Bill

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KC8VWM on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

KX2S said:

"D'ont matter what the specs are on your rig if you got the antenna system they are gonna hear ya"

Regardless of the power output or antenna brand your station is equipped with, More importantly one needs to consider such matters as they relate to the quality of signals recieved.

The interesting part about antenna systems is that the "bigger" they are, the more problems your reciever will probobly encounter.

This is where a close review of a radio's specifications will matter the most.

73

Charles - KC8VWM

Where is the Meat?

by AC7ZG on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hmmm...$10.8K buys me a cool racing jacket with a 7800 thrown in for free
or
I spend the same money for two loaded Orions and still have $2K left over to buy a custom tailored Fancy leather jacket...

I think ON4UN has it right on this decision....
-------------
Or to slice it another way, $6.5K buys me the best Mil Communication receiver available (WJ8712P with far more sensistivity to weak signals than either commerical rig) and I buy an Orion for transmitting....and break even at $10.5K....

Its all a matter of personal choice.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KC8VWM on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"There isn't one car made in America today that I'd buy"

Which American made brand of car are you referring to exactly?

Is it:

Honda? Jeep? BMW Z? Nissan? Mazda? Mitsubishi? or Mercedes M ?

Or, perhaps you are reffering to the foriegn equipped
Pontiac Grand Prix SE Sedan made with a Mexican engine.

Or is it the Ford F150s and F250s built with Japanese transmissions?

How to tell what country you car was made in:

The serial number of the vehicle will have the country of final assembly coded into it. If the serial number starts with a '1' or '4', its final assembly was in the USA. If it starts with a '2', Canada; a '3', Mexico; a 'J', Japan; 'K' for Korea and other letters or numbers for other countries.

Sorry, a little off topic - but the point is that Radio equipment (like cars) built in America or Japan for that matter doesn't always reflect by a particular brand name, where the inside "guts" come from.

Source:
http://www.usstuff.com/cars.htm

73

Charles - KC8VWM

RE: Where is the Meat?

by N6AJR on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

sounds like some one justifying his inability to buy what he wants.. so he trashes it to look bad so his second choice rig now is "better" .. I find some american cars are pretty good too , like the saturn, hi hi

RE: Where is the Meat?

by WIRELESS on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Beyond popular belief, manufacturers are in business to take your money, not help you. No manufacturer will tell you whats wrong with their products, yes, all products have some problems. Sellers don't want you to know enough to figure it out. Buyers are really gullable and most actually believe advertising. Pathetic!

RE: Where is the Meat?

by WR8D on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AC7ZG, myself i'd rather just hang onto my 775dsp that i bought new six years ago, and keep on working those weak ones that most folks "still" can't hear clearly. Ham radio is just like any other hobby. We can spend well over 30 grand on a ranger bass boat now. Some guy on a little flat bottom tracker that he's just got a few hundred bucks in can and probably will out fish us though hi hi. Its just what ever we want to blow our money on. Main thing is just have a good time, life is way to short.
73, WR8D

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KT0DD on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

WR8D has a valid point. Thank God we live in a country where we have the freedom to blow our money on whatever we choose. To me, $10,000 is way too much even if I had the money. But I don't begrudge someone who has the $$, and wants to spend it that way.

On the topic of poor signal reports, I think I'd be wondering about Propagation / Conditions to explain my report, before I'd worry whether or not I have a good or bad radio or S-meter. Besides, during every contest, all I hear is 599 599 599 reports being given anyway. :) 73.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I have measurements at www.w8ji.com look at this URL:

http://www.w8ji.com/receiver%20IM3%20sorted.htm

Ergonomics are great in Japanese radios. The bells and whistles are certainly appealing to the dipole and 100 watt ragchew crowd who want a radio that does everything poorly. Japanese manufacturers long ago quit focusing on performance. Transmitter problems like keyclicks, phase noise, split frequency VCO switching thumps, pathetic SSB high-order IMD, and birdies are ignored, and receivers are going downhill just as fast.

On the other hand Ten Tec is steadily improving performance in the Orion, and the Orion already outdoes $10000 super radios in raw receiver performance. A few little tweeks to the AGC firmware and the Orion will be untouchable in performance.

The K2 is a great low cost radio, and getting better. It outdoes most $2000-3000 radios in performance!

I hope I,Y, and K start considering narrow bandwidth performance in both transmitters and receivers, instead of adding worthless nonsense. The operating features are already excellent, they just need to learn how to build good receivers and transmitters.

73 Tom

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by WR8D on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AC7ZG, myself i'd rather just hang onto my 775dsp that i bought new six years ago, and keep on working those weak ones that most folks "still" can't hear clearly. Ham radio is just like any other hobby.>>>>

On SSB, the 775DSP is great.

If your 775DSP is like the half dozen I have seen and the one I bought new, you don't want to look at it on CW split with a spectrum analyzer!

http://www.w8ji.com/keyclicks.htm

73 Tom

RE: Where is the Meat?

by N8UZE on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

A 539 report cannot be classified as lousy.

5 = perfectly readable
3 = somewhat weak
9 = perfect CW sound quality

What more could you ask for? Both stations considered you perfectly readable. Even if the two stations had been identical and in the same general area, they will have slightly different paths to your station. Maybe on person has different physical obstacles in his local affecting the results. Different signal reports are to be expected.

I've given people a 51 report now and then. There was little to no reading on the meter but they were perfectly clear and the band was quiet. For voice, I really consider the first number the important one. For CW, the first and third are far more important than the second.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by N6AJR on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I also don't use the meter fo a signal rating. if he (or she) is fm quality I give them a 59, or 100% copy on digital modes, 599. if a bit noisy but readable 57, have to repeat 10 times to gt the call right, 2 and 2.

I make the decission on the report, not some arbritrary meter .. I am the ham.. its just a meter. 10-4 good buddy!!

RE: Where is the Meat?

by AB5XZ on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

While we're looking for consistent specifications, I'd like to add one to the request queue:

When QST or CQ reviews a rig:

1. I would like to see photographs of the front, sides, top, bottom, and back, with whatever's there clearly labeled.
2. I would like to see some evaluation of the readability of the control labels. My ham gear is better than my stereo, but not much. The designers (of the stereo gear) don't seem to think contrast in labeling is important. They have gone to the point that they use gray-on-charcoal labeling, which can be read with a flashlight. At least some of the ham manufacturers use backlighted key legends.
3. Some kind of a standard "test finger" should be used to show when the dang keys are too close together.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KI6YN on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Maybe you'd like to pay for the peeling paint on my 97 Ram 1500. I do stand corrected on your main point, on the door of the Ram is a sticker than reads "Assembled in Mexico"! My point is that one of our other cars is a 2000 EB Explorer; not exactly the safest car built. I must admit, my Prius is the best car I've ever had with respect to reliabiity and just plain fun to drive. We are slipping in a lot of areas and I want to see work returning to our shores and stuff properly and honestly labeled.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KI6YN on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Carl,
Take a class in reading comprehension. My point wasn't the signal report; I work a lot of QRP and am used to those kinds of signal reports, the fact that it was a five (5) indicates the signal was perfectly readable, the object is to communicate. There is nothing impressive about a signal report, it just got me to wondering about the 7800 and I wrote about the fact that the manufacturer is not being forthcoming with the specs.
With respect to other comments, go for the juggler because I didn't berate anybody for spending a lot of money on a rig; I only requested that they look beyond the packaging and the extra bells and whatever that will probably never be used. Read again, an Icom 761 was one of the best rigs I ever had.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by N7KKR on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Great topic that tweaked my systems background. The issue with comparative specifications is wether or not the differences being measured make a difference. It would be desireable for the same benchmark/baseline be utilized. After that it gets more cloudy as the ham is trying to assess how well the products will perform overall in relationship to the operating conditions. Add to that differences in what people like for sound quality, ability to tolerate side noise, etc.

In the case of the Icom/Ten-Tec comparison, would the differences in performance make the extra cash outlay worth it? On the flipside, did you shell out a pile of money for something that performs worse in your mind? I don't know how much standardization of specifications would help. I do like QST's method of measuring with real numbers and then see how it fits in the realm of other products. However, at best these reports are indicators, not guarantees.

Thanks to all the contributors. I really enjoyed the viewpoints.

Warm Regards, Kevin N7KKR

RE: Where is the Meat?

by K1CJS on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Someone said:

"There isn't one car made in America today that I'd buy"

I've just got one question for you--Are you the same joker that complains about how you can't find a good paying job in this country? Seems so......

RE: Where is the Meat?

by WB4QNG on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I agree it would be better if there was a standard to go by but then again could you believe them. I would think it was the antennas that were the difference but it could have been a million other things. You got one thing right he told you it was IC-7800. You will never know for sure. Nobody on the other end can tell if you have a $10,000 IC-7800 or a $500 IC-718. It is all in the receiver and the pretty knobs and color menus. You ask why the 7800 is selling for $6500 more than your Orion I can ask the same thing why is your Orion selling for more than $3000 than my 718. I think the 718 is the best think that has happen since sliced bread but then again it replaced a very tired old HW101. A lot of this is just what is in the mind of the beholder. Same with cars. Is a Lincoln worth more than $35,000 more than a Ford Focus. They will both get you from point A to Point B legally in the same time period. It is all up to the person. So while I think it would be nice to be able to compare oranges to oranges people will buy what they think is the best and what they can afford.
Terry
WB4QNG

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by N7KKR on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Great topic that tweaked my systems background. The issue with comparative specifications is wether or not the differences being measured make a difference. It would be desireable for the same benchmark/baseline be utilized. After that it gets more cloudy as the ham is trying to assess how well the products will perform overall in relationship to the operating conditions. Add to that differences in what people like for sound quality, ability to tolerate side noise, etc. >>>>

Actual IM and blocking dynamic range required is determined by how you operate and what your noise floor is. If you live in a quiet location and work CW, especially if you operate on crowded bands near other strong stations, you probably should shoot for 75-85dB IM3 and blocking DR. If you ragchew on SSB or operate on clear bands without much activity and/or have high noise floor, 65-80dB DR would likely be enough.

The ratio of strongest to weakest detectable signal I have ever measured was just over 85dB with 350Hz bandwidth. (It would be less of a ratio on SSB, becuase a 3.5 kHz filter would let in ten times or 10dB more noise, and the same signal assuming the transmitter BW matched the receiver BW.)

http://www.w8ji.com/how_to_check_signals.htm

If we had perfect 6-dB per S unit meters, which we don't, some DSP radios would have absolute fits with 10-20 over nine signals. Other radios would be able to handle 40 over nine signals, as a comparison.

In reasonably quiet locations you probably would benefit from owning a receiver with close-spaced IM3 DR over 80dB. For SSB in the city, almost anything would work. You'd probably swear by the worse radio made, instead of swearing at it.

I've owned an IC775DSP, IC756PRo, FT1000MP, FT1000MP MK V, Orion, FT1000D, and TS950SDX. I've used many others.

The only radios I can stand using are the modified FT1000's and the stock Orion. If I only worked SSB on 20 meters with a dipole, any of those would have been OK radios.

But for what I do, I clearly notice a close-spaced IM3 DR of less than 80dB. At about 75dB the receiver sounds like junk. That why there are only a few receivers that are useful to me. I won't tolerate having clicks on my signal, and don't really want any spurious signals.

73 Tom

Where is the Meat?

by VE3WGO on June 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

You can spec a radio all you want, but the main test is how it sounds to you. I spent quite a number of years in telephone and conference equipment design, and learned that for aural and visual personal preferences, numbers only tell a small fraction of the story. We used many focus groups and behavioural scientists to optimize our products. Specs are good for the regulatory requirements, but people are not test instruments.

A number of posters here agree that one rig looks better than another one, and go on to say that shouldn't be of primary concern. I beg to differ. It DOES matter for the simple reason that we do look at our rigs as much as we listen to them. We use the front panel to control the rig, and a good visual impact can play a large part in how we present ourselves when we talk through that equipment, and how well we can control it to listen.

I think the idea of buying things based on specs is nice, but not completely practical as our main criteria. For example, do we buy a house based on specs -- what is the energy loss per hour of your house? What is the floor loading. Or how about the ambient noise level in dBA? Don't know these very important parameters, do we? We don't even care! But we bought the house because of price, and its visual impact on us -- in other words, not based on specs.

How about when you bought your car -- did you check the lateral skidpad test numbers, or the sensitivity or selectivity of the car's radio (even though you might actually use that one even more than your ham rig)? How about the acceleration - did you like it because of what some test result said, or because it took off nicely when you mashed the gas pedal? See, again no specs, unless you were looking at the fuel economy ratings. That's why we read reviews that give HUMAN impressions, not (only) instrument test results.

Or how about that new TV you bought recently -- did you check the frequency response and IMD specs of its audio channels, and how about the contrast ratio or viewing angle of the display? Do you know what the sensitivity of its reciever is? Nope, but you like the price and how the picture looks, don't you?

How about your new digital camera -- do you know the quantization distortion of the CCD imaging array or the DSP interpolation algorithm the camera uses to synthesize its pixels? Nope again. But it fits nice in your hand, and the pictures seem really clear and bright don't they.

Of course most people didn't check a single one of those specs, even when the things they bought cost 100 times what their ham rig cost. So the manufacturers pay attention to what matters to people, and spec sheets just aren't it. Even professional equipment has very limited technical data available to a buyer. (military and telecom carriers excepted).

And yet we know those specs exist, probably in an engineer's design document filed in the company R&D group somewhere...

Face it, we usually buy personal stuff because we like it, not because a piece of test gear likes it.

Bottom line -- specs are for armchair buyers, and for those times when we just can't make up our minds. If you like a radio and it sounds and feels and looks good and performs well in your environment for the right price, then that's the radio for you. Bragging rights don't make the audio sound better.

I have had a Tentec Paragon for 13 years, and I have no idea what it's 3rd order intercept is. Probably high, because the front end has a quad FET ring first mixer. All I know is that it doesn't collapse under the local CHU time signal in town (Ottawa) at 3.330 and 7.335 MHz the way some other rigs of the early 90s did when I did A/B comparisons before buying. Was even better than my (then) room-mate's Drake TR-4Cw. My new FT-847 does at least as well now, and I am pleased. Tried to compare the specs, but the real proof was the on-air test and how I liked the controls. I know there are other rigs that have better specs, but can I hear the difference? Maybe, but correlating that to a spec number is not easy.

So I test a radio live air before I buy one -- at the store, on an antenna, A/B comparsion with another one in my same price range. If it sounds good, looks good, the buttons feel comfortable, and the display is easy on my eyes, then I'm interested. But the spec sheet tells me only what a test instrument things of the rig, not what a HAM thinks of it in real life.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KC8VWM on June 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>> We are slipping in a lot of areas and I want to see work returning to our shores and stuff properly and honestly labeled. <<<

I'm with you 100% brother

73

Charles - KC8VWM

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KB2CPW on June 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Simply look at the reviews of the Orion and 7800, note that the 7800's reviews make little or no mention of the specs (at least the last few I looked at) just that houses had to be remortgaged to buy one and how pretty it is, and that the owners are impressed yada yada yada.

The Orions reviews involve the specs and the owners comparison or opinion on them, the price is realistic to the amount of performance one gets for his/her money. This cant be done when reviewing the 7800 as the serious specs on the rig arent given to the consumer, so in essence everyone who bought one thus far, bought it knowing very little about its actual real world performance until they plunked down the change.
I can buy one right now but I wouldnt, it simply doesnt interest me. Even if I contested, I can do just the same with a good antenna,amp and rig with a good solid reputation. A well equipped rig can give me the same enjoyment for 1/10th the price. I think the 1000D cant be beat for the dollar as well as the Orion or Omni VI when dealing with real world use and specs.

Dollar for dollar the latter cant be beat and anything else is money thrown out of the window. The average ham doesnt give a crap and those that do are usually smart enough to stay away from the hi priced hype. As far as the rigs go, Icom, Yaesu, Kenwood, TenTec etc.. All have good reputations and I am sure their products for the most part perform well, but 10k to bark out signal reports and yak on 80m is insane. Kinda like a Ferrari stuck in traffic..
Flame all you want, but these rigs offer nothing that cant be had for 1/3 their asking price. Take your FTDX9K or 7800 money and buy an above mentioned rig, an 87a amp and use the rest (if there is any) to buy your wife something nice so that the stuff gets in the shack without incident :-) Regards... Richy N2ZD

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KG6AMW on June 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Most hams who buy radios, do so the way people buy cars, "oh look at that (radio/car), its so pretty". How much? The dealer says, will, how much you got? The buyer says "why that's reasonable". Its a whole lot tougher now days to negotiate car purchases with so many happy with $1500 off sticker. If your not getting at least $5,000 off sticker before manufacturer rebates, your a fool. Perhaps we can bring this attitude to ham radio and receiver/transmitter performance numbers.

KG6AMW

Where is the Meat?

by K8DIT on June 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

If you mean red meat, my doctor says, go easy on it.
I've been posting similar queries to the Etch-A-Sketch and Magna Doodle reflectors and the replies have been just as stress inducing. QST will not review either one of these products claiming no relevance to ham radio. So, 30 years ago when I put a mic. connector, key plug and coax output on them and worked the world,
skeptics have panned my claims since. But Im here to tell you that both have quiet recievers and transmit just as smooth as silk. Well, time for meds... Ill take mine if you take yours. Seventy trees.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by K2WH on June 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Uh, what, OK if you say so.....

K2WH

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KD5JFT on June 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I bought a Yaesu FT-847. I only have a tech license so can only use it for 6M on up. I do listen on HF though. After I upgrade, if I could afford any radio I wanted (ie if I win the lottery), I would buy the TenTec based solely on the user reviews and comments. When I look at a radio, I don't want to hear people talk about it's good points, I really want to hear what they don't like about it. I can then decide whether that problem is important to me or not. I only pay attention to the makers specs when I have nothing better to do. Real world use by real people especially if they have been operating for a long time is much more important and revealing than anything else. I do like eye candy. The FT-847 is very pretty and impressive with it's gobs of buttons and dials. The Icoms with the color screens are really cool looking. I have always thought that it would be neat to build a shack based on looks alone and have something that would impress anyone who knew nothing about radios, and another one based on real world performance that could do anything the operator wished. Kinda neat to dream about such things and if I ever win a lottery, I will write up a nice long article about it from my permanent operating location in Tahiti or some such.

Remember this is a hobby. It is supposed to be FUN!!

KD5JFT

Where is the Meat?

by KE4ZHN on June 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I believe Icom is being secretive about their new wonder radio for one simple reason. Its not much better (if at all) then any other rice box or high end rig on the market...at least not enough to justify its ridiculous price. If this 7800 was so much superior to all the other radios..then why would Icom be so scared to publish its specs? Even if I won the lotto tomorrow...there simply isnt a rig made thats worth 10k to me period...I dont care if it has solid gold knobs! Its JUST a radio! Ham radio is a hobby...its about communication...not a contest to see whos apendage is bigger. These things are for people who have so much money they just dont know what else to spend it on...so they buy this rig thinking is so much better then the rest...pure bull##it.

Where is the Meat?

by W3ULS on June 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I took up the hobby again in 2000 after a lapse of 45 years. It was like Rip Van Winkle, waking up to find transceivers (!) with all kinds of firmware and software-driven features. I thought that, with the reviews and lab data in QST, that it would be a relatively simple process of elimination to come up with one of the rigs that suited me to a "T." Wrong!

I have made several discoveries in an odyssey that lasted until early this year in trying out a number of top-end rigs (not including the Orion or the 756PROs). First, there is no substitute for using a rig at your shack for some months. This discovery, which I came to reluctantly, meant a lot of buying (mostly used), selling and shipping as the rigs came and went.

Second, the QST reviews and data were not of great value. Again, I had to experience the rigs myself and come to my own conclusions. For example, while the FT-1000MP Mark V received close to a rave review, I could not warm up to either of the two I owned. Again, the relatively tepid review of the Kenwood TS-870, including a sidebar dissing the receiver's front end, kept me from trying the rig for years. Yet the TS-870 is now my main rig.

Third, appearance and ergonomics are two very important considerations for me. These are unmeasureable and have to be experienced.

Finally, I have concluded that the almost obsessive emphasis in some quarters on the "big three" lab indices: BDR, IMDDR, and 3d Order Intercept Point, is misplaced. No less an authority than Mike Tracy of the ARRL lab has opined on a reflector that BDR as a criterion of receiver performance is overblown, and in a similar posting an experienced engineer pointed out that encountering a situation on the air that is equivalent to the two-tone 3d Order IMD test is a rare event indeed. Again, it takes real-world experience to evaluate a transceiver. Lab data is at best a useful supplement.

My lengthy evaluation process has led me to the conclusion that I like good-looking, solid rigs with IF-DSP. That means that, in addition to the TS-870, I own an ICOM 746PRO and a Ten-Tec Argonaut V. None of these rigs scored "best" in the big three indices but for now at least they constitute my "personal best."

In short, while I enjoy reading the reviews in magazines and comments on reflectors, I'm not about to base a purchase decision on any of it.

73,
John, W3ULS

Where is the Meat?

by AH6GI on June 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Several folk have covered the points well. Summarizing:

1) the specs don't matter much except to the lowest common denominator buyer, the "spec-reader" or "spec-quoter".

2) ergonomics count but are not part of the specs. Light grey on black lettering? Chiclet buttons? Menu modes? Today's radios are at low point in ergonomics.

3) all transmitters sound pretty much the same. Most receivers too.

4) I've put old boatanchors on modern test equipment. A 30+ year old heathkit LMO drifts less than 200 Hz in a week. I use modified hi-fi speakers on my radios.

5) The antenna, feedline, QTH (ground conductivity, local noise level, elevation, angle to the horizon), count for much more than the specs.

6) Band conditions count for more than the above.

7) Amplifier power counts for less but it counts too.

8) Operator skill and patience counts too.

9) For bragging rights, a 50 year old 75A-4/KWS-1 trumps ANYTHING made today. Ditto an SX-115/HT-32.

de ah6gi/4

RE: Where is the Meat?

by N9YB on June 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

ZHN said:

"I believe Icom is being secretive about their new wonder radio for one simple reason. Its not much better (if at all) then any other rice box or high end rig on the market...at least not enough to justify its ridiculous price. If this 7800 was so much superior to all the other radios.."

Don't worry about the 7800 and its 10-kilo-buck price tag too much, it is already under recall by ICOM from what I have read on a couple of reflectors.

For $10K, the dealer had better driver to the ham's house, box it up himself, send it back and leave a suitable replacement rig as a loaner.

Where is the Meat?

by VE3WGO on June 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ok, on this forum's advice, I went to Sherwood Engineering's web site once again, and walked through his Dayton slide show on latest receiver test results. I understand it, and wish he didn't do just 2 kHz tests which are ok for CW operation (he used a 1 kHz filter). 5 kHz tests are more relevant to SSB operation (Orion's SSB roofing filter is 2.4 kHz wide). The Orion passed those tests with flying colours, even better than his mod'ed Drake R-4C.

Anyway, just to see what it might cost to update my Tentec Paragon which is equipped with all optional crystal filters down to 250 Hz, RS-232, FM, desk mic, power supply, tuner, fan, and speaker, I filled my shopping cart with the corresponding Orion setup. I'm up to over $4100 (US) plus shipping.

Last year I bought a Yeasu FT-847 and RS-35M power supply, tuner, and mic, mostly to add mobile HF and VHF/UHF capability. All for under $1800 (US) deal, shipping included. So in addition to HF, I got 6M, 2M, 70 CM bands, and Satellite capability to boot.

Now can anybody tell me what I get for an additional $2300 going from an FT-847 to an Orion? Of course, I know, I would get a much stronger receiver and a cool LCD display, and WAY more buttons, but really guys, it that worth $2300? No portability and not even 6 meters!

Before you flame my facetious question or attitude, let me remind you that it's the same question being asked of the IC-7800. What do we get for the money, and what is it really worth?

RE: Where is the Meat?

by K3BU on June 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

It is amusing to see "debates" about rigs, prices and how smart some people are by choosing rig X and not "overpriced piece of junk" model Y.

First, performance: manufacturers will always try to produce equipment that will sell, they will bombard you with glowing descriptions, features, specs (or not). Just as there are various uses for different cars and models from manure spreading tractor to racing Ferrari, the same we have with our radios and other products. If you are QRU net operator or Sunday night ragchewer, any decent and cheap radio would do. If you are DXer or contester, than you wouldn't use FTDX100 when going on expedition or trying to WIN contest, you would select radio with better performance/specs and fitting your budget.

The most demanding are the contesters, who require strong signal handling capabilities and ability to listen to weak signals in the presence of next door strong signals (congested bands with strong/weak signals). Just as with cars going from tractor, through truck, SUV, sedan, sports car, racing car, we hams have different needs going from small mobile rigs like IC706, through mid range FT1000s, TS9XXs and IC7XXs all the way to $10k radios. You can beat record with IC706 from a rare place, but you could do better with better radio. It is all relative.

As far as specs, reviews and testing, the manufacturer will always try to portray their products as the best ever. The reality is sometimes different, sometimes way off. For that we have reviews and testing. Magazine reviews tend to be all "nice" trying not to upset the advertisers. In my attempt to get into unbiased review "business", after reviewing Orion and giving honest contester's opinion (see www.K3BU.us) I got "praises" from Ten-Tec "Cult Followers" on Ten-Tec reflector, that later I decided to terminate the reviewing and embark on designing the "Dream Radio" (see www.computeradio.us) rather than be the object of personal attacks for trying to do a service to fellow hams.

What I have been doing in the past, I would buy used older vintage rig, modify the circuits to perform for my purpose. My old modified $300 R4B would still run circles around all of the "modern" radios. See Sherwood and W8JI pages for test data, old R4s are at the top. Yes, Orion (when it works) will outperform IC7800 in intermod handling performance. But Elecraft K2, upcoming SDR radios and modified vintage rigs can outperform Orion for a lot less money too.

There is a second life for used radios by modifying them to perform better for a lot less money. The "big deal" with overload and intermods is in the front end (low first IF and good filtering). Inrad is coming out with sharper roofing filters (high IF) for the older midrange radios, which for couple hundred bucks will give run to them over $3000 radios big time.

Yes, manufacturers mostly don't get it and they produce radios with some obvious problems, often curable with very simple and inexpensive fixes. As long as we keep buying them and there is no alternative, they get away with it.

Second, bitching about the price. That is silly. One buys what one needs, likes and can afford. Nobody is stupid for buying IC7800, because he could have bought 3 Orions or 25 FTDX100s. It is simply the case of liking and wanting something and being able to afford it. Just like some people buy used VW Beetle and some buy Jaguar or Hummer, they too get from point A to point B. They are not stupid, they are smart (to make money and buy what they want). So those pointing fingers at those "idiots" that buy expensive stuff are simply pointing fingers at themselves, demonstrating that they are not "winners" and can't afford more expensive toy.

Last note to those TenTeckers bitching about overpriced IC7800 vs. "great" Orion: the IC7800 is almost worth the money, look at all the features, ergonomics, reliability, 50 lbs of filled box with dual receivers, spectrum analyzer, gorgeous screen, 200W power vs. unfinished design, half empty box of Orion, I think that the price ratio is about right. Just as maybe Orion is not worth $3.6k, the IC7800 could be more welcome costing around $6k. But, hey, if they get away with selling them, you give them your $$ approval and support, they will "get away" with it. I will wait till it shows up on the used market, but maybe by then Computeradio DR1 will be the choice of demanding operators and for a decent price.

So if you like it and can afford it, go for it. If not, then just drool and dream about it, maybe one day.... that's where the meat is :-)

Yuri Blanarovich, K3BU.us

I drive only American cars, I can fixe'm and keep 'em rolling typically for 300k miles (so I can spend more money on radios :-)

Where is the Meat?

by UT7UX on June 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I think the real difference between reports is S-meter calibration.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on June 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Color screens are nice if you like to look at radios and impress visitors, but we should be mindful of performance. We should not forget the $3000 Orion has, without modification, 20+ times (~14dB) better close-spaced performance than the IC-7800 and the Orion does not click on CW transmit.

I do agree the Orion needs some work. My biggest dislike is the AGC requires constant attention when receiving weak signals.

The 7800 is actually about the same as later versions of the 756-PRO, and not nearly as good as my FT1000 with $50 worth of mods. (NO, don't change the PIN diodes!!!! Changing the PIN diodes does NOT change anything except make to make your wallet thinner and someone else's wallet fatter.)

The R4C isn't a good receiver. Anyone who reads my webpage carefully or who uses one should understand the Sherwood mods are to patch a receiver that NEVER should have been released as it was. As a matter of fact, Drake remanufactured my new R4C's (a late 17,000 serial number)MOSFET 2nd mixer to a 6BE6 tube followed by an FET amplifier because the receiver was almost useless. They knew they had a problem.

The top R4C's really are not R4C's any more. They have:

1.) New RF amps
2.) New 1st mixer designs
3.) Sherwood 600 Hz and custom upper and lower sideband 2.7kHz SSB filters. THREE filters to switch.
4.) New double balanced 2nd and 3rd mixers and IF amplifiers
5.) Reduced gain in the front ends and in front of the narrow 2nd IF filters
6.) New AGC circuits
7.) An isolation amplifier preventing 50kHz BFO from back-feeding the last IF amplifier
8.) New audio amplifiers
9.) Entirely new AGC circuitry
10.) NO AGC applied ahead of narrow filters

What I basically did is gut the troublesome stages from the R4C and replace them with either modern devices or well-designed tube type circuits, depending on my experimental mood.

Slapping a few Sherwood mods (including the 600Hz Sherwood CW 1st IF filter) in a stock late serial number R4C will make a very good receiver for overload with a spacing more than +-350Hz or so, but the receiver will still have a host of other problems and be sub-standard on SSB and narrow CW operation to a stock FT1000 series radio with a noise blanker correction.

By the way, the Inrad roofing filter will NOT correct the R4C because it lets the upper or lower adjacent channels through to the lousy 2nd mixer. You have to use the 600Hz wide filter and then it only helps on CW.

73 Tom

KICJS's Ridiculous Comment

by KI6YN on June 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

It just so happens I've never been out of work. I had an independent consulting business for over 20 years. When things got slow, I got a great job and at 62, still working. As to my financial position, I bought the Orion once I saw that most of the firmware bugs were fixed. I can afford a 7800, but I have no desire for one. I drive a Toyota Prius; I bought it immediately after reading about it. I've had no problems with it and it averages 48 miles per gallon; it is the socially responsible thing to do because it lowers air pollution and saves resources. My other vehicle is a 97 Dodge Ram pickup that I use for hauling and some weekend activities. I bought it new and the paint is starting to peel. Check the Internet search engines, Chrysler had a paint problem for several years and didn't do anything about it. Once I retire, I'll probable get a new truck, I have no idea if it will be an American brand or not, I go by specs with to my REQUIREMENTS,and then looks.

I think it is reprehensible that many good technical people are out of work. I quit contributing to my alumni association because when I went back for an open house, most the engineering students were foreigners. It would be stupid to subsidize their education so they can go home and put some Americans out of work because they are doing the same work via virtual systems for less than 15% of what somebody living here makes.

Rest assured, if Detroit had a hybrid vehicle or fuel cell powered vehicle available, I'd have purchased one. Once Detroit starts making fuel efficient vehicles that are reliable, I'll get one. As to Ten Tec, yes, they did release the Orion too early, but they did solve most of the problems. Is Icom going to do that? Is it worth all that money for a color display?

The sole point of my article was the lack of an industry wide baseline for measurement. An honest system whereby one can research what they want. Yes, it is a hobby and we should spend our money on whatever we want, but we should have available the data we need to make a reasonable choice; it is not possible to take a radio home for a few days and check it out on your antenna except for Ten Tec! They offer a 30 day trial period, what other manufacturer offers that?

Its a hobby, no need for sarcasm or name calling. I prefer CW but have no animosity against no code operators. There is something for everybody in this great hobby. The most intelligent comments were fromt he folks that realize a 100 watts is a 100 watts and with the same antenna, there will be little difference in transmitting. As to receiving, there is a lot more to it than that. It is true that the cost of reception improvements is exponential with today's prices. I collected and restored Model A Fords, and the difference in cost for a 90 point car and a 91 point car was a few hundred dollars and many hours of work. The difference between a 98 point car and a 99 point car was several thousand dollars and possibly hundreds of hours.......point made?

Where is the Meat?

by KB7LYM on June 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

About the American car. There ain't no such thing. Frames are manufactored in Mexico. Tires in Indonesia. Seats in Polen.Transmission is made up from parts of 12 different Countries. Glass imported from China. However there is 1 part that is strictly made in the US. Its the chewing gum that was used to attach the mirror to the windshield.

Who cares about a signal 579 539 ?

RE: Where is the Meat?

by WB2WIK on June 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I have a difficult time determining how anything will work based on its specifications. For me, verification is by performance with the rig connected to my antennas, and it's largely a "feel" thing. One particularly useful feature of an HF transceiver is a working noise blanker, especially where I live (!) and dynamic performance of blankers varies so enormously I wouldn't even know how to quantify results -- there are too many variables. But I sure can tell when a blanker works well and creates negligible distortion to desired signals, versus one that doesn't and does cause distortion to desired signals. It takes all of a minute to tell the difference with an antenna connected, but hours of lab testing probably wouldn't be adequate to rate one v. another.

The signal reports I send are based on how the other station's signal sounds to me in my headphones, and has nothing whatever to do with an S-meter reading. Actually, the pilot lamp in my rig's S-meter burned out a year ago and I never replaced it, since I never look at the meter, anyway....

WB2WIK/6

Where is the Meat?

by WA3REY on June 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Check this comparison:

http://www.elecraft.com/K2_perf.htm#Main%20RX%20Table

RE: Where is the Meat?

by VE3WGO on June 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

WA3REY's link to the Elecraft page is very interesting. The expensive radios do perform very well compared to the others. IMD, IP3 and IP2 performance are where the best ones really shine. The IC-7800 and FT1000MP lead the pack in IP2 and IMD over all the other receivers in the list, including the K2 and the Orion.

You might remember that IP2 performance was the main point in Ulrich Rohde's article back a few years ago in QST on optimum receiver design techniques (I wish I could recall the issue date). He was optimizing various receivers with front-end mods to improve their rather poor IP2 performance, because he strongly claimed that it was a more relevant spec than IP3, and he compared it to various analytical results on the radios he tested. He has had many other articles, including QEX on similar subjects. He is the HF receiver guru and the co-founder of Rohde & Schwartz, maker of premium test equipment. Yes, THAT one.

So, how many specs do we really need? IP3? IP2? BDR? IMD? It's bewildering...

But if his IP2 advice is to be followed along with the superior IMD and IP2 and IP3 test results, then the IC-7800 is indeed a superior receiver that blows the doors off all the others in Elecraft's list. So IC-7800 owners can enjoy that fabulous performance along with its great looks and luxuries....

I think the IC-7800 is a dream rig, both from what I've read of its performance and feedback, and it's awesome looks and user interface. I just don't understand how somebody could dream of bashing it. It is truly the Ferrari of HF radios. I don't own one (have TT and Yaesu), but I'd sure like to at least try one or work one some day.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on June 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

You might remember that IP2 performance was the main point in Ulrich Rohde's article back a few years ago in QST on optimum receiver design techniques (I wish I could recall the issue date). He was optimizing various receivers with front-end mods to improve their rather poor IP2 performance, because he strongly claimed that it was a more relevant spec than IP3, and he compared it to various analytical results on the radios he tested. He has had many other articles, including QEX on similar subjects. He is the HF receiver guru and the co-founder of Rohde & Schwartz, maker of premium test equipment. Yes, THAT one>>>>>>>

I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. Who would care how good or how bad a receiver is for out-of-band signals?

The IP2 of a 3.5MHz signal when I'm working 40 meters?

All those people bothered by 80 meter signals when working 40, please raise your hands....

All those bothered by stations on CW 5 and 10 kHz away from you(this would be a 5kHz IM3 test)...

All those bothered by stations on CW 2kHz and 4 kHz away....

All those bothered by even closer stations?

Think about it, and you'll see why all these wide spaced tests are useless. The real problem is at 500Hz to 2kHz, not at 3MHz spacing. It is certainly NOT IM2.

No wonder radios are such a disappointment. People setting test specs think we only have one transmitter every 10kHz. Now we are supposed to set the specs at one transmitter per band by using IP2? I don't think so.

$10,000 for a radio with a transmitter 3rd order of 30 dB below PEP on 14MHz, and a close spaced IM3 DR of less than 78 dB?

My six year old FT1000D is better than that.

73 Tom

RE: Where is the Meat?

by KI6YN on June 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Again, missed the point. The website above is Elecraft; they definitely are not an independent lab!!! I don't see anywhere in my writeup wherein I put down the 7800 or made a case for one rig being better than the other. I made a specific point that I was upset about a baseline for specs. I only mentioned I looked up the 7800 on the Icom website based upon a signal report. I didn't berate the signal report. The problem with things today seems to be reading comprehension or people forming an opinion without understanding what is being stated.

Where is the Meat?

by W3DCG on June 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

My take on this is,
manufacturers are not going to standardize the way they state specifications, the marketing departments will want them to always skew given specs in a manner most likely to sell radios.

So, the only lab I know of, on the consumer side, but actually on both sides, and therefore having an interest in remaining balanced, and objective, would be ARRL Reviews. At least there they state important test parameters. I do wonder about the ramifications of measuring and reporting poor performance, when advertising dollars are being taken for manufacturers in the very same issue that contains the report, often on the very same equipment being reviewed.

I too, often wonder why measurements are taken and reported, by even the ARRL, for spacings that don't matter, as what matters to me, is how well the rig performs when the loud station is 500 Hz to 5 Khz away. Not 20 Kc away.
But at least it seems to be a standardized test parameter. Comparisons in this manner can be made, one rig relative to another.

Finally, I hear between the lines of this article the following:

Is the new Icom worth 10 grande when Orion is available? Would one really achieve, say 6000 dollars worth of increased performance, over say, an ORION?
In my considered opinion, if the bulk of your operating is CW, I cannot imagine how.

Next, looking at the complexity and digital technology present in either radio, no matter if you're one of the finest engineers around, when either radio needs servicing, or component(s) need replacing, will you really be attempting to perform such service yourself? If the answer is unlikely, in my mind, Orion wins again.

But if money were no object, I'd sure love to have either!

However, there is something to be said about a manufacturer's collective philosophy, resulting in the creation of radios that, despite their complexity and high performance, are relatively easy to learn and operate.
Too much complexity, often serves to lessen an operator's real world, tactical performance. When one is splitting hairs in the technical specification department, that matter little in the real world performance arena, I'd rather have the radio that does what I need it to do faster and with less manipulation. Especially if I were in some kind of race,
*where speed coupled with precision was the essence of the task at hand*.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on June 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Where is the Meat? Reply
by W3DCG on June 30, 2004
My take on this is,
manufacturers are not going to standardize the way they state specifications, the marketing departments will want them to always skew given specs in a manner most likely to sell radios.>>>

That's right. The goal is sell.

<<I too, often wonder why measurements are taken and reported, by even the ARRL, for spacings that don't matter, as what matters to me, is how well the rig performs when the loud station is 500 Hz to 5 Khz away. Not 20 Kc away.>>>

I'm sure the technical people would like to give meaningful honest reports. I think the problem is the radios wouldn't look good.

<<But at least it seems to be a standardized test parameter. Comparisons in this manner can be made, one rig relative to another.>>

Not really. The performance at 10 kHz can be wonderful and the receiver useless. There is no carry through at all in wide spaced results to narrow spaced results.

Anyone who has ever used a HF radio on a busy band knows darned well it is the close-spaced stuff that is most problematic. It's the guy 1kHz or less away on CW and the guy 2 or 3 kHz up or down the band on SSB that cause the vast majority of problems.

73 Tom

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W3DCG on June 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hello, Mr. Tom-

Well, I believe I experienced some of those problems dabbling in class 1D Field Day, with my Pegasus, just for grins.
But hey, for the price, features, and it was never seriously touted as a contest grade radio, yeah.
It is a F-U-N radio, though, and for the cost vs features, who could complain.

Whatever blows ones skirt up, I say. I suppose, that
Mercedes still sell well enough,
and yet, it doesn't do anything better than say, an Infinity FX, probably does less, too, with models costing more.

Same thing like the Hummer. Which is fine for Hummer owners out there. While trucks like GMC offer rear-wheel steering for the tightest turning radius ever put on a production line, given the wheel-base, more torque, more versatility, par or better gas mileage...

Status? Go figure.

73!

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on July 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Well, here's the main "thing" about this. If the receiver has poor IM2 and responds to out of band signals, it would cost about $5.00 in parts to correct the problem.

All we'd need is a simple L/C filter ahead of the radio.

If close-spaced IM3 (<2kHz)is poor, we are generally stuck. The only way to fix that is to do major revisions on the circuitry inside the radio.

A good IM2 or wide-spaced test does not mean acceptable close-spaced performance.

A good close-spaced test, virtually 100% of the time, means wide spaced numbers are as just as good and most of the time much better!

The ARRL should focus on close-spaced IM3 in reviews, not this silly 5 or 10kHz stuff. Some of the worse receivers ever manufactured look excellent at 10kHz. They should also call attention to how poor transmitters are for bandwidth. Glossing over poor transmitter SSB IMD performance and keyclicks leaves us all stuck with problems for years and years to come since solid state radios last so long.

73 Tom

RE: Where is the Meat?

by N4GI on July 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

KI6YN writes;
>>>Again, missed the point. The website above is Elecraft; they definitely are not an independent lab!!!<<<

Um, the big blue title of rig comparision spreadheet on the Elecraft page says:

"ARRL Lab Receiver Test Data Comparisons"

N4GI

RE: Where is the Meat?

by WB2WIK on July 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Lab tests are great, but user comments from knowledgeable and experienced operators are good, too.

The new ARRL Product Review for the IC-7800, in the August '04 issue of QST (and already on line in the "What's New" section for members) tells a lot of the story by user experiences, including three different perspectives focusing on general/contesting; digital/RTTY; and six meter operation. It was interesting reading.

WB2WIK/6

Where is the Meat?

by W3ULS on July 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Steve, WB2WIK/6, has my vote. There are several reasons why the IC-7800 is much more expensive than the Ten-Tec Orion, among them: the second receiver is a clone of the very good first receiver. In the Orion, the second receiver is basically a Jupiter, which is quite an ordinary performer. Again, in the IC-7800 there is a single Texas Instruments high-powered chip dedicated to the display alone. This means that ICOM has been able to place all kinds of useful, real-time information in a 7-inch color display format. Based on the comments by the QST reviewers, the display and associated buttons and knobs make operating this highly complex transceiver not only straightforward but fun. By comparison, the sweep feature of the Orion is enabled by a less-than-stellar Motorola chip that renders its usefulness of dubious value. Third, the ICOM engineers appear to have concentrated on making their firmware/software package (1) bugproof and (2) user friendly. Recall the early Orions where there were many bugs reported and a lot of consternation about the need for near-constant tweaking of various adjustments. True, the updates provided at "ditsnbits" by Ten-Tec have dealt sequentially with the early problems and now the transceiver seems to have settled down. No such "beta testing" appears to have been necessary for the IC-7800, which itself is scheduled for two firmware updates to be available later this summer.

Thus, in addition to the advanced hardware, the cost of the ease, simplicity, understandability, etc., provided by the IC-7800 is embedded in the sales price of the IC-7800. In the end, it seems to me that comparing the Orion with the IC-7800 is an apples/oranges exercise because of these distinct differences.

Both the QST and the CQ reviews of the Orion were favorable, and ON4UN's CQ review pretty much said if you are that rare avis, a "top band" contester, this is the rig for you. The fact is that three ARRL staffers with broad amateur radio experience have now found the IC-7800 both formidable and pleasing. All of these articles provide a useful basis for making a decision to buy or not to buy one of these rigs, and I'm glad we have access to them. I cannot believe that in making such a significant dollar outlay, anyone would rely solely on lab tests of individual units and ignore such written commentary.

In the final analysis, once one surmounts the very high financial threshhold, it is how the transceiver works in my shack--or yours--that determines whether or not it's a keeper. My guess is with either one it would be at least six months, perhaps longer, before a definitive judgment could be made.

73,
John, W3ULS

RE: Where is the Meat?

by WB2WIK on July 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I think the 7800-v-Orion is an apples-v-oranges, too.

The 7800 has *many* features simply not found in the Orion, and some of these have very substantial obvious cost, e.g., a built-in AC power supply; a 200W output transmitter; the 7" TFT display that is not only amazing but provides an enormous amount of highly useful data to the operator (providing he knows what to do with it!); the six meter band (with 200W output); and too many things to list.

Then, the Orion would be a far more useful and suitable Field Day (or any sort of portable) rig, being smaller, lighter and less power hungry.

Two different markets, with some overlap.

WB2WIK/6

JUST WHERE IN THE ARTICLE WAS THERE A COMPARISON??

by KI6YN on July 2, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I wish some people would stick to the subject. Comments from many sides are useful, but comments that have nothing to do with the intended discussion are absolutely worthless. I never compared the 7800 with the Orion. I am what one would call a casual operator. I don't chase cardboard, in fact, I avoid pileups and contests. I do enjoy FD and for that I have an adequate rig. Read my original article and then read all of the comments. I only told how I became aware of the lack of specs on Icom's site and I was also aware that there is no honest baseline from which to make sense of the 'specifications'. Of course, the specifications are not the sole source for rig selection, but it is an important consideration. There are those that are impressed with bells and whistles, whether or not they are useful or not. This is a hobby and if someone wants an expensive rig, then by all means, knock yourself out and buy it.

In my job, we use receivers that cost in the order of $80K and believe me, you get stuck with a dog even in that price range. Icom has always been associated with good equipment, as stated by me elsewhere, I had an Icom 761 and will always consider it a classic. I wrote the article "Apples and Oranges" and now I see it used here. Nonsense and shame on all of you, the object was to make you all aware that specifications can say whatever the vendor wants them to say unless we know the entire story. It is true, I didn't notice that the Elecraft matrix was made by the ARRL, but are they an independent lab? I don't know, they need advertising dollars. No, the Orion is far from perfect, for my needs, it fills the bill adequately.

I also mountain and road ride. My mountain bike is an average cross country bike, cost was $3K, you can spend over $6K for a mountain bike today. If you are strong and a skilled rider and can get the extra use for the bucks, then by all means buy the $6K bike. I'm 62 years old, so for me, the bike I selected allows me to ride some pretty strenuous trails and have the peace of mind that my bike will take the beating and the hydraulic disk brakes will go a long way to protect me on the downhill runs. Same with radio, I don't contest, I use the pan display only to see if the band is dead or not. When I get on the air, I immediately go and try to work some new hams in the FIST hangouts and I also tune around the Novice sections. After about a half an hour of that, I then go to the bottom portion of the band and listen for a CQ call or I call CQ and hope for one of those really great QSOs. I love CW and only want to be an appliance operator, for me the fun is the QSO and feel of the key, the Zen of CW. If there is a need to get technical, I think I can hold my own after over 40 years as an electronics engineer.

Please buy the Yaesu or Icom rigs that cost over $10K, I'll be happy for you, but I will in no way be impressed. I will definitely respect you for giving yourself something you wanted for your hobby. I subscribe to the ultimate bumper sticker that said:
"HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS, WINS!!!"

RE: JUST WHERE IN THE ARTICLE WAS THERE A COMPARIS

by N3ZKP on July 2, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

<< I subscribe to the ultimate bumper sticker that said:
"HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS, WINS!!!" >>

Nice sentiment, but he who dies with the most toys is still dead!!! :)

Where is the Meat?

by KW4N on July 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Some great posts under the umbrella of specsmanship, free speech, free markets, and capitalism. Have a great 4th!
73's
Dave, KW4N

Jupiter sub RX

by W3DCG on July 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Yeah...
I haven't researched either, I rather find looking at what I cannot have now, frustrating.

But, I hear 7800 is about ten grande.
I know a base Orion is 3300, free 30 day trial.
I figure, RF filters must be at most 200 a piece, less if In Rad has them.

If one were to get 3 extra IF filters each at 200...
in pairs.
If one were to get a pair of Orions...

It's still under 10 grande.

If one breaks, you have another.

If the audio starts to go distorted or some other annoyance in the 7800 it's off for repair.
Obviously, the 7800 market shacks out there have multiple back up rigs though.

7800's TFT display, which must be like a ProII on steriods and more- constant real time, high-res-color shot of the current spectrum, THAT IS waaayyycool, truly very useful every time one operates.

Aside from that, now we're talking 2 Jupiter grade, okay receivers, and two, fully loaded Ten Tec high end receivers, Two seperate PAs, The Finest QSK money can buy at any price, the versatility to grab one and go, and it still costs less than one 7800.

Obviously the need for some extra, spendy, appliance operator band-pass filters and switching device, must be considered, like at any SO2R station.

Uh, sorry I can't seem to dismiss the Apples and Oranges comparison. I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this liitle blurb, as I cannot have either! But if I were to write a story, it likely would be fiction based upon reality, with names and places changed a bit. Entertainment, if you will. Which frankly, explains why gravity tends to pull me towards the segue, almost every time.

Were I to be seriously considering the purchase of a 7800, I'd be confounded by the lack of meaningful specifications. Especially, because there is no Risk Free Trial.

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on July 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by WB2WIK on July 1, 2004
Lab tests are great, but user comments from knowledgeable and experienced operators are good, too. The new ARRL Product Review for the IC-7800, in the August '04 issue of QST (and already on line in the "What's New" section for members) tells a lot of the story by user experiences, including three different perspectives focusing on general/contesting; digital/RTTY; and six meter operation. It was interesting reading. WB2WIK/6 >>>>

Steve,

Your comments actually prove how readers go away thinking fluff text is meaningful. Many readers miss important key phrases, words, and numbers. Reviews should be factual, not fuzzy.

First you hailed the power as an important feature, but 200 watts at –30dB Pep IM3 is not clean power.

If you parked a –30dB PEP IM3 signal 3kHz up from me when I was working weak DX, I’d probably be upset with you and ask you to move. At some point we are going to have to get manufacturers to move away from supplying near-class-C performance just to give us 15-20dB less attenuation of splatter for a return of 3dB more power! That's a silly tradeoff.

The days of Central Electronics 20A exciters are long gone. Let’s insist on state-of-the-art performance, or at least FCC legal numbers in transmitter bandwidth!

http://www.w8ji.com/transmitter_splatter.htm

Second, 200 watts is generally too much power anyway for any legal amplifier. I have a 3dB pad here I use with most of my radios, why do I need more power?

Radios actually get dirty when operated at a fraction of rated power unless they have early stage gain controls that limit transmitter system gain. It all goes back to ALC response and power overshoot. Many radios also have zero-crossing or low-level distortion in semiconductor devices.

Most radios peak in IM performance at some setting just below maximum output, and get worse at low power or full power. The best way to run a radio is so that the average power is in the cleanest area, and especially not to back one way off. We don't know how the 7800 behaves in this regard, because it was never tested. We do know it is not good at 200 watts, however! So we know we should not push it to the limit.

Here are only a few things who don’t read carefully will miss. From the review:

“The two-tone third-order IMD, anindication of the capability to receive a weak signal near a strong one, was measured at 98 dB at 14.1 MHz with 20 kHz spacing and a respectable but not quite the best we’ve seen of 89 dB at 5 kHz spacing.”

20kHz spacing actually tests a receiver for problems caused by two strong signals spaced 20KHz and 40kHz UP or DOWN from the weak guy you are trying to copy. I don’t think any of us in typical daily operation need an exceptional receiver at 20kHz and 40kHz away from the fellow we are listening to.

If you read carefully, you see the wide spaced test at 20kHz about the same as an Orion and many other rigs. Look at Sherwood Engineering’s tables (or QST reviews). We have the following only from Sherwood:

AOR AR7030
Omni 6 plus
WJ HF-1000
IC-781

Also the Orion, my FT1000D, and other radios are comparable or better at 20kHz spacing. Most important, all are better than we normally need.

Who cares if something that is already more than good enough gets slightly better or worse? I sure don't!

Most important is the author’s key phase:
“and a respectable but ***not quite the best we’ve seen*** of 89 dB at 5 kHz spacing.”

The reviewer carefully slips in the fact the 5kHz test, which indicates problems from signals 5 and 10kHz away, “isn’t quite the best they have seen”.

So if a super-radio isn't the best at close spacing (where most of the problems occur), what is better?

Dozens of radios, and some cost only around 1000 dollars or so new!!

Now if we move on to 2kHz tests, which test a receiver for problems caused by signals 2kHz and 4kHz away, the 7800 falls into what I would say is a "needs work" category. My own experience is any receiver measuring less than low 80's close spaced IM3 DR is useless for me. I hear clicks and QRM that really aren't there.

Here is what the “experienced operator” stated in the review:

“The second thing that drew my attention was the sensitivity of the receiver. Tuning up 20 meters at the slowest tuning rate, I marveled at what I could hear. Stopping and listening to the pileup calling OJØVR, I was able to hear calling US stations on back scatter that I ***don’t believe I would have heard*** on the ’930.”

What does that mean? It means he didn’t actually try his other receiver, a not especially good TS-930, but he “doesn’t believe” he would have heard the backscatter.

Statements like that are silly! You either hear it on one and not the other in a direct comparison, or you don’t.

Keep in mind what I just said, about my hearing clicks and QRM that really isn't there when a receiver has less than lower 80's close-spaced IM3 DR. The 7800 fits this category. Here is what the experienced user reports:

“The receiver is so sensitive that you can pick up the clicks earlier than I think I would have noticed on the ’930 or most other rigs. In reality, I was only tuning about 1-2 kHz around the clicky radios, but it seemed more irritating to me than ever before."

My guess is the poor close-spaced IM3 and blocking performance makes other radios sound extra clicky and extra irritating.

Who is correct?

Maybe neither of us because neither of us A-B tested the ICOM and the TS-930.

But factually, receivers don’t do magic. You either hear things at the noise floor on clear frequencies, or you don’t.

I can hear everything on my 1960’s HQ-180 that I can hear on any modern receiver as long as the frequency is clear! The reason is virtually any receiver limits on external background noise on bands like 20 meters.

What about blocking?

Looking at blocking we have:
IC765 151.5dB
FT1000D 150dB
IC7800 139dB
IC781 134dB
IC756 132dB

Yet the review says:

“We show the 20 kHz blocking dynamic range noise limited at an astounding 139 dB, among the best we’ve seen.”

I think the IC765 and FT1000D are among the best, being 12dB higher than the 7800.

Did they say that about them? Of course not!

Opinion reviews mostly don’t mean a thing. This one was exceptionally meaningless. I hope QST, when they compare radios, requires the operator to actually use the other radio and not go by “memory” or “feelings” of how the radio was in another contest months ago!

The same thing happens with these nonsense PIN diode mods to radios. People send a board (or their whole radio)away and get some diodes replaced, and don’t use the radio for a month. After they spend time and hundreds of dollars, they get the radio back and SWEAR from memory the radio is better.

Yet if we take an unmodified radio and a modified radio and blind A-B test them or do actual measurements, we can clearly see the PIN diodes don’t change a single thing except someone's wallet thickness!

The effect is well documented. The more money most of us spend and the more time we wait, the more we subconsciously want to hear an improvement. I think that is what happened here.

I'm sorry, I find some emotional areas of a review usefull, like talking about operating ease. But all the garbage about "I didn't actually compare but I think" needs to go!!

Reviews should be written to be clear and accurate, not to be wild guesses. If you are going to compare operation, then compare it. Don't guess.

By the way, I used to work making sure reviews were favorable. It was so disgusting I quit. It was pretty well known that if you gave certain people the equipment after the review, they would say almost anything you wanted them to say in the review comments. QST did not work that way, but MANY independent reviewers who are published did. I hope QST remains technical, and doesn't start following the trend of being "warm and fuzzy".

Keep this all in mind when you read reviews.

73 Tom

RE: Where is the Meat?

by K3BU on July 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Here is some "Fresh Meat" - Computeradio "Dream Radio One" - lean, mean contesting machine:

On this July 4th we are pleased to reveal the packaging and engineering prototype of Computeradio "Dream Radio One". It features stainless steel cabinet which will fit in the carry-on luggage, color LCD display, ergonomically designed controls (large tuning knob, key/paddles, foot switches yet to come) with two top notch ham band receivers, transmitter, spectrum analyzer/recorder with general coverage receiver in modular packaging with user programmable software for SO2R operation.
You can peek at picture of the system at http://www.computeradio.us/

Happy Independence Day and let the Freedom Ring!

Yuri, http://www.k3bu.us/
decided to work on the "Dream Radio" rather than do reviews (and get the flack) or trying to get manufacturers to listen (they still don't get it).

Where is the Meat?

by W3ULS on July 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Some transmit IMD3 numbers (ARRL lab)(-):

Omni VI + 26dB

Jupiter 29 dB

IC-7800 30 dB

Mark V Field 31 dB

Orion 32 dB

TS-870S 32 dB

I'd guess that Mike Tracy would say that a difference of 2 dB would not be significant vis a vis measurement tolerance. However, I would agree with anyone who would argue that Ten-Tec should be criticized for the mediocre IMD3 of its now discontinued OMNI VI (which was a top-of-the-line rig in its day).

On the other hand, I have heard no huzzahs for Kenwood's TS-870s, which has been motoring along for years with the same presumably commendable IMD3 that the much more expensive Orion has just recently achieved. Ditto Yaesu and the Mark V Field.

73,
John, W3ULS

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on July 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by W3ULS on July 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Some transmit IMD3 numbers (ARRL lab)(-):
Omni VI + 26dB
Jupiter 29 dB
IC-7800 30 dB
Mark V Field 31 dB
Orion 32 dB
TS-870S 32 dB

>>>>>>

The entire review system really needs review, hi hi.

Radios gradually have slipped downhill for transmitter bandwidth and close-spaced receiver performance. The Ten Tec Orion and the Elecraft radios are actually the first radios really trying to improve what actually counts.

I think this is because most manufacturers only try to satisfy the reviews. They have slipped into designing radios that pass tests, rather than radios that actually improve on performance of previous generations in actual real-world use. Part of this is our fault, because we allow it to happen. No one likes to ever say anything critical, even if it is correct and deserved. We taught them how to build our radios by buying based on appearances rather than performance.

Consider a KWM2 I recently sold had transmitter IM3 in the -45dB range according to the ARRL's test of dB below PEP. (dB below PEP actually inflates performance by 6 dB over the standard test of dB below one tone.)

Factually, the two-tone test is almost useless anyway for determining voice bandwidth, It should be replaced with an occupied BW test using actual voice or a three tone test with one tone at a syllabic (sp?) rate.

The waveshape test on CW is useless also. That should be replaced with a bandwidth test.

While many people like complicated radios, I still think most people want a simple radio that works well.

73 Tom

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W9OY on July 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I think that specifications do matter. The next time a category 3 hurricane is barreling down on your QTH and you realize the hurricane clips holding your roof on are category 1... or the guy line you got on special at the hamfest is only 1/8 inch ... you get the point. Hurricane Andrew woke people up to how important the hurricane clip, and actually putting all the nails into the clip, really is.

I cut my teeth re-designing my TS820's receiver in the mid 70's. I rebuilt the front end, the mixer and IF. I recall building the test equipment to "test" my “improvements”. This is where the 20khz spec came from. Crystal oscillators @ 14.020mhz and 14.040mhz. I spent my time worrying about leakage and accurate attenuation, and predictable mixing, and port isolation. A little later, my biggest concern was that my test equipment was better than the phase noise of the "new" phase locked loop rigs. I give this by way of a little historical perspective.

The idea of measuring signals 1khz apart 150 db down in the 70’s, for the average joker interested in receiver design, was a pipe dream. If you talked to someone about that kind of "specification" they would look at you cross eyed and wonder what you had been smoking.

The state of the art has changed, and I think this is a relevant point. That which can be measured today is significantly more robust than what could readily be measured 30 years ago. The state of the art of testing is as much improved as the state of the art of receiver design. It is to our advantage as amateurs to look at both aspects of this and as the state of the art improves demand the testing manufacturers provide us with keeps pace with the state of the art. Otherwise you are merely being sold a pig in a poke. Put up or shut up.

“Where's the Meat” is actually an excellent title for this discussion. A 20kz spec, given today's bullet proof receivers is an insult to our intelligence. If you aren’t insulted then you must be the type who really could care less about your hurricane clips. My TS-820 had a color display. As I recall it was florescent blue.

Where's the Beef?

by W4ZV on July 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

KI6YN wrote:

"NOW YOU MUST BE ASKING YOURSELF WHAT THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE IS! Simply this, be realistic and judge something on its merits and the honesty and integrity of the manufacturer."

I believe this really hits the nail on the head. Instead of any meaningful performance specifications, we are fed nothing but marketing hype intended to deceive Joe HT. Words like "unparalleled", "astonishing", "ultimate" and "Masterpiece" would lead Joe to believe he is spending his $10.6k on a rig that is actually superior.

Pseudo non-qualified specifications like "+40 dBm IP3" and "110 dB dynamic range" are thrown out to impress Joe. Unfortunately nothing is said about what signal spacing these specs apply to, but Joe doesn't understand this, is duly impressed, and spends $10.6k on a rig that is actually inferior to many others.

It's truly sad if hams like Joe have stooped so low as to fall for such unadulterated marketing hype. If you are looking for honesty and integrity, I would keep looking. Just look at the IC-756 Pro II you will find that it is also devoid of meaningful specifications, so why should we be surprised when the IC-7800 continues this trend of marketing hyperbole from the same manufacturer. If this were a more significant market, I suspect the Federal Trade Commission would remind this manufacturer of one of our laws called "truth in advertising".

RE: Where is the Meat?

by G3RZP on July 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The big advantage of a 20/40kHz spacing for IMD is that it tells you the front end IMD. There's also a good chance that you'll measure IMD and not phase noise. Then you need a close ín spacing test AS WELL - even then, it's quite possible that the measurement will be phase noise limited rather than IMD limited.

Of course, in reality, the close in performance can be (with some modern rigs as interfering transmitters, is!)limited by the phase noise of the interfering signals.

For a study of signal levels and requirements, see QEX for May 2002. It shows that frequently, phase noise is the bigger problem rather than IMD. this is because as the realtively few large signals causing IMD fall in level, the IMD products fall three times as fast (very approximately) while the phase noise of lower level signals sum.

As Tom W8JI says, 2nd order IMD should not be an issue, as it's easy enough to cure - a half octave wide filter does that.

To some extent, the move to general coverage receivers and up conversion hasn't helped receiver performance. Which is why some of the older receivers are such very good performers even today, although not having 'bells and whistles' makes them less attractive to some. Of course, it all goes with de - skilling, doesn't it?
Peter G3RZP

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on July 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by G3RZP on July 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The big advantage of a 20/40kHz spacing for IMD is that it tells you the front end IMD. There's also a good chance that you'll measure IMD and not phase noise. Then you need a close ín spacing test AS WELL - even then, it's quite possible that the measurement will be phase noise limited rather than IMD limited.>>>

Good to hear from you Roger.

IM3 deteriorates so fast in most receivers phase noise is not an issue in close spaced tests! I find close spaced IM3 has to be about 80-85dB or the receiver gives me major problems on CW.

<<Of course, in reality, the close in performance can be (with some modern rigs as interfering transmitters, is!)limited by the phase noise of the interfering signals. >>

Leif Asbrink keeps telling me phase noise and wide spaced clicks/splatter is an issue, but I never hear it and no one I can find hears it either. I'm going to intentionally look for it. I think I have devised a very good test method.

The major problem I find here is keyclicks from much too rapid rise and fall times (Yaesu likes to use 1mS or less, other radios are just as bad) and poor waveshapes, and of course rigs that switch VCO's while transmissting or have multiple VCO's with poor isolation. The major issue by far is keyclicks and transmitter odd-order IM products. I'm sure of that.

For a study of signal levels and requirements, see QEX for May 2002. It shows that frequently, phase noise is the bigger problem rather than IMD. this is because as the realtively few large signals causing IMD fall in level, the IMD products fall three times as fast (very approximately) while the phase noise of lower level signals sum.>>>

I wish I had that issue. I want to study (make measurements) of how receivers behave when subjected to strong multiple widespaced signals. This is where the 7800 shines. It unfortunatly is not so good at close spacing, which is where in my experience almost all problems occur.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

73 Tom

RE: Where is the Meat?

by S5M on July 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W8JI> Leif Asbrink keeps telling me phase noise and wide spaced clicks/splatter is an issue, but I never hear it and no one I can find hears it either. I'm going to intentionally look for it.

Change from 160m to 2m band!

73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU

RE: Where is the Meat?

by G3RZP on July 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I think the key click problem appears because:

a) very few designers operate CW
b) there's a concept that the rig must be suitable for a high speed CW man, and thus the rise and fall times need to be short to avoid smearing the CW. This of course means the signal is clicky at all speeds - it's the rise and fall times that matter, and even for high speed CW, most rigs are far faster on rise and fall than they need to be for acceptable signals at say 50wpm.

I put this down to poor design, especially these days when everything has a microprocessor that could adjust rise and fall times in line with keying speed - if necessary.

But most modern rigs are pretty poor in this respect - even my 1983 FT102 was unfit for human consumption in this respect until I modified it, so it's not that new a phenomenon.

73

Peter G3RZP

RE: Where is the Meat?

by S5M on July 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

G3RZP> I put this down to poor design, especially these days when everything has a microprocessor that could adjust rise and fall times in line with keying speed - if necessary.

You would be amazed seeing CW waveform of the most expensive "Made in USA" modern SDR transceiver! Such distortions could not be implemented without DSP :-)

73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W8JI on July 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

You would be amazed seeing CW waveform of the most expensive "Made in USA" modern SDR transceiver! Such distortions could not be implemented without DSP :-)

73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU

I wonder what one that would be? The Orion has an excellent waveshape, and with the latest firmware I can't hear any clicks at all at any spacing.

Is DR-1 Wow! And is the Apple or the Orange better

by W3DCG on July 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dream Radio One!

Wow, I'm in love with the look and idea of it, already, even if it's a facade (Or is it real?).

And what to make of the "results" posted here:

http://www.sherweng.com/presentation.html

?

At this stage of the thread, taking into account key clicks, CW waveforms, 2Kc dynamic ranges, that 7800 has a most cool, pretty, but yet- useful display,
taking into account optional filtering available for Orion's main Rx, and also on Orion's Jupiter sub Rx...
7800 has 6m and 200W, vs no 6m and 100W, that someone mentioned is a few dB difference enough to matter (QRPers would likely fall into 100W vs 200W not a really big deal of difference, besides either rig uses less than 100W as an exciter to a linear amp)... how would the FT920 compare as a stand alone 6m only rig against the 7800 on 6m... etc, in the final analysis,

Which is the "better" radio?

RE: Where is the Meat?

by G3RZP on July 7, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

here's a question for you.

How much perceived radio performance is down to the radio, and how much to the capability of the oeprator?

In the 'good old days'(were they that good?), a good operator could make a receiver hear signals that a poor operator couldn't; there were always operators who could make a radio 'sit up and beg'. Is this still so today, or have we de-skilled radio operating, as we have so many other things?

73

Peter G3RZP

RE: Where is the Meat?

by S5M on July 7, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W8JI> The Orion has an excellent waveshape, and with the latest firmware I can't hear any clicks at all at any spacing.

Only YT1NT heard the clicks even before the latest firmware update. It seems to me that some users developed special ears selectivity profiles...

73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU

RE: Where is the Meat?

by W3DCG on July 7, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Well, I was thinking, given the same operator on either radio.

I have an answer though, regarding which radio is "better."

The better radio is probably the one you bought. At least for a while. Not many will be so lucky to have an opprtunity to sample a 7800 and a loaded Orion side by side, for several weeks. Moreover, who would wish to subject themselves to such a brain twisting adventure, as they both require manuals, and have steeper learning curves than the average mid-level radio. I mean an objective analysis at such a point would be more like work than play.

Ultimately it comes down to taste, and maybe in several cases, budget. Again, someone who has a 7800 in their budget might elect to have two loaded Orions.

Of the highly skilled operators, DXers, Contesters out there, who might well afford either, what radio would they likely choose, and why? In rare cases I'd imagine, the answer could turn out to be neither of these! ha. Perhaps for the huge multi multi stations out there, the 7800 might be too much for the tyical visiting teams of operators who will frequently visit. Possibly Orion might be too much. Maybe in those cases it's best to stick with what most guest operators use at home.

Even the fastly approaching ancient no frills TS850 is in service today, I believe, by several accomplished contesters.

Maybe skill, with excellent no frills basic raw performance, combined with more emphasis on the antenna systems, is where the brass ring of contesting lies.

Like F-1 motorsport, certainly the driver is a most significant factor.

Cheers!

Where is the Meat?

by W3ULS on July 7, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I've finally got what Tom, W8JI, has been saying.

It's time savvy ARRL members put pressure on QST's management to raise the bar in the magazine's equipment reviews. As it is, the Orion and the IC-7800 both qualified for highly favorable praise, not exactly the kind of guidance needed for making a major purchase.

To take just one criterion, perhaps QST should rate any transmit IMD3 above -35 dB as being unsatisfactory. By raising the bar, we will get better radios, and we won't if the QST standards remain stagnant.

Remember how the FT-1000MP was called "the gold standard" for years?

73,
John, W3ULS

RE: Where is the Meat?

by G3RZP on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>To take just one criterion, perhaps QST should rate any transmit IMD3 above -35 dB as being unsatisfactory.

Interestingly, the standard 'professional' specs for SSB equipment in the maritme and similar low power (<500watts) services are for 3rd order IMD to be around -27 to -30dB rel PEP for SSB voice. For ISB and ISB high power transmitters (typically >2.5kW) carrying MCVFT (Multi Channel Voice Frequency Telegraphy)and voice, the usual standard is -36dB relative to PEP.

A slight complication occurs in that many of these specs go way back in time to when transmitters were all tubed. Solid state tx's, by virtue of the active device transfer characteristics, tend to have somewhat worse higher order products, although the modern MOSFETS are better than bipolars. Another problem is a simple two tone test is not necessarily a good indication of how much a transmitter will splatter in practice. Tom, W8JI, has recommended a three tone test: Pappenfus at al, in the classic book 'Single Sideband Fundamentals and Circuits' mention testing with two tones closely spaced - by going to a few tens of Hertz spacing, the power supply load starts approximating more to a load at the syllabic rate, and this frequently pushes up the measured IMD.

In analogue multi channel telephone work, IMD was often measured by loading a channel with white ( or more precisely, 'pink') noise: a 'slot' in the noise mid band would be filled with the IMD products, and the degree to which this happens is a good measure of the performance. Marconi Instruments published some stuff on this back in the early 1970's. The drawback is that the peak to average ratio of the noise means that the mean power of the transmission is very low, and the amount of IMD power in the measurement 'slot' needs integrating for some time to get a realistic assessment.

At the end of the day, a 2 tone test on an SSB tx tells you something. If it fails to give a reasonable 3rd order and 5th order IMD level on a 2 tone test, it's bad. If it does give a reasonable result, it can still be bad.

73

Peter G3RZP

Where is the Meat?

by KG6JKJ on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Great article, Fred. Long time no see since the LAAS days. You touched on alot of great points and have generated alot of responses in this thread. It looks like most everyone agrees with you. It's often hard for folks like me who don't have the knowledge base to understand all of the specs. I often have to go by the subjective reviews given here at eham.net and usually end up asking for advice from the experienced members of my club to interpret things.

Right now, the industry is somewhat in a slump and marketing is everything. Most of the rigs out now have been out for several years (with upgrades along the way)and the advances in technology have slowed somewhat since the leap from analog to DSP. Icom and Yaesu are trying to keep some buzz going in the industry with these new radios. Hopefully, these new radios will eventually lead to better lower-cost boxes that perform better and have some of the features of the more expensive radios today. The Icom 706-MkIIG is an example of the "trickle down" effect. I have one and love using it for 6-meters.

Good luck on your upcoming retirement, Fred. I'm glad you are so healthy and active. It sounds like you are in much better health and spirits since I knew you 13 years ago. Are you still into astronomy? I occasionally take the 13" dob out for a spin. I'd love to have you along for some mountaintopping from one of the fire lookouts I staff on weekends near Lake Arrowhead.

By the way, I'm working on getting the 5wpm to upgrade (I passed the written a few weeks ago) and plan on being 10+wpm to work code regularly.

Rich Whited
KG6JKJ

Where is the Meat?

by WA2JJH on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

WHERE"S THE BEEF...says the nice old lady looking at a huge bun with a tiny beef patty inside. Good AD-compaign years back. Very similar situation.

You said you have the ORION. By everybodies account it is the better radio on TX and RX.

When it comes to a really cool looking rig...you lost out! HI_HI. I admit having a nuclear control room
in technicolor is eye pleasing. IMHO plenty of 7800's will be sold as props for sci-fi movies!

I have modified TR-7's , an R-7A, and a Harris 1446U and a Harris RF-3200. The rack mount, freq stabilized
TR-7 were popular commercial /mil rigs. The 1446u are still found on navel vessels in other nations.
They were a fixture at US air force bases until 1989.
The radio weighs 85lbs. That is where the beef is at.

The smaller RF-3200 is the most HAM like of all the
commercial radio's. It has a multiple speed wieghted VFO knob. Its features are that of the low end ICOM 718. 150W clean output.
I had no problem paying $1500 for it. Unusual 16bit CPU that optimises ALC, speech comp,agc and the input pad on the pre-ampless front end, NICE BEFFY STEW.

I am also an electrical engineer like you.

For 10G's, you can build a hi performance shack.
A shack with not too many eggs in one basket!

The so called sub-nitch buyers of being embassies and commercial use? I think the movie prop business has wings for the 7800.
The 7800 barely meets true commercial spec.

There are mil variants of the TR-7 and R-7A. Identical radio's, except they replaced the PTO with a Digital VFO board. Similar to the impossible to buy RV-75.
They also put the radio's in 19" rack mount cases.
The speaker. most mil./commercial radio's is facing you in the front.
You have good reason to be happy with your TR-7. There is a 3erd party 20 memory DDS TCXO external VFO for $300 for the TR-7.

I am buying an ORION myself. I will buy the computer interface and ultra stable vfo for the tr-7 and r-7A. With the ORION, I think it will look cooler than a single 7800. That is my BEEF recipe!

The FT-100D was an impulse buy after 9/11. The closeout price with DSP was $730. There is a lot of low grade beef, however it has a tiny low carb bun!

I also feel all the fancy technicolor waterfall/spectrum displays should be on a computer moitor, not the radio.

Theese are all old radio's right. I have a brnd new FT-100D. The FT-100D works, but RX is noisy. I have to use all the DSP tricks to get it nearly as quiet as my Low end Harris 3200.

Where is the Meat?

by WA2JJH on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Getting to your point. Not having real graphs, bother me as an engineer. The HARRIS's are extremly graphed. Both micro and macro graphs.

The Very first graph you see is the RX path

Below is a block diagram of the rig.

You see every spec. plotted VS frequency.
The best Macro graph is one that shows dynamic range, amplification, and any type of compression as a simulated 1uv signal is on the antenna.

That is the difference of commercial vs ham.
The specs must be the specs, no fudge factors!
Perhaps TEN-TEC got their experience with an ultra high end RX they were selling for commercial apps.
It meet mil. specs too. The RX sold for $5000.

Like I said TEN TEC has many hams working for them.
They are great on the phone.

If you wanted to speak to a design engineer, you can.
Try that with the big 3.

If you notice a birdie in the RX when the rig is in a dummy load, they WANT to hear about it.
The big 3 all have a history of ignoring such observations.

TEN-TEC even talked to me about my old argonaught 509, that was 20 years old! At no time did they say
did you consider our new DSP Argonaught.
I wanted to replace the VFO with a multi-octive VCO.
They sent me a schematic, and I a saw for myself that I would have many problems.

My TX/RX relay board is intermittant. Kenwood told me they no longer make the part. Would I like to speak to a sales person? CLICK! (ME SLAMMING DOWN PHONE).
I bet one of the newer kenwoods have that small antenna board that could be modified.
Try getting that info.

Yes, some will call you a biggot if you call a rig a rice box.

That is a real beef with some. If you say you try to buy American first, you will get into a beef!

73 DE MIKE
Ten-Tec is more ham friendly

Where is the Meat?

by AE6RO on May 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

Well I've read through some of these and I noticed one particular explanation was missing.
Could the reason the second station gave a poor report was he heard you off the BACK or the SIDE of his beam?!
As far as the rest of this is concerned, I feel that peak performance years were the 1960s and 1970s.
Why? As soon as you put a microprocessor in a receiver you raise the noise floor. So you get all these memories and so forth along with lots of digital noise which lowers sensitivity. You get lots of fluff but little meat with a modern rig.
Another fact is dynamic range was never a problem until rigs became solid state.

Where is the Meat?

by AE6RO on May 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

Well I've read through some of these and I noticed one particular explanation was missing.
Could the reason the second station gave a poor report was he heard you off the BACK or the SIDE of his beam?!
As far as the rest of this is concerned, I feel that peak performance years were the 1960s and 1970s.
Why? As soon as you put a microprocessor in a receiver you raise the noise floor. So you get all these memories and so forth along with lots of digital noise which lowers sensitivity. You get lots of fluff but little meat with a modern rig.
Another fact is dynamic range was never a problem until rigs became solid state.

Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles

The Mobile Ham Installation

A Wonderful Ham Story(?)

Alumni Funding Ham Radio and Activities

The Magic of Radio

When Your Radio Has Saved You

Other Radios Articles

Cool Radio

Designing the Ultimate HF Front End

Boatanchor AM on a Budget

Keep Your Cool!

SDR: Ham Radio of the Future?

$\'\'$