Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list  (Read 4703 times)

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #45 on: August 13, 2020, 11:39:28 AM »

Yes, I mean the sub-receiver, which allows me to listen to to two frequencies at once.  Typically I'll listen to the DX in the  left ear and tune around with the sub receiver and listen for people calling the DX in the right ear.  Then,  after a station finishes a contact, I'll call on the frequency last used by the station calling the DX.  Many times a DX station will work a couple of stations  on the same split frequency before tuning to a new listening frequency.

Zak W1VT

Definitely an easier and more efficient way to work split. But depending on the size and signal strength of the pileup, it still could be difficult to find that calling station, especially when people are still calling while the DX is transmitting. And the DX might not stay on that calling frequency, so you still have to determine his tuning/listening pattern. The same thing, although a little less convenient, is using the (Icom) XFC, or similar button on other brands, toggling between two VFO's on a one-receiver radio. It depends on your budget to prioritize between radio and antennas.
Logged

N9LCD

  • Member
  • Posts: 260
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #46 on: August 27, 2020, 06:55:33 PM »

A rig may have great electronics but, if the ergonomics ****, you won't enjoy operating it.

Case in point:  I recently sold my FT-817nd.  Since my manual dexterity is somewhat challenged, operations requiring you to push two buttons at the same time were a nuisance.  Also look for push buttons or other located at the lower edge of the front panel; I had to elevate the 817nd on wooden blocks to access a control or two.

Before shelling out for a rig, go to a dealer and try it out from the ergonomics angle. 

IMO:  Ergonomics can make or break a rig no matter how great a performer it is.       
Logged

NI0C

  • Member
  • Posts: 3625
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2020, 04:32:56 PM »

Yes, I mean the sub-receiver, which allows me to listen to to two frequencies at once.  Typically I'll listen to the DX in the  left ear and tune around with the sub receiver and listen for people calling the DX in the right ear.  Then,  after a station finishes a contact, I'll call on the frequency last used by the station calling the DX.  Many times a DX station will work a couple of stations  on the same split frequency before tuning to a new listening frequency.

Zak W1VT

Definitely an easier and more efficient way to work split. But depending on the size and signal strength of the pileup, it still could be difficult to find that calling station, especially when people are still calling while the DX is transmitting. And the DX might not stay on that calling frequency, so you still have to determine his tuning/listening pattern. The same thing, although a little less convenient, is using the (Icom) XFC, or similar button on other brands, toggling between two VFO's on a one-receiver radio. It depends on your budget to prioritize between radio and antennas.
I made it to DXCC HR by toggling VFO's in split pileups, but a few years ago, I got the second receiver for my K3 and it made a huge difference. Wish I had taken the leap years before. Nothing like listening to both sides of the pileup constantly instead of sampling.
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2020, 11:48:33 PM »

Hello to all,

Of course, the old adage of spending 80% - 90% of your $$$ on antennas and 10% - 20% on the radio, is still very valid (as well as spending > half your time/effort on learning radiowave propagation, antenna system design, etc.)....here, we're assuming the query is coming from someone who understands this and has already done what they can in that regard (after all, the original poster here, lists that he was licensed in 1958, three years before I was born)....so...


While, in the past 45 years, Rob NC0B, Tom W8JI, George, K8RRH, etc., and many of amateur radio's top contesters, and engineering folks, etc. were the impetus (i.e. loud "squeaky wheels" with $ to spend) for many radio manufacturers to seriously improve their HF receivers (starting with mainly close-in rec two-tone IMD results, then improved noise blanker operations, and then later taking on the issues of oscillator noise / phase noise issues, and more recently AGC issues in modern DSP's, etc.)....well, these same guys have been publicly commenting now for a decade or two, on what are the more important criteria....and most recently (such as in the past 5 to 10 years), they have been clear that the limiting factors in our modern HF receivers are actually the other transmitters on-the-air, spewing interference (wide CW signals, caused by too harsh/quick keying rise and fall times, too high of transmit-composite noise, key clicks, etc....and wide / splattering SSB signals, caused by poor transmit PA design and too high mic gain setting, and/or over-driven external amps), as the excellent specs of the receivers in these new modern rigs are now unable to be utilized, due to the interference of our transmitters!

And, now-a-days (in the past few years), we all see that an additional new limiting factor of our modern HF receivers for many hams (most hams, these days) is the local RFI that raises the HF noise floor, reducing the radio's actual useful dynamic range....(of course, using attenuators, etc. can help receivers with limited capabilities, as well as the very rare excellent-quality noise blankers helping with impulse noise and powerline noise....the real solution is to get rid of the RFI, altogether).

Once the new ham (or hams new to HF comms) learns that, for most hams, obtaining the "ultimate spec'd receiver", might be a moot point....their question then becomes "how do I choose a radio?", etc...

{Of course, the first part of the answer is, and always has been, not by looking at some list!  And, here in this thread, and below in this post, is some of the rest of the answer!}


Although, Max, AC7CW (the original poster here), quickly learned the fallacy of an HF receiver's "noise floor", or MDS, being an important criteria in choosing a modern ham transceiver (and actually has been a rather moot point, since the 1970's when most receivers attained sufficient sensitivity)....and a couple of others posting, here did point out some much more important specs to consider....and one, did quote a sentence or two, from Rob Sherwood.

But, the overall question(s) that Max posed (through both the tittle of this thread, "Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list", and with his line "I am wondering what parameter would be the next in importance were I sorting the list to choose a rig."), are "how to choose a new rig"  and/or "what are the important factors / criteria in choosing a new rig?"....of course, these can be answered by many of us here (including myself and a few others here that did answer here) ....but, have already been understood and answered by Rob Sherwood himself....all Max, and many of these others, need to do is read what Rob, himself, writes (and/or listen to some of his more recent talks in the past 2 to 3 years)...

{Now, many here know one of my important criteria in radio choice is the rig's transmit spectral purity / transmit IMD....but, I won't go off on a rant here, about that...}


Here are just a few quotes from Rob Sherwood, remember his overall focus is on serious crowded CW contesting (I just added a tiny bit of bold type for emphasis on what my personal views/criteria are, the rest, including the ALL CAPS, are all Rob's):

First up, from July 2014: 

Quote
"What level of performance do we need close-in on CW for a radio to perform well most of the time? I think 85 dB will suffice most of the time. Certainly one may want a 100 dB dynamic range radio, but other factors of a transceiver’s performance are very important, too. Ten-Tec receive audio is better (cleaner) than Elecraft K3 audio, for instance.

On SSB transmitted intermodulation products from QRM 3 to 5 kHz away is usually far above the LO phase noise (RMDR) of today’s receivers.

Thus the “holy grail” of wanting a 100 dB radio is only a CW
[Contesting] pile-up issue.

If every other feature or specification of a radio was top notch, it would seem logical to pick a 100 dB radio over an 85 or 90 dB radio, however this is rarely the case. With good firmware, Ten-Tec and Elecraft have made their DSP radios much less susceptible to having the AGC “load up” or “over react” to impulse noise (clicks, tick and pops). No Japan, Inc. radio at the moment has figured this out...

How a ham picks one transceiver over another is likely all over the map.

For me if the ergonomics are poor, or if the receive audio is fatiguing to listen to, then that radio falls off my selection list.

At the end of the day, hopefully whatever we buy we enjoy using.
I sold an expensive radio about 10 years ago that worked OK, but I just didn’t like it compared to my 15 year old radio [IC-781] of the same brand.
73, Rob, NC0B"
(15-JUL-2014)

And, here from a few months earlier:

Quote
"DO NOT OVER-RATE DYNAMIC RANGE
One thing that I need to stress is [that] the amateur community has become obsessed with which radio has a close-in dynamic range a few dB higher than another.

Decades ago Tom Rauch W8JI and I were saying that a close-in dynamic range (DR3) of 80 dB would perform well most of the time. Back then with all the up-conversion radios on the market, most had a DR3 around 70, with some in the 60s.
The Orion I was the first commercial radio to go back to what we now call "down conversion" and it had a DR3 over 90 dB. The amateur community now has a good selection of radios that have a DR3 value in excess of 85 dB.

It is rare that an 85 dB radio will not be adequate in a CW pileup.

[and from other papers/talks:  a ~ "70db radio" works well, in SSB service/pileups/contesting.]

All the T-T products except the Omni-VII are 90 dB or better, along with products from most of the other OEMs.

Once you have decided you want a 90 or better radio, for example, then there are lots of other important parameters to consider, such as:
• clean receive audio for low fatigue in a contest,
• a good AGC (which T-T has recently improved in respect to handling impulse noise),
• the ease of use (user interface),
• reliability,
• quality of service and long-term parts support,
• long term firmware support,
• lack of ALC overshoot, (a problem with the TS-590S and IC-7410 for example) when driving a linear.
• The list goes on.
You don't buy a car with one specification, like horse power. The 427 cubic inch Corvette from years ago had lots of horse power but didn't handle very well!
73, Rob, NC0B"
(16-DEC-2013)

And, from that same month:

Quote
"THE BIG PICTURE:
With 10 or more radios with 85 to 105 dB DR3s at 2 kHz, it is time to look at the big picture:
Clean receive audio,
clean transmitter IMD,
 a good AGC that doesn’t go nuts over an impulse click, tick or pop,
 a reliable radio that doesn’t beak all the time,
 an ALC that doesn’t overshoot and fault your linear amplifier, or even worse blow your amp.
 And when service is needed, good and reasonably fast factory service.
 How about long term support of radios out of production, such as on-going firmware updates and parts availability. (Unfortunately there is only so much an OEM can do about supplying out-of-production chips, PA transistors, LCD screens, etc.)


At the end of the day, do you enjoy using your radio on the air?

I hate to tell you how many radios I have had the good fortune to borrow and use on the air in contests that I really would not want to have to use on a daily basis. I sold one very expensive radio that just wasn’t a good fit for me. I took the money and put up two more towers and Yagi antennas.
Hopefully when you turn off your rig after a contest, a DX contact or just a rag chew, you feel that “that was fun”. This is a hobby, and using your radio should be enjoyable.
73, Rob, NC0B"
(21-DEC-2013)


Now, if you look at just a few short lines from Rob:

Quote
"if the ergonomics are poor, or if the receive audio is fatiguing to listen to, then that radio falls off my selection list"

"DO NOT OVER-RATE DYNAMIC RANGE"

"a ~ '70db radio' works well, in SSB service/pileups/contesting"

"• a good AGC,
• the ease of use (user interface),
• reliability,"

"Clean receive audio,
clean transmitter IMD,
 a good AGC that doesn’t go nuts over an impulse click, tick or pop,
 a reliable radio that doesn’t beak all the time,
 an ALC that doesn’t overshoot and fault your linear amplifier, or even worse blow your amp.

Looking at just those brief words, you can quickly see that for most hams (not into serious CW contesting), the criteria to base their purchase on are those criteria that Rob himself writes are important / more important than close-in receiver IMD3 specs!  :)

And, with our modern residential world being filled with HF RFI, if ridding RFI from your immediate surroundings isn't possible, having a radio with an actual effective and non-destructive noise blanker (for powerline noise / impulse noise) and some sort of non-distorting "noise reduction" feature, can be very important criteria....as well as provisions for a separate receive antenna input (allowing to more easily use a high RDF receive-only antenna, or external rec-ant phasing system / external noise-cancelling unit)...


So, there you go....Rob, himself, sums up what are the real criteria to use in HF rig choice....as well as the newly-important factors for many hams, of handling the increased receive RFI prevalent these days...

I do hope some find this helpful?

73,

John,  KA4WJA


P.S.  Again, my personal criteria has the TRANSMITTER, good transmit spectral purity / good transmit IMD, as being tops on my list
(as well as clean receive audio, good ergonomics, and ease-of-use,  reliability, etc.)....but, as my personal views are well known around here, as I wrote above, I won't go off on an IMD rant here!  Just a quick polite reminder to try to at least look at what rigs have better transmit results....and, of course, please turn down your mic gain!
  :)

« Last Edit: September 16, 2020, 12:04:50 AM by KA4WJA »
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2020, 01:06:28 PM »

Last night I received an email from an old friend, who asked me if there is so much more to choosing a rig, why isn't that mentioned on "the list"...(apparently he was reading this thread, but didn't want to stir things up?)
My answer was....well, it was long....but, in brief I wrote that if you read the rest of what Rob writes and read thru his equipment reports carefully, you'll see these recommendations, or at least some comments on troublesome issues....and, I also mentioned that (in my opinion) the "list" does serve a purpose, as long as don't use it to decide on what rig to buy!  (certainly not as the only criteria!)

In addition to Rob's (and many others) recommendations to not concentrate on one "number" (close-in 2-tone IMD3), and actually use other / many criteria when choosing a new rig....when I read VK5ISO quoting Rob Sherwood, it reminded me of the oft misunderstood fact that even if someone does actually wish to use Rob's list to better evaluate various rigs, they really do need to look at more than one "number"...and understand that sometimes even some of those numbers belie the actual real-world results (see details below)...


Then I thought....why not just cut-n-paste my reply here?  So, here goes....some of the below are direct quotes from Rob Sherwood's papers, and some are my opinion, based on my readings and experience in the last 45 years... :)


If you're thinking the "king of the hill" (the rig at the top of the list  http://www.sherweng.com/table.html  ), is always a great choice, you really should read some more about whatever rig it may be...and, while reading what Rob himself writes about them is very good, you should also read the ARRL Product Reviews...  http://www.arrl.org/reviews-listed-by-manufacturer
(I know, some here see a mention of the ARRL and their blood begins to stir....but, please let's not drift off into ham radio hysteria....can we just all agree that getting more info / education is good, no matter where it comes from?)

Regarding "numbers" and position on the "list", here are some cases in point:

---- 10 years ago, let's not forget the truly horrible audio out of an Elecraft K3, and its surprisingly rather noisy synthesizer which made its DR noise-limited, i.e. poor RMDR....And, of course, it's poor transmit IMD!  (now, except for its audio amp / path, no question it did had a good receiver, but was really only designed to be a CW rig)   And, yes, improvements have been made over the years...

https://www.dj0ip.de/app/download/5794190002/Elecraft+K3+rev+c.pdf

(Oh, and don't forget that the highly touted K2 was easily trounced by rigs many years older than it!)


---- And, the current top of the list, the Yaesu FTdx-101D....well, just read Rob's report!  Transmit ALC issues, ALC-overshoot, etc., and overall power spikes....rather harsh keying waveform, etc., and even QSK issues...(the ALC issues and keying waveform continue a poor Yaesu tradition, I'm afraid), but also has a bandscope anomaly, and like most modern rigs (sans the Apache ANAN's and the K3) has serious receiver AGC issues on noise pulses...not to mention, like many "modern" rigs, has rather average-to-poor transmit IMD, and unlike the FTdx-5000 (and 9000, and even the old FT-1000), no provision for "Class A" transmit operation (although with their ALC issues, Class A operations from these other Yaesu's needed to be done with precision...little-to-no processing and NO ALC action...in order for any significant improvement in transmit purity)

But, heck....it's on the top of the list, it must be great, right?   Shaking my head...

https://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/sherwood-hf-xcvr-tests/yaesu-ftdx-101d/


---- Of course, the recent "hot girl" that every ham wants to get their hands on, and test drive....the Icom IC-7300....no dispute that, for the price, it's got a lot going for it.....but, it ain't perfect...(of course, no rig is perfect!)  And, again, some improvements have come and sometimes errors are made in the tests / reports (see the two-samples report)...

In some hams' opinions, the IC-7300 is a better radio than the current king-of-the-hill, the FTdx-101D...even with its close-in 2-tone IMD3 being 13db to 16db worse than that of the FTdx-101D, many hams think the 7300 to be a better radio...oh, the horror!  :)  LOL

https://www.dj0ip.de/app/download/5806181195/Icom+IC-7300+A.pdf

https://www.dj0ip.de/app/download/5811576452/Icom+7300+Two+Samples+D.pdf

{BTW, personally I'm still not a fan of "computer radios".....but, the Apache ANAN 7000 / 8000 have great transmit purity / IMD (with their pre-distortion)...and, while I'm still not a convert to direct-sampling SDR's (not even ones with "knobs"), the Icom IC-7610 does look nice, even in my eye.....and while I'm not going to buy an IC-7300, to be clear I don't think it is evil, nor one of the seven signs of the apocalypse!}


To get a better understanding of the "list" and the numbers there....have a look at what Rob writes:

Quote
"Blocking:
Blocking occurs when the radio is just beginning to overload from a signal outside the passband. It is usually about 30 dB above the Dynamic Range of the radio (to be described below). If a radio has a good dynamic range, then it will have a good blocking number. 130 dB is a good number. With direct sampling radios, blocking is technically not the correct term. An A to D converter has an absolute overload point, unlike a 1 or 3 dB gain compression point. Note: Instantaneous overload from many strong signals may cause the overload indicator flicker, but may not have an audible side effect."

Quote
"Phase Noise:
Old radios (Collins, Drake, Hammarlund, National) used a VFO or PTO and crystal oscillators to tune the bands. Any noise in the local oscillator (LO) chain was minimal. When synthesized radios came along in the 70s, the LO had noise on it. It is caused by phase jitter in the circuit, and puts significant noise sidebands on the LO. This can mix with a strong signal outside the passband of the radio and put noise on top of the weak signal you are trying to copy.

This is a significant problem in some cases: You have a neighboring ham close by, during Field Day when there are multiple transmitters at the same site, and certainly in a multi-multi contest station. You would like the number to be better that 130 dBc / Hz at 10 kHz. [corresponding to a RMDR of about 103db] A non-synthesized radio, such as a Drake or Collins, has so little local oscillator noise the measurements were made closer-in between 2 and 5 kHz.

Note: Very few legacy superhet radios have low phase noise, though most direct sampling radios have low phase noise. The ARRL has clearly emphasized low phase noise (RMDR) since 2013. (RMDR = Reciprocal Mixing Dynamic Range) To convert my LO Noise (dBc/Hz) column data to RMDR subtract 27 dB for a 500-Hz bandwidth."

Quote
"Dynamic Range:
Now we get to the nitty gritty. I started testing radios in 1976 because the ARRL rated the Drake R-4C very good, but in a CW contest it was terrible. The radio overloaded in a CW pile-up, so I decided to figure out what was wrong with their testing. In 1975 the League [the ARRL] had started testing for noise floor and dynamic range, new terms for most amateurs. Spurious Free Dyanmic Range measures how the radio can handle strong undesired signals at the same time as a weak desired signal, without overload. When a radio overloads, it starts generating spurious signals on its own.

Dynamic range is defined as the level in dB when two strong test signals make distortion in the radio equal to the noise floor. The radio thus can handle that range of signals before the strong signals just start to overload the radio.

The League originally only tested the dynamic range at 20-kHz test spacing, which was reasonable at the time. But as multi-conversion radios became the norm, this test was inadequate. The Drake example was a case in point. When the two test signals are 20 kHz apart, the overload distortion products are 20 kHz each side of the pair of test signals. In other words, the League was testing as if the QRM was always going to be 20 and 40 kHz away! In reality the QRM is likely going to be close by.

In 1977 I published an article in “ham radio magazine” [Dec 1977, Ham Radio, page 10 - 18]discussing this subject. I tested the offending R-4C at 2 kHz in addition to 20 kHz. In that case the 20-kHz dynamic range was over 80 dB, but the 2-kHz dynamic range was less than 60 dB.

The roofing filter of the R-4C is 8-kHz wide, and in a CW contest, there were many signals inside that 8-kHz filter, overloading the radio. I installed a 600 Hz roofing filter in the R-4C, and the problem went away. When testing the Sherwood modified R-4C at 2 kHz, the dynamic range was over 80 dB, just like it was with the 20-kHz test.

Most radios in the 70s and 80s had gone to up-conversion for two reasons. This got rid of the necessity of a preselector, and it allowed general coverage without a dead spot equal to the first IF frequency. In the up-conversion radio, the first IF was always above 10 meters, and often above 6 meters. All first IF filters were at least 15 kHz wide, and there was the problem. The Drake 8-kHz first IF was bad enough, and now almost all the radios for 20+ years had a first IF what was at least 15-kHz wide. Almost all of them had a close-in dynamic range around 70 dB. That was barely adequate for SSB and inadequate for CW.

For more than 40 years I have been testing radios, and I decided to sort the table on my website by close-in dynamic range at 2-kHz spacing. This was the “acid test” for CW contest / DX pile up operation.

In 2003 the Ten-Tec Orion came along, and it went back to a 9 MHz first IF (instead of 40 to 70 MHz), and offered a narrow CW roofing filter, like I had added to the Drake. It was the first commercial rig to be better than the Sherwood roofing filter modified R-4C. Later the Elecraft K3 came to market, and now Yaesu and Kenwood have what is now called “down-conversion” radios with a low frequency first IF.

What do you need in the way of close-in dynamic range? You want a number of at least 70 dB for SSB, and at least 80 dB for CW. A 10 dB safety factor would be nice, so that means you would prefer 80 dB for SSB and 90 dB for CW. Now there are approximately 20 radios that meet that specification."

Now, in addition to reading the test reports and product reviews....even when you look at just some test result "numbers" of different rigs on the list, you will find that sometimes things are more complicated than just the "numbers" might show (similar to how things were 45 years ago, when Rob started his quest for a better receiver....when a stock Drake R4C "tested" good in the lab in Newington, but fell apart on-the-air in 160m CW contest....the numbers weren't the story...and, looking on the other side of the transceiver just like today's receiver "numbers" of the FTdx-101d, K3s, etc. etc. don't tell the story, nor do they show transmitter issues!!)

In addition to the modern radios mentioned above, here's an old case-in-point here, regarding receiver numbers:

A Drake TR-7....a high-quality legacy HF rig, from the 1970's (this is a high-quality DBM "up-conversion" HF rig, with a circa 1975 design VCO/synthesizer, mixer, etc.) that I personally know very well...(but, hey...I'm no DeMaw, Hayward, Rohde, etc....these are the guys I learned from, and have probably forgotten more than most will ever grasp about receiver design!)

I own/operate two TR-7s, the first one I bought new in 1978, the second I bought used about 20 years ago.....I understand their design pretty well, as well as have a good deal of time operating them in various environs....used them at home and in the field on 160m contests, Field Days, 75m DX'ing and ragchewing, casual 40m and 20m operating....and also one on-board, offshore at sea, on ocean-going yachts...

A cool fact of life for the TR-7 is that, except for the comparatively-noisy VCO/synthesizer, it actually holds its own against many of the modern 21st Century HF ham rigs made in the past few years (that have 40 years newer / more advanced technology)....and, of course, the TR-7's transmitter is a lot nicer than just about any other ham HF rig made today, or in the past almost 40 years!

So, using the Drake TR-7 "numbers"....

a)  It has a BlockingDR of 146db (only recently beaten by the $12,000 IC-7851, and the multi-thousand dollar rigs, the Elecraft K3s / Yaesu FTdx-101d).....which if you use Rob's general rules / calculations, would mean that the TR-7 has a "Dynamic Range" (2-tone IMD3 ) of 116db?  But, of course, it doesn't....(it's actually 99db wide-spaced, and 75db close-in)

b)  It's Reciprocal Mixing Dynamic Range (RMDR), which is a strong signal (one signal) mixing with the "noise" of the synthesizer/VCO is approx. 90db, which is adequate even for today...(10 - 20db worse than the modern hi-end 21st Century rigs near the top of the "list", but pretty good in comparison to many radios out there....and certainly state-of-the-art 45 years ago, when, in 1975, the TR-7 was designed)

c)  The measured "Dynamic Range" (2-tone IMD3) is 99db wide-spaced, and 75db close-in...not surprising as the 1st IF filter (aka "roofing filter") is only 4-poles and 9khz wide...

The reason I'm writing this here, is not convince anyone that my old favorite (Drake TR-7) is so much better than today's modern rigs, but rather just to show that the TR-7's excellent wide-spaced IMD3 of 99db and its outstanding146db BDR, are quite good.....and its RMDR is about 90db, and it's close-in IMD3 is 75db, are not that bad....I mean, we did actually make contacts back in the old days, you know!

Fyi, the TR-7's position on the list is way above that of the Elecraft K2 and right next to the Icom IC-756ProII and ProIII, and near the IC-7600 / IC-7700 and the TS-590s (in up-convert bands)....and remember that the TR-7's design/manufacture is 30 - 35+ years older than those "modern, 21st Century radios"...yep a 45 year old TR-7 can trounce an Elecraft K2 in about category!!!  And, is as good (better in some applications) than the '7600/'7700, and ProII's and III's....But, you never hear anyone say that, do you....nope....that's 'cuz it doesn't fit with the "accepted lore"....but, it is true!!  :)

Remember that while we've seen "100db radios" being advertised for decades, this wasn't really reality until the 2010's....things didn't really improve until about 10 years ago....and, what 'da know, somehow hams were making contacts (CW, SSB, RTTY, etc.) on the HF bands for many decades, in times of solar minimums and solar maximums....how was that possible without a "100db" radio?  (maybe it was magic?...hmmm?)

And, let's please remember that except in serious CW contest pile-ups, these numbers (of the TR-7, and some others) are more than adequate for most other HF ham operations, even in today's crowded bands, and most contest environs....the TR-7 is actually to this day (along with the IC-781) is considered one of the best legacy HF rigs, especially in SSB operations!   
And, while not 100% on topic, the TR-7's Noise Blanker (the $175 optional NB-7), is considered by most radio engineers and every ham that's ever used it, to be one of the best noise blankers ever made....it does not ever degrade receiver performance (even in crowded contest conditions) and it friggin' works!  It remove impulse noise / most powerline noise, from S-9+ down to S-0...without disrupting the receiver....
{this is one reason that I decided to not try to narrow the first IF filter ("roofing filter") from its designed 9khz width (and only 4-poles), as I didn't want to change the input noise shape, thereby reducing the blanker's effectiveness, in order to just gain a few db of close-in rec IMD performance (heck, I'm mostly an SSB op, so no real improvement for me anyway)....
Although, I have thought of changing the VCO's (maybe employing only one VCO, as KA2WEU, Dr. Ulrich L. Rohde, suggested?) and a new mixer....to improve the RMDR....but, as I still haven't found it lacking in that criteria, I haven't yet done more than just think about it!}

BTW, Rob just recently exchanged his longtime favorite IC-781 in operating position #1 with an IC-7610, moving the '781 to position #3....how's that for longevity....the '781 is a late-'80's rig, 'ya know!...
Now, I'm certainly not a CW contester, but the fact is my 45-yr old design TR-7's are plenty good enough for 80m Dx'ing, etc. and 75m rag-chewing down here in Central Florida (where summertime static crashes can be 20+db over S-9)! And, they along with many other radios, are certainly able to hold there own even with today's crowded bands!}

While the RMDR and close-in IMD3 don't place the TR-7 anywhere near the top of "the list", they ain't bad....and, its 99db wide-spaced IMD3 and outstanding BDR of 146db, go a long way to keeping the TR-7 very competitive these days! 

Yes, I know, the commonly-accepted adage that a high BlockingDR is meaningless if you have poor RMDR (i.e. noisy VCO/LO/Synthesizer)....and on paper / in the lab, yes this can be "proven", but in the real-world (like Field Day), this does not always ring true!


Just shows-to-go-ya', that looking at one "number" in a spec sheet or where a particular rig places on a "list", doesn't always tell the whole story!  :)


I hope this finds some of you smiling....

73,
John,  KA4WJA
« Last Edit: September 21, 2020, 01:12:55 PM by KA4WJA »
Logged

VK6HP

  • Member
  • Posts: 1222
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2020, 07:47:59 PM »

John,

I enjoy reading your thoughts and, as you know, I share your thinking regarding supporting manufacturers producing transmitters with decent IMD characteristics.  My 32S-3 (and the rest of the Collins S-line) is still in regular use and, over time, I’ve come to realize that such operation has quite an educational value – and not just for me! I get quite a few comments on the excellent communications audio and tightly contained spectrum and, in truth, I think it is an eye opener for hams too familiar with woofy, over-processed, over-driven signals amplified in poor PA stages.  The basics have not changed since Collins published “Fundamentals of Single Sideband” although that volume is not widely known these days; maybe if I did an inane You-Tube video while reading it aloud using a shaky camera it might get a new audience 😉  Anyway, keep enjoying the TR-7 and underlining the IMD message.

One radio you might personally want to pay some attention to is the Kenwood TS-890S.  It’s a very high performance superhet with excellent RF, LO and H-mode mixer stages.  I think it still holds the top spot for blocking DR in the Sherwood list, and is well up the page in the other specs.  More importantly, the style and ergonomics would probably suit you better than the other offerings you mention, while still offering a very modern interface and excellent bandscope.  After a good deal of looking, I decided on an 890S myself.  The class-leading transmit IMD was a factor, as was the ability to seamlessly do LF/MF transceive functions.  The design emphases, form factor and excellent power control and setting capabilities were also important.  No radio is perfect, as you note, but this one turns out to have fewer teething issues and vices than most of the current crop.  I use the radio in a pretty noisy urban environment and as part of my development bench and have only minor gripes, such as the use of RCA connectors for some of the auxiliary analog I/O.  Oh, and if you are interested, be sure and read post #34.

As you probably know, “class-leading” IMD really means “no better than it ought to be” in my book.  But the 890S is 10 dB or so better than the most egregious offenders and actually pretty impressive for a 12 V radio.  Driving an LDMOS KPA1500 with only the necessary minimal power (for our VK jurisdiction) the “modern” station transmit chain is pretty good, although I will migrate to a pre-distortion capable exciter when one becomes available in a format that meets my other requirements.  That may be an Elecraft K4HD and I’m pleased the see that K4 beta testing is nearly finished and shipping imminent, COVID-19 and California bushfires having had a significant impact.  I doubt that the configuration I want will be ready on Day 1, but it will be good to see yet another new radio in the field.

At the other end of the size range, I’ve spent a few days playing with an IC-705, which is an extremely capable little radio – effectively a shack in half a shoebox, with a good bandscope.  It’s a bit quirky and replicates most of the IC-7300 shortcomings but, really, it’s hard to be too churlish when the format and capacity offer so much to those who need an ultra-portable radio.  For me, though, the ergonomic issues (hardware and firmware) are too prominent to make it more than a curiosity. And I don’t know when ICOM will get the message that it’d be a good idea to cater for the LF/MF crowd by including at least a “drive” level output on those bands.

Anyway, it’s a cold day here, encouraging me to warm up the shack with the S-line and 30L-1!

73, Peter.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2020, 08:02:08 PM by VK6HP »
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #51 on: September 24, 2020, 09:38:55 PM »

Peter,
Thanks for the nice idea....I've already done some shaky-camera work on some of my sailing videos....and I even dropped the camera once, while doing a HF radio comms video for my fellow sailors...
https://www.youtube.com/user/captainjohn49/playlists?disable_polymer=1
Maybe I can add some loud electro-music, and have teenagers following me on Tick-Toc?  Hi hi :)


(and, btw, I had my TR-7 on-board sailing with me ~ 40 years ago....but, to be honest, I didn't do much ham operating, as I busy with other stuff on-board...and when needing long-range comms back then, we used the traditional crystal-controlled maritime HF radio, an SGC Intercontinental ONE.....the TR-7 didn't get used much on-board, back then....and now-a-days, I don't have the room for it and don't wish to expose her anymore than necessary, I mean she's a rather middle-aged girl, and she needs to be taken care of...)


As for working guys with your Collins....ah, sounds nice.... :)

Fyi, I use an old (50 year old?) Electrovoice 638 mic with my TR-7, and its 2.3khz transmit passband isn't "hi-fi" at all, and of course no processor in the TR-7, and I also get wonderful unsolicited reports....(although, I do get many unsolicited excellent reports from on-board, using the Icom M-802 HF Maritime rig, too.)



Okay, I don't want to drift further off topic, so....so, if I could only contribute two or three quick pieces of advice to share with my fellow hams in regards to what rig to choose, they would be these:

a)  Choose a radio that you actually like using!  One that is easy to listen to and easy-to-use, etc!

b)  Choose a radio that meets your own needs, not what someone else says they need!

c)  Choose a radio whose transmitter is clean!   Just like not polluting our waterways, nor our land, nor our air....take some pride and don't pollute the airwaves with useless emissions that harm everyone!

Hmmm...I wonder if anyone will notice that I don't mention any "numbers" or "specs"?

Of course, there is a lot more (just read the postings above), but if I only had 15 to 20 seconds and a few sentences, those 3 would be it!



As for other radio suggestions....I did a cursory look at the TS-890 last year....but didn't look closely....I will do so next week...
But, with my present situation (caring for elderly family) and of course the economic issues here due to Covid, etc....I'm not buying a new rig now....maybe in a couple years?
(btw, my best friend has a TS-590SG, that he bought to make life easier for his wife to operate HF....and he thought he'd continue to use his TS-830s, just switch between the two....well, two years on now, and he uses the '590 daily, just firing up the '830 for a Saturday-night rag chew)

BTW, your mention of RCA connectors makes me smile....it seems many American radio manufactures must've gotten a great price on them back in the 60's and 70's, as Drake, Heathkit, Swan, etc. all seemed to use RCA phono connectors liberally!  (Heathkit used to use 'em for 100-watt HF rig output jacks!!)  Maybe Kenwood is using the same supplier?  :)


And, regarding LF/MF....the TR-7's ext ant jack allows input/output from a transverter....and when grounding pin #8 of the TR-7's acc connector (which disables the entire PA), I have 0dbm transmit output (from up-converter board, and thru the hi-pass filter board) available on the "ext ant" jack for transverter operations (this is what I use for 144mhz EME, with my transverter).....but the hi-pass filter's lowest range has its stop-band starting at 1.75mhz, with the TR-7's  "VLF" antenna jack  bypassing the hi-pass filter, but it has a 20db pad in its path....all I have to do is bypass the 20db attenuator pad and/or rig a second output right at the up-converter board (upstream of the hi-pass filter) to allow LF / VLF operations, albeit at 0dbm transmit power, that's plenty to drive a multi-stage VLF amp....so, the 45 year old TR-7 is "one clip of resistor" or "one addition of a connector", away from LF/VLF transmit operations!  :)


BTW, we had a cold front pass thru here a couple days ago, high temps dipped down to the mid-80's F (30 degrees C) for two days, but we're back up to low-mid-90's F (34 degrees C) now.... :)


FYI, in February of this year, after 10 days in NZ, I spent 16 days exploring Australia (and then a few days in Fiji on the way home).....we drove from Sydney to Port Augusta to Coober Pedy to Ayers Rock (a few thousand km driving on the left!)....then flew to Palm Cove Queensland, and spent 5 days there, exploring the rainforest, Great Barrier Reef, the beach, sailing, diving, etc...what a wonderful country you have!  :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NPi-StMMuc


73,
John,  KA4WJA
Logged

VK6HP

  • Member
  • Posts: 1222
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #52 on: September 26, 2020, 02:50:52 AM »

John

Good advice, especially regarding the need to take pride in what your station emits.  Personal responsibility always involves choices and trade-offs, and declaring oneself a passive consumer defeats a good deal of the mandated purpose of ham radio.

I understand the lure of sophistication: I had planned to use my TS-590S as the basis of the MF station but, inevitably, I find it hard to give up the 890S and now have that plumbed in on 630 m, as well as elsewhere. The classic TS-830S also gets a gallop occasionally, especially when I'm in the mood for easy-listening CW.

Glad you enjoyed the visit to Australasia - you just squeaked in of course, what with the COVID-19 developments.  We now have a pretty limited travel regime, including interstate travel, but the payoff is essentially normal life and relatively few deaths.  Having travelled too much over the last decade, I initially enjoyed the enforced quiet life but, with friends and colleagues scattered around the world, I now have to admit to feeling that I'd like to venture out.  But we can't wish this thing away, so we do what we must.  Anyway, I'm certainly looking forward to the North America trip that was postponed, and to some of the great driving routes you have, including a return to Zion National Park and NM.  And yes, driving on the "wrong" side of the road is indeed more challenging in the quieter areas, requiring care and a lot of coffee.

73, Peter.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2020, 02:53:04 AM by VK6HP »
Logged

K6AER

  • Member
  • Posts: 7159
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #53 on: September 28, 2020, 11:13:08 AM »

Any rig in the top 20 of Sherwood's list will outperform the abilities of most antennas and locations. QRM/QRM etc. All these factors will degrade reception more than you gain with a rig's great capabilities.

I would add the first 50 radios will outperform not only the operators but the locations by at least 20 dB.
I'd like to add to that comment like this: "Any rig in the top 20 of Sherwood's list will outperform the abilities of most antennas, locations and operators."

From operator comments over the past few years on these forums, it's clear that very few operators have any idea what the effects of a receiver performing poorly in the narrow-spaced IMD arena are, or what one can do to alleviate the symptoms when they occur.  I've owned a couple of transceivers that were marginal in this area, and the only time any symptoms were observed were on 160 and 20 meters during contests where the band was loaded with very strong signals.  Even then, the workaround was pretty simple - switch a bit of attenuation into the receiver antenna input and the IMD disappeared.  As W8JI pointed out some time ago, any narrow-spaced IMD number of 80 or greater is adequate most of the time.
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2021, 07:18:35 PM »

Mike, et al,
Remember, I love Rob!   He has so much for ham radio, he should get a lifetime achievement award!
(especially from those who love R.L. Drake products!)

But, of course it's not just the top 50 radios on the list that will outperform the operators and locations...

I would add the first 50 radios will outperform not only the operators but the locations by at least 20 dB.

In my opinion, except for a few inexpensive "shortwave receivers" and a couple old clunkers (like an FT-101, or SB-303), just about every radio on Rob's list will perform adequately for most hams these days....
Heck, my first HF ham contacts (as a "3rd party", before I was licensed) in the early/mid 70's were on some old Collins gear at BCC, and a friends new TS-520....and, with todays modern RFI issues and HOA-restricted antenna systems, even the old TS-520 will still make lots of contacts!  :)


And, the "top 50" or more, will do well in just about any situation, except for serious CW contesting....


Bottom Line:
....so, if I could only contribute two or three quick pieces of advice to share with my fellow hams in regards to what rig to choose, they would be these:

a)  Choose a radio that you actually like using!  One that is easy to listen to and easy-to-use, etc!

b)  Choose a radio that meets your own needs, not what someone else says they need!

c)  Choose a radio whose transmitter is clean!   Just like not polluting our waterways, nor our land, nor our air....take some pride and don't pollute the airwaves with useless emissions that harm everyone!

Hmmm...I wonder if anyone will notice that I don't mention any "numbers" or "specs"?

Of course, there is a lot more (just read the postings above), but if I only had 15 to 20 seconds and a few sentences, those 3 would be it!


73,

John,  KA4WJA
Logged

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2229
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2021, 01:57:39 AM »

I've said many times before that the ultimate radio is clearly and obviously the Heathkit HW-101.  Soft, gentle audio.  Preselector and 400 Hz CW filter.  Crystal calibrator and main oscillator phase noise to die for.  Keeps your hands nice and warm in the glow from the tubes.  Drifto-matic tuning that ensures every contact is an adventure.  (sigh!) They really knew ho to build them, way back when!

How anybody could possible purchase and use transistorized terrors like the Yaesu FTDX-101D or the Icom IC-7300 is beyond me!  Heck, they're no fun at all and pretty much work every time you turn them on!  Their ALC is horrible - NO radio should have automatic gain control... it's "Un-Hamican".  And the overshoot!  Geeze!  It lasts for milliseconds! Crimeny!

The HW-101 ALC was much better (it didn't really work) - and output simply went to 150 watts (on good 6146Bs) for a few seconds before it settled back to (about) 100 watts.  Great for testing amplifier beefiness.  If the amplifier wasn't "tube tough" it'd simply be barbequed.  As above - a truly superior radio.

The HW-101 laughs at Sherwood's List, demonstrating how irrelevant stability, selectivity, dynamic range and band scopes really are!  Because it's audio tone was the best (it really was, too) and all-important HFF figure (Having Fun Factor) was off the charts! (back in the day).

Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced mine and have to rely on the operator adored (see eham.net user reviews) but truly miserable FTDX-3000, which is far superior to the IC-7300 and FTDX-101D simply because it's band scope is far too small to be distracting (so I plug an SDRplay to its IF output port and gaze at my 2nd monitor, mesmerized and slack jawed). 

Icom IC-7610, Flex-6600, Yaesu FTDX-101D and FTDX-10... all junk.  More bugs in those radios than on a coyote walking through a flea circus.  And I don't like their paint color, either.

Certainly not like the old (green) radios where there were no bugs at all.  Just a few cute eccentricities.  Including ones that could electrocute the operator if he or she was not paying attention.  Exciting!  And very useful to weed out no-code operators.

Ahem.

Well, time to get back on the radio.  Everything from 10M to 80M was hopping today and tonight, including 60M, which was packed, wall to wall.  Nice to be going into a solar upswing.  And all I have to do is tell my computer what I want my (crappy) radio and amplifier to do and it very politely makes the contact for me using my "impossible" EFHW wire antenna (and others), thanks to Joe and FT-8. (He certainly deserves the ham equivalent of the Nobel Prize for leading JT and FT development - when "contributions to the hobby" are considered, Joe sets the standard.  In fact, he reinvented it.).

Propagation is so good even my FTDX-3000s can close the link without a problem, aided by their wonderful but external OOB interference fighting MTU pre-selectors straight out of "Star Trek" (no, they are NOT made out of salt shakers!).  Somehow the KAT-500 amplifier seems to survive the radios terrible ALC and TX overshoot (it really does overshoot - I've yet to see a radio that doesn't when output power is throttled back) while only smoking a little bit.

Thinking it over, maybe (just maybe) the new crop of radios could work well under these fine conditions.  Even in a contest.  Hmmmm.  Have to try that thought out on Field Day.  Which is coming right up.  Or find the HW-101?

Best Regards!

Brian - K6BRN



Logged

W7CXC

  • Member
  • Posts: 335
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2021, 12:06:19 PM »

WJA:  Without really thinking about it followed your criteria for selection and ended up with a FTDX3kD.  It does all that I need and more. The rcvr is simply outstanding and quiet. Not sure what the numbers are but it sounds great on xmit, been told that, and hears well. Even the internal speaker can be listened to for hour on end with no stress. I don't want to even look at the numbers as might then decide it was the wrong choice ::) Yes it has menus but most are set and forget. Did not think the display scope was needed but end up liking it now that its here. Not the very latest or greatest but how much radio does one really need. Added benefit, it is heavy enough to stay put on the operating position. 7300... not for me. Did not like the feel, different strokes for different folks. N7wr has every award known to man and is now using a FT1000. Enough said.

73's  David
Logged

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2229
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2021, 03:12:27 PM »

David (WX7CXC):

Yes, FTDX-3000 audio is very nice - not fatiguing at all, and the DNR works well. 

Note that the West Mountain Radio clrDSP noise reduction unit (for some reason) seems to complement the FTDX-3000 DNR very well, providing an almost FM-like listening experience on SSB.

A big advantage to the FTDX-3000 that many overlook is it's plethora of I/O.  RX out (RCA), IF out (9 MHz, broadband), RX only antenna, selectable (SO239), RX pre-filter in/out for MTUs (but other custom filters can connect here as well), three selectable antenna connector for TX/RX, USB and DB9 for CAT control (separate control electronics for each, too), built-in sound card ... and the list continues.

Not even the FTDX-101D has this much useful I/O

This allows a station to evolve a great deal, easily and incrementally.

For example, I added an SDR dongle to the RX output (SDRplay RSP-1) as a second receiver.  Then I discovered the RSP-1 wasn't a terribly good HF receiver and moved it to the IF output where it provides a pretty good broadband band-scope, with an inset narroband display as well.  Then Iconnected an Icom R75 to the RX output port, which allows the R75 to take advantage of FTDX-3000 front end filtering and pre-amps - works VERY well as an agile 2nd receiver.  Addition of the MTUs has helped my out when a fellow ham a few houses over opens up his Elecraft KPA-1500 to full power - simply suppresses his signal when he's on an adjacent band.

It's a very versatile radio, with an obtuse menu system that takes a while to get used to - and it takes a while to understand the radio's capabilities because of this.  Once mastered, the radio can really be made to shine.

Further examples:  1.  Output power control can be reassigned to the "PROC/CARRIER" knob on the front - very handy for FT8 and other modes, 2.  The contour control can be set to EMPHASIS mode and used to peak voice on SSB or CW - work very well, 3.  The SHIFT control can be set to +750 Hz to move usable RX bandwidth for FT8 up to 3500 Hz while still maintaining good sensitivity down to less than 500 Hz on the band-scope.  And the good news is that it's easy to move the "sweet spot" for sensitivity in real time, if needed.

Regarding AM use - it works fine on AM as well, despite some nay-sayers.  Just ignore Yaesu's instruction and turn mic gain up (No, not all the way into compression - but crank it up past the recommended 1/3 point).

As you discover the radio, it grows on you and becomes even more fun to use.

But the HW-101 is still the best radio ever :)

Brian - K6BRN
Logged

W7CXC

  • Member
  • Posts: 335
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2021, 08:57:59 PM »

Brian
I dont know about the 101 but the Dx100 was great, likely could not carry it across the room now though. Same for the HT32A! ( great visual appeal) Thanks for the info. Still learning the 3K. Moving the power out also helps with amp tuning. The MOX SW is to easy to bump. 73"s David
Logged

G8FXC

  • Member
  • Posts: 533
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #59 on: March 22, 2021, 08:24:01 AM »

A rig may have great electronics but, if the ergonomics ****, you won't enjoy operating it.

Case in point:  I recently sold my FT-817nd.  Since my manual dexterity is somewhat challenged, operations requiring you to push two buttons at the same time were a nuisance.  Also look for push buttons or other located at the lower edge of the front panel; I had to elevate the 817nd on wooden blocks to access a control or two.

Before shelling out for a rig, go to a dealer and try it out from the ergonomics angle. 

IMO:  Ergonomics can make or break a rig no matter how great a performer it is.     

Fully agree! These days, outside a major field-day type contest, pretty much any of the current production of HF transceivers will perform well enough in pure RF terms. It is ergonomics that make a rig.

Martin (G8FXC)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Up