Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is Icom 7610 in trouble?  (Read 34753 times)
KA4DPO
Member

Posts: 775




Ignore
« Reply #180 on: September 12, 2017, 07:20:27 AM »

Yes thank you E Ham, The 7610 may be also going threw a parts change before its real intro into the market, just maybe they might be looking at changing the bill of materials to the point to lower there price point and be more competitive with the new Flex rigs. I really think that Kenwood and Yaesu have been sitting on the fence to long now they need to enter the SDR market or continue to lose sales. If you look at Elecraft's web sit and see the comparo between the K3S and the IC7300 that clearly is telling anyone with half a brain that the ultra low priced entry level SDR/knob radio is hurting there sales but look at the intro price of the K3S and it aint cheap anymore even without any options, me think the boys on the coast are getting a little defensive of there glory radio and there sales are slowing.

You might be spot on.  Icom along with other large manufacturers buy large quantities of specialty chips that are very expensive in small quantities.  There might be a commercial project that is enabling them to reduce production cost by overflowing the purchase.  That would mean lower cost to the consumer and higher profits for them.
Logged
W6RZ
Member

Posts: 161




Ignore
« Reply #181 on: September 14, 2017, 01:01:45 AM »

Looks like some progress here.

http://www.icom.co.jp/products/amateur/products/basestation/ic-7610/
Logged
KA4DPO
Member

Posts: 775




Ignore
« Reply #182 on: September 14, 2017, 10:30:23 AM »


Using the Bing translator that is the standard brochure and really doesn't tell me anything that I don't already know.  The price is listed as 368,000 Yen, which is approximately $2325.00 US.  No date for release is given unless you know something I don't.
Logged
K6JH
Member

Posts: 402




Ignore
« Reply #183 on: September 14, 2017, 11:04:20 AM »


Interesting in that the block diagram shows a 2nd A/D for the sub-receiver. Maybe they will actually support diversity reception on the RX antenna in jack.
Logged

73
Jim K6JH
OH6I
Member

Posts: 42




Ignore
« Reply #184 on: September 14, 2017, 11:32:34 AM »

7610 have diversity reception:
http://www.ab4oj.com/icom/ic7610/main.html

Jari
OH6I
Logged
W6RZ
Member

Posts: 161




Ignore
« Reply #185 on: September 14, 2017, 11:33:46 AM »


Using the Bing translator that is the standard brochure and really doesn't tell me anything that I don't already know.  The price is listed as 368,000 Yen, which is approximately $2325.00 US.  No date for release is given unless you know something I don't.

I considered the release of a user manual (even though it's in Japanese) to be a step forward.

Also, 368,000 Yen is currently equal to $3330.
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 1421




Ignore
« Reply #186 on: September 14, 2017, 02:01:30 PM »

And nowhere in the manual does it even have a transmitter IMD specification. Guess its   the mushroom principle being applied by Icom "keep you in the dark and feed you BS"

When any manufacturer does not want to publish a standard specification all that it means that  they did nothing about IMD performance or the performance figure is too poor to mention.

A nice manual
A nice brochure
A nice technical overview document and you cant  find the transmitter IMD performance figures. Thats a fail.



Using the Bing translator that is the standard brochure and really doesn't tell me anything that I don't already know.  The price is listed as 368,000 Yen, which is approximately $2325.00 US.  No date for release is given unless you know something I don't.

I considered the release of a user manual (even though it's in Japanese) to be a step forward.

Also, 368,000 Yen is currently equal to $3330.
Logged
VE3WGO
Member

Posts: 151




Ignore
« Reply #187 on: September 14, 2017, 07:02:10 PM »

And nowhere in the manual does it even have a transmitter IMD specification. Guess its   the mushroom principle being applied by Icom "keep you in the dark and feed you BS"

When any manufacturer does not want to publish a standard specification all that it means that  they did nothing about IMD performance or the performance figure is too poor to mention.

A nice manual
A nice brochure
A nice technical overview document and you cant  find the transmitter IMD performance figures. Thats a fail.


.. and what, Zenki, do you think good IMD specs should be for a radio of this price range?  That's in the passband, so maybe -30 dB?  or perhaps -60?  What do you think a human can actually hear?

You know that the actual distortion products generated will be highly dependent on the microphone and transmitter gain and power settings settings (as well as how well-controlled a voice the user has), so a two tone test case is essentially just that - an artificial test case at some arbitrary signal levels to keep the marketing and test engineering departments happy, and does not necessarily reflect what a human user can ever achieve.  In the telecoms industry we used artificial voices and ears to measure handset and cellphone transmission parameters but really, the overall intermod distortion products are just not at the top of the list of what people react to.  Audio clipping and the resulting second order harmonic distortion products are far more objectionable than anything else.

Icom already gave Transmitter spurious specs in their brochure (which of course apply outside of the transmitter passband, such as adjacent channels, harmonics, etc), at -50 dB for HF and -63 for 50 MHz.

73, Ed VE3WGO

ps. do you have a callsign?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 07:14:22 PM by VE3WGO » Logged
KA4DPO
Member

Posts: 775




Ignore
« Reply #188 on: September 14, 2017, 08:38:52 PM »


Using the Bing translator that is the standard brochure and really doesn't tell me anything that I don't already know.  The price is listed as 368,000 Yen, which is approximately $2325.00 US.  No date for release is given unless you know something I don't.

I considered the release of a user manual (even though it's in Japanese) to be a step forward.

Also, 368,000 Yen is currently equal to $3330.

The exchange rate changes throughout the day, it was $3325.00 (not $2325.00) when I checked it.  The posted number was a mistake.  Check it a couple of times tomorrow and see if it doesn't fluctuate.
Logged
GM1FLQ
Member

Posts: 794




Ignore
« Reply #189 on: September 15, 2017, 01:50:30 AM »



.. and what, Zenki, do you think good IMD specs should be for a radio of this price range?  That's in the passband, so maybe -30 dB?  or perhaps -60?  What do you think a human can actually hear?



Oh, it would amaze you how confidence outstrips ability when it comes to amateurs & ham rigs, and not just on the hearing aspect  Wink.........
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 1421




Ignore
« Reply #190 on: September 15, 2017, 02:34:09 AM »

Well the best standard was the old FCC commercial SSB standard. This standard was at time when SSB commercial broadcasting was at its peak in HF history. They had very stringent standards.

The emphasis was not so much on the 3rd order products which were required to be suppressed at -36db below PEP. Exactly the same as the current ITU standard.

The FCC standard emphasised the suppression of products that hams and users would hear when transmitters were sub standard. It required the  5th order to 9th order be suppressed by a minimum of 40db below PEP.

The brilliance of this standard was the requirements for the suppression of the 11th order and greater products which is the products that most of us hams would complain about.

Unlike the stupid ARRL reporting of IMD figures which is a flawed way of reporting IMD when you stop referring  to the figures above the 9th order. The ARRL is clearly conducting itself in a deceptive manner ethically and from an engineering  perspective when they fail to report  IMD products above 9th order the product which is the products that we hear as bad splatter.

The FCC had a very simple formula. It was 40db plus 10 log the power output.  This was purely the  transmitter output. IE for a 2500 watt amplifier the  11th order and above products had to be suppressed by 80db PEP! Find a ham transmitter that meets these standards besides the new pre-distortion models.

 Icom produced marine radios  that sold for cheap prices that met this standard with ease. All Icom had to do was copy the 12 volt IC700 and 710 commercial transmitter PA designs which produced such excellent figures. But then again these marine transmitters did not have ALC and  all stages driven into saturation like most  ham radio transceivers.

Sure its easy to over drive most ham radios with the knobs to the right mentality. But this is a minor problem on the ham bands. The major problem is hams are using crap equipment with really crap IMD figures that cause splatter. Radios like the IC7850 for example. How can a radio cost so much and produce such a sub standard imd figures. The same could be said for every other ham radio  brand including Elecraft who boasts more about the proper transmitter design but whose IMD figures of its PA are terrible.

So thats the answer.  Use the old FCC commercial FCC or maritime part 80 IMD rules that defines IMD based on power output. If you want to run 10kw make sure your IMD meets these standards and nobody would complain about your splatter.

I dont know why hams keep on mentioning harmonic and spurious products. These products have  legal standards that have to be met. Its  a nonsense argument by apologist for the crap ham radio industry who suggest that having IMD regulations  will make radios more expensive when these radios have to meet harmonic and spurious standards internationally by law.

What would be the big deal of having a minimum IMD specification when the transmitter is submitted to the FCC for approval like the IC7610 will shortly do?  Again its the ham manufacturing industry and stupid hams who  says its ok to have harmonic and spurious standards enforced by law yet reject sensible IMD standards when it will cost nothing to test for or enforce which has to be done anyway. Bad IMD is a spurious product that is no different to a bad harmonic or spurious product. We should adopt ITU standards or even raise the bar and use the  old FCC  commercial IMD standard for rigs and amplifiers.

The thing that hams also fail to get is that all spurious products and even the phase noise performance is 30 to 40db below the IMD. The only crap coming out of ham radio transmitters these days is the poor IMD that is 30 to 60 db higher than the spurious output products like phase noise and harmonics. Who complains about hearing  phase noise or harmonics? Nobody because they suppressed so well. If we had these sensible IMD laws nobody would be complaining about splatter. Listen up on the aeronautical bands on 5 and 8mhz see if you can hear splatter from 5kw and 10kw transmitters that are 40db over S9 ? These transmitters follow commercial standards and have IMD figures that are a lot worst than todays pre-distortion PA's Pre-distortion was never really needed and nor was these outstanding IMD figures ever needed. All hams manufacturers had to do was adopt sensible commercial IMD regulations and this  would be a none issue.

As for the Icom 7610 there are no IMD figures. All that Icom says  is that it has a "new PA" which probably means it uses new devices with the same crap IMD figures and the same rotten ALC induced splatter. Anyway the Icom is set to be the popular ham transceiver regardless of the poor specifications, hams dont get it yet when they keep supporting these crap products with such poor transmitters.





And nowhere in the manual does it even have a transmitter IMD specification. Guess its   the mushroom principle being applied by Icom "keep you in the dark and feed you BS"

When any manufacturer does not want to publish a standard specification all that it means that  they did nothing about IMD performance or the performance figure is too poor to mention.

A nice manual
A nice brochure
A nice technical overview document and you cant  find the transmitter IMD performance figures. Thats a fail.


.. and what, Zenki, do you think good IMD specs should be for a radio of this price range?  That's in the passband, so maybe -30 dB?  or perhaps -60?  What do you think a human can actually hear?

You know that the actual distortion products generated will be highly dependent on the microphone and transmitter gain and power settings settings (as well as how well-controlled a voice the user has), so a two tone test case is essentially just that - an artificial test case at some arbitrary signal levels to keep the marketing and test engineering departments happy, and does not necessarily reflect what a human user can ever achieve.  In the telecoms industry we used artificial voices and ears to measure handset and cellphone transmission parameters but really, the overall intermod distortion products are just not at the top of the list of what people react to.  Audio clipping and the resulting second order harmonic distortion products are far more objectionable than anything else.

Icom already gave Transmitter spurious specs in their brochure (which of course apply outside of the transmitter passband, such as adjacent channels, harmonics, etc), at -50 dB for HF and -63 for 50 MHz.

73, Ed VE3WGO

ps. do you have a callsign?

Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 1707




Ignore
« Reply #191 on: September 15, 2017, 03:30:49 AM »

Quote
Who complains about hearing  phase noise or harmonics?

Who complains about -30 to -40 dBc IMD? At 100 watts, this is 0.01 to 0.1 peak watts of spurious signals. Simply decimal dust. On several bands, this is well below the usable SNR of a 2.5 kHz bandwidth.

Most of the splatter heard on the bands has to do with adjustments and "enhancements" made by the operator - it has nothing to do with manufacturer two tone IMD specs.

- Glenn W9IQ
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 03:48:51 AM by W9IQ » Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 1421




Ignore
« Reply #192 on: September 15, 2017, 05:51:07 PM »

Well I did not know that the global power limit was  100 watts with 0db gain antennas? Even a dipole over ground when combined with short skip  in high ham population density places is enough to radiate such low levels of IMD to be  of nuisance value.

Then lets talk about the VHF bands during SSB contests in place like Europe and North America. During these contests its easy hearing such low level IMD products.  Not everyone lives in  noise compromised locations. Setting the  bar so low just because  a lot of hams live in noisy locations is not an excuse for poor engineering standards.

The SNR ratio point is a good one. Most hams dont hear the IMD because their local noise is so bad. They then ask  another ham station for a splatter report  with equally bad noise and they report that " you are clean"

Even more ridiculous is  hams asking DX stations for IMD reports. They have little chance of   even hearing most stations on SSB if they reduce their power to below 5 watts. How can you   ever be expected to hear low level SSB IMD in an imperfect lab? That is a fair point but   a good portion of the ham population have HF stations easily capable of hearing a pin drop on most hf bands.   

The IMD figures that you are quoting are not a reality for most ham equipment  show me the transceiver models that have such excellent IMD figures of 36 to 46 db PEP 3rd order. Thats typically the figures of the 5th to 11th order not even  3rd order IMD figures.

But getting back to your early point. Boosting the  transceivers IMD by using a amplifier with equally poor IMD and then the figures quickly look like a disaster. Some models of the SPE amplifiers and  radios like the latest Yaesu FT891 have disgraceful IMD figures that are hovering around minus 20db below PEP. Feed this kind of crap equipment  into any 10db gain antenna and the picture changes from a text book formulas to severe QRM that nobody should have to put up with. This is even before we start talking about the equally crap new generation of 10 watt QRP radios with bad IMD driving copy cat crap CB amplifier designs that are really rubbish from any technical perspective. Maybe the ARRL will have a competition for the worlds cleanest amplifier rather than the worlds cheapest and nastiest.

At the end of the day it would just be an easy fix if ham transceivers had mandated IMD standards that is no different to having ham radio spurious and harmonic radiation levels. Anyone arguing  against  such simple regulations really does not understand HF engineering practice very well.

These are the same hams who are arguing for receiver specifications that cant be realised but yet whine and complain about  regulations that can actually make their receivers work better  for less costs by reducing a thing called IMD that is the equivalent of  DQRM or band pollution. How can any ham defend or  argue for tolerating more unnecessary noise onto the ham bands when there is no need for   such noise and spurious products to even exist?.

It does not matter who it is Icom, Kenwood, Elecraft, Yaesu or whoever the fact is that their transmitters are poorly designed and have crap specifications. Thank you to the really smart volunteer hams who have been working tirelessly to come up with techniques such as pre-distortion Pure Signal that will help fight this problem. Its an insult to engineering common sense that on the one hand  so many smart hams are working towards solving this problem yet other manufacturers are working so hard to make the problems worst.

Worst is their stupid engineering business acumen when they brag about  about how much resources and engineering effort they have put into useless receiver specifications yet wont do 1 thing or commit 10 cents to try and  fix the rotten splatter that their products produce that can be heard on the hams bands every hour. This  includes all those crappy key click radios that takes out chunks of rf spectrum. We certainly know how to crap in our own nests! Its hard to believe that in the Year 2017 many decades after SSB and CW  has been invented that we still have engineers who dont know how  it should work properly.

You have to face the fact, that hams are using transmitter equipment and practices that represents poor engineering practice. Is it a wonder that manufacturers wont even publish every  day engineering data that  should be in the specification but are not.

 The reality is that there is an ITU international standard that just  about all HF ham equipment wont meet they so poorly  designed. You can cut, slice and dice this  fact whichever way you want to try and score points  to try and win an argument, but the reality still is that  the majority of manufactured ham HF transmitters are sub standard in transmitter IMD performance. Its just better to acknowledge the problem and fix it rather than trying to be a non factual spin merchant. 

Maybe Icom will surprise the ham world by producing a radio with world class transmitter IMD performance that hams can be proud. Shame producing such an appealing radio and  then ruining it by   selling it with a transmitter whose IMD performance is terrible. Worst still is that if Icom cant get it right in a direct sampling   DUC/DDC design which  is a platform where these problems can be fixed very easily. This platform is unlike the legacy radios which are carved into rock at the design stage. Time will tell if Icom is the first  ham manufacturer who breaks the SDR  radio concept with their own flawed thinking. I hope not. When we know the S-meter on the IC7610 is not calibrated and the transmitter has poor IMD we will have the answer!





Quote
Who complains about hearing  phase noise or harmonics?

Who complains about -30 to -40 dBc IMD? At 100 watts, this is 0.01 to 0.1 peak watts of spurious signals. Simply decimal dust. On several bands, this is well below the usable SNR of a 2.5 kHz bandwidth.

Most of the splatter heard on the bands has to do with adjustments and "enhancements" made by the operator - it has nothing to do with manufacturer two tone IMD specs.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged
N6YFM
Member

Posts: 500




Ignore
« Reply #193 on: September 15, 2017, 08:11:27 PM »

And nowhere in the manual does it even have a transmitter IMD specification. Guess its   the mushroom principle being applied by Icom "keep you in the dark and feed you BS"

When any manufacturer does not want to publish a standard specification all that it means that  they did nothing about IMD performance or the performance figure is too poor to mention.

A nice manual
A nice brochure
A nice technical overview document and you cant  find the transmitter IMD performance figures. Thats a fail.


Zenki:

You are NOT allowed to buy an Icom radio, because it makes you furious that Icom does not "calibrate" their S-meter to
your requirements, and because, as any puritanical god fearing Christian will tell you, Icom makes "dirty" radios.
In fact, the word Icom makes your skin crawl in much the same way that the word Flex makes Stan's skin crawl.

So, once again, if you are not allowed to buy an Icom radio, WHAT are you still doing in this forum? :-)  :-)

As my Boss occasionally says to me;  ...   G O     A W A Y

And don't worry Zenki, *I* will buy the Icom 7610 that you do not, so it won't be wasted.
Now, back on track, if we really wan't to talk "dirty" transmitters, let me go get my Baofeng Tri-Bander HT.   

Logged
N6YFM
Member

Posts: 500




Ignore
« Reply #194 on: September 15, 2017, 08:25:29 PM »

MOVE THREAD.

THIS THREAD WILL NOW MOVE TO TOPIC:
    New Icom 7610 pre-launch thread  http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,116736.0.html

Since the Icom Japan site has now released the user manual, it can be assumed that
engineering is mostly done, and MFG, Test, and Release is underway.
It would be silly to continue a "Trouble?" thread at this point.
Please move discussion for the Icom 7610 to the new thread.

    
New Icom 7610 pre-launch thread
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!