Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list  (Read 4715 times)

K4GTE

  • Posts: 178
    • HomeURL
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #90 on: July 22, 2022, 01:52:10 PM »

Three notable issues with the Sherwood list -

1. The top twenty transceivers are so close in results they are all number one choices

2. His location is not your location

3. Personal brand preference and ergonomics are the only deciding factors in the top twenty ranked transceivers
Logged

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #91 on: July 22, 2022, 04:02:50 PM »

It's interesting that some people get so hung up on Sherwood's list, buy one of the top three, and then find out that ergonomically it doesn't work for them, or it's just too much radio for their operations. Then they rationalize their decision by trashing all the radios on the list below theirs.

In the recent past, I was thinking of maybe upgrading from my IC-7300 to a 7610. Fortunately at a friend's shack, I had a chance to extensively A/B them, using the same antenna and settings...receiver to receiver. Honestly, while I felt that the 7610 had a slightly lower noise floor, there wasn't one station on the 7610 that I also couldn't copy just as well on the 7300. Not really needing a second receiver and the extra bells and whistles on the 7610, I kept the 7300 and bought a second one.

In contests, I can now work SO2R instead of just SO2V with the 7610. For my purposes, the 7300 is plenty of radio for me.
Logged

K0UA

  • Member
  • Posts: 9589
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #92 on: July 22, 2022, 07:13:12 PM »

All said and done my 7610 is a better CW rig than either of my 7300's.  BUT, if you count the number of stations I work on CW, I work the majority of them on the left hand 7300. No key on the 7300 on the right. :)..  I work POTA CW mostly on the 7300, and Hard to copy DX stations on the 7610.  For the majority of CW operation, the 7300 is "just fine and dandy".  Handling pile-ups is better with a rig with two receivers and an audio peaking control. But for 97% of CW ops, the 7300 it is.
Logged
73  James K0UA

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2231
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #93 on: July 22, 2022, 08:25:26 PM »

Sherwood's List has always been a good source of basic performance information for transceivers (just as ARRLtesting has been).  And every list needs to be ordered, and it's creator picked an order that reflected his preferences (bias).  Like some ARRL tests, it's also caught some design and manufacturing defects in early products - very useful to the ham community.

But that doesn't mean the "Best Rig/Radio/Tranceiver" is provided by rank order.  "The Best" is not really a question that can be answered by a 3rd party - it's personal to your own style, expectations and expertise with a particular radio.

Soooo many (often new) operators make the mistake of asking:  "What's the BEST ...", which usually leads to a flaming thread on the topic.  As I said, only ONE person can answer the "BEST" question:  The person asking it.  It's more reasonable to simply ask what afew good radios/antennas/power supplies, etc. are to look at and why, given some going in goals and objectives.

Sherwood's List and a few dozen users reviews can provide some basis for a "guesstimate" as to what you'll find, and perhaps hint at what you might like, regarding HF transceivers (note that Sherwood's List only covers the RX side).  It's also a good indicator of whether a radio is reasonably competent for YOUR intended use.  All 1-star ratings and at the bottom of the list is a warning sign.

Funny thing is, many radio owners never take the time to really, really get to know their radio.  And today's radios have so many features and capabilities - some obvious, some not - that operator familiarity often makes all the difference.  Much more so than the radio.

The Yaesu FTDX-3000 is somewhere down at 43 on Sherwood's List, and he has at least one presentation out that's no too complementary.  Yet...  eham user reviews - 183 of them, pegs the radio at 4.7 out of 5.  Thats a LOT of reviews, and a very high rating for that number of reviews.  It's obviously doing SOMETHING right.

I like my two.  And I've had many others.  And had fun with most of them.

A lot of other radios are in similar situations.  They work well for their users, who get very good results.  but the radios - none of them - are perfect.  No matter what's been paid for them.  One thing's for sure, though.  If you never get to know the radio - which takes TIME, with ANY radio, you'll NEVER know.

Some hams just like to "flip" radios.  That's OK, too.  This hobby is what you make it and if that's what you enjoy, why should anyone object?  Variety is the spice of life.

Brian - K6BRN



« Last Edit: July 22, 2022, 08:31:49 PM by K6BRN »
Logged

K0UA

  • Member
  • Posts: 9589
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #94 on: July 23, 2022, 05:14:33 AM »

Sherwood's List has always been a good source of basic performance information for transceivers (just as ARRLtesting has been).  And every list needs to be ordered, and it's creator picked an order that reflected his preferences (bias).  Like some ARRL tests, it's also caught some design and manufacturing defects in early products - very useful to the ham community.

But that doesn't mean the "Best Rig/Radio/Tranceiver" is provided by rank order.  "The Best" is not really a question that can be answered by a 3rd party - it's personal to your own style, expectations and expertise with a particular radio.

Soooo many (often new) operators make the mistake of asking:  "What's the BEST ...", which usually leads to a flaming thread on the topic.  As I said, only ONE person can answer the "BEST" question:  The person asking it.  It's more reasonable to simply ask what afew good radios/antennas/power supplies, etc. are to look at and why, given some going in goals and objectives.

Sherwood's List and a few dozen users reviews can provide some basis for a "guesstimate" as to what you'll find, and perhaps hint at what you might like, regarding HF transceivers (note that Sherwood's List only covers the RX side).  It's also a good indicator of whether a radio is reasonably competent for YOUR intended use.  All 1-star ratings and at the bottom of the list is a warning sign.

Funny thing is, many radio owners never take the time to really, really get to know their radio.  And today's radios have so many features and capabilities - some obvious, some not - that operator familiarity often makes all the difference.  Much more so than the radio.

The Yaesu FTDX-3000 is somewhere down at 43 on Sherwood's List, and he has at least one presentation out that's no too complementary.  Yet...  eham user reviews - 183 of them, pegs the radio at 4.7 out of 5.  Thats a LOT of reviews, and a very high rating for that number of reviews.  It's obviously doing SOMETHING right.

I like my two.  And I've had many others.  And had fun with most of them.

A lot of other radios are in similar situations.  They work well for their users, who get very good results.  but the radios - none of them - are perfect.  No matter what's been paid for them.  One thing's for sure, though.  If you never get to know the radio - which takes TIME, with ANY radio, you'll NEVER know.

Some hams just like to "flip" radios.  That's OK, too.  This hobby is what you make it and if that's what you enjoy, why should anyone object?  Variety is the spice of life.

Brian - K6BRN

^^   Truer words were never spoken.
Logged
73  James K0UA

G8FXC

  • Member
  • Posts: 533
Re: General History of Amateur HF Receivers, over the past 50 some years
« Reply #95 on: July 23, 2022, 06:18:26 AM »

Hello to all,
With the topic of "rig choice", and the recent discussions comparing various new rigs (and some confusion over some of these rigs' architecture), I thought maybe some clarifying info and a bit of history would be helpful?   

...


3)  So, when you're looking at different radios (whether a more conventional "super-het" like the '590SG;  or a full Direct-sampling-SDR like the '7300/7610's;  or a "super-het" with an SDR handling the bandscope, etc., like the '101d/101MP...or especially if you're looking for a bargain and buying an older radio!) and trying to figure them out, and trying to figure out why/how/which receiver is best for your application, now you'll be able to figure out what all these various names / abbreviations / acronyms actually mean, and how they work....all on your own!  :)


I do hope this helps?

73,
John,  KA4WJA

The current generation of Yaesu radios are not "superhets with an SDR handling the bandscope" - this is a common misconception. The FTdx10D and FTdx101D are hybrid SDRs which use a superhet architecture to bring the signal down to a low IF frequency which is then processed through an SDR. This has the advantage of allowing a narrow roofing filter to be inserted early in the RX chain, greatly reducing the risk of A/D overload. It also brings the digital processing down to a frequency range where the devices are a lot cheaper - Yaesu can use higher resolution D/A converters and more powerful CPUs without forcing the price out of range of most hams.

Yaesu include an additional wideband direct sampling SDR in the architecture in order to drive the bandscope, but since the output of that is never heard, it can use less sophisticated components to keep the price down.

The Yaesu hybrid architecture is conceptually no different to putting a 2m transverter in front of an ICOM IC-7300 - you would still describe that as an SDR architecture, wouldn't you?

Martin (G8FXC)
Logged

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2231
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #96 on: July 23, 2022, 08:11:56 AM »

Martin (G8FXC):

Excellent summary!

Quote
The FTdx10D and FTdx101D are hybrid SDRs which use a superhet architecture to bring the signal down to a low IF frequency which is then processed through an SDR. This has the advantage of allowing a narrow roofing filter to be inserted early in the RX chain, greatly reducing the risk of A/D overload. It also brings the digital processing down to a frequency range where the devices are a lot cheaper - Yaesu can use higher resolution D/A converters and more powerful CPUs without forcing the price out of range of most hams...

The Yaesu FTDX-3000, -1200 and FT-991/A and many other tranceivers are also analog/DSP hybrids.

Brian - K6BRN
Logged

VE3WGO

  • Member
  • Posts: 666
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #97 on: July 23, 2022, 11:55:20 AM »

Sherwood's List has always been a good source of basic performance information for transceivers (just as ARRLtesting has been).  And every list needs to be ordered, and it's creator picked an order that reflected his preferences (bias).  Like some ARRL tests, it's also caught some design and manufacturing defects in early products - very useful to the ham community.
..... <snip> ....

The Yaesu FTDX-3000 is somewhere down at 43 on Sherwood's List, and he has at least one presentation out that's no too complementary.  Yet...  eham user reviews - 183 of them, pegs the radio at 4.7 out of 5.  Thats a LOT of reviews, and a very high rating for that number of reviews.  It's obviously doing SOMETHING right.
....<snip> ....

Brian - K6BRN

K6BRN's post reminds us that a list of receivers ranked by only one parameter is not necessarily going to reflect what that matters to most potential users.

Bob Sherwood's list is ordered by narrow spaced dynamic range.  That is a prime spec for contesters in heavily-packed contests, especially for CW contesters.  But there are other columns he could have chosen, like either the 100 kHz Blocking or Wide Spaced Dynamic Range ones, which determine how a high power station (maybe even an SW broadcaster), might interfere with your weak signal DXing when they are located somewhere else in the band on a non-contesting day.  Those specs also might indicate how well that receiver will survive in a heavy noise environment where noise interference spikes might be many S-units higher than the signal you are trying to copy.  Unfortunately, his list is not HTML-driven so we can't sort it as we please (the way the eHam Product Review index CAN be).

Being at or near the top of the Sherwood list means only one thing:  the receiver has great narrow-spaced dynamic range.  There is no connection to its score for ergonomics, audio quality, flexibility, display capabilities, etc.   That's why so many experienced hams always share the same opinion:  you have to try the radio to see if YOU like it. So use the list with care.

73, Ed
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL
Re: General History of Amateur HF Receivers, over the past 50 some years
« Reply #98 on: July 23, 2022, 01:40:07 PM »

Martin,
1)  I think we are both saying the same thing, or very similar things, in two different ways....

(And, thank you for pointing out something that I should have done.
I should have mentioned upfront that my phrasing / wording was "USA-centric"....and, based on some-what older-school terminology.)

This also points out that we ("yanks") and you all ("brits") sometimes find ourselves separated by a common-language.  hi hi 



2)  As I was trying to simply point out the history of our receiver architecture and where we have ended up....I tried to steer clear of mentioning specific brands and specific radios.
Except for "accidentally" mentioning the TR-7 :) ...and, when referencing noisy oscillators I couldn't keep from mentioning the KWM-380...
As for the new Yaesu's, I think I just left out the complete descriptor when I mentioned those specific units....but I did mention it in the preceding paragraph (that you did not quote)....
So, I'm going to add this descriptor in there now here (in red) so that you'll see it...

g ----  And, then we have manufacturers that answered the call of "one-up'ing" the competition (in regards to HF receiver performance AND features!), and it was clear that the "best-of-both-worlds" was a "down-conversion" super-het with IF-DSP (particularly one with low-noise VCO's, and excellent first-IF [roofing] filters, etc.)......along with a direct-sampling-SDR receiver built-in (so, they'd have their band-scopes, waterfalls, etc.), and that brings us to the current (2022) state in amateur HF receiver design / marketing
(a "down-conversion" super-het with IF-DSP, with low-noise VCO's, and excellent/narrow first-IF [roofing] filters....hmmm, what's that old saying, "everything old is new again!"....sort makes me smile that we're coming full-circle now! :) just adding some new-tech abilities to old-tech designs/architecture! :) )



3)  So, when you're looking at different radios (whether a more conventional "super-het" like the '590SG;  or a full Direct-sampling-SDR like the '7300/7610's;  or a "IF-DSP-super-het" with an SDR handling the bandscope, etc., like the '101d/101MP...or especially if you're looking for a bargain and buying an older radio!) and trying to figure them out, and trying to figure out why/how/which receiver is best for your application, now you'll be able to figure out what all these various names / abbreviations / acronyms actually mean, and how they work....all on your own!  :)


3)  As for the specifics / details...let me be a bit more clear....
I'm discussing using ham radios for analog comms....like SSB Voice, etc...


a)  Here on the western side of the Atlantic the term "Direct-Sampling SDR" receiver describes a receiver that takes the RF input from an antenna and sends this (usually thru a low-pass filter or multi-mhz-wide-band-pass filter) directly to an Analog-to-Digital converter, and then the signals are processed digitally (known as DSP = Digital Signal Processing)....
This means that all filtering, noise blanking, noise reduction, etc., is done in the digital domain, and then when that is all done, the signals are demodulated (digital-to-analog conversion), with resulting audio then being amplified and sent to a speaker or headphones, and then to your ears.

Over the years, this term "Direct-Sampling-SDR" has been shortened / abbreviated to simply "SDR"....
(not sure if this is acceptable in the engineering labs, classrooms, etc....but, for better or worse in our world of ham radio here in the USA, it has become accepted....so, an "SDR radio" is one that takes the RF direct to digital domain, and then converts it directly to analog audio ---- a "Direct-Sampling-SDR"...not sure we'll ever accept the marketing BS of "hybrid-SDR", but I hope not.)


b)   And, here on the western side of the Atlantic the term "IF-DSP" receiver describes a super-het receiver (which could be single, double, or triple-conversion) that takes the RF input from an antenna and (usually thru a low-pass filter or multi-mhz-wide 1/2-octave-band-pass filter) sends this thru one, two, or three stages of mixing generating various intermediate frequencies (IF), where much tighter filtering is done (this is where the "roofing" filters are placed), as well as intermediate amplifying....(and also, in some designs, where analog-noise-blanking is done)....
And, at the final intermediate stage an Analog-to-Digital converter is used, and then all the signals are processed digitally (known as DSP = Digital Signal Processing)...this means that all final filtering, noise reduction, usually most noise blanking, etc., is done in the digital domain, and then when that is all done, the signals are demodulated (digital-to-analog conversion), with resulting audio then being amplified and sent to a speaker or headphones, and then to your ears.

{in some "IF-DSP" radios they use only one DSP module (some use an additional DSP module) to drive a bandscope or waterfall....but, in many of our current high-end production IF-DSP radios a Direct-Sampling-SDR is also inside this radio, and this is used as the receiver for the band scope, "3rd receiver", etc.....
But, the received audio that comes out of the main receiver, comes out of the main receiver DSP module, which is fed from the upstream IF stages of this super-het receiver.}

I suspect that on eastern side of the Atlantic, this "IF-DSP-Super-Het" receiver is being called a "Hybrid-SDR" radio....when on the western side of the Atlantic it's being called an "IF-DSP-Super-Het" radio?

So...
So, Martin, I think we are both talking about the same thing....just a bit of language / terminology confusion!  (and, my not including all the detailed descriptors in my final summary sentence) :)
We are talking about the same thing....I'm just not using the same phrasing (not using what I consider marketing BS = "hybrid-SDR"....'cuz it's an IF-DSP-Super-Het, not a "Direct-Sampling-SDR".)


73,
John,  KA4WJA
« Last Edit: July 23, 2022, 01:51:55 PM by KA4WJA »
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #99 on: July 23, 2022, 02:18:59 PM »

Brian,
1)  I'm not sure if it's global climate change, or something else?
But, somehow I'm agreeing with you.. :) hi hi
I just NEVER want hams, especially new hams, to choose their radio from a list, no matter what list, no matter how much I respect Rob and his list!

(added some bold type to highlight a couple of your words)


Sherwood's List has always been a good source of basic performance information for trans receivers (just as ARRLtesting has been).  And every list needs to be ordered, and it's creator picked an order that reflected his preferences (bias).  Like some ARRL tests, it's also caught some design and manufacturing defects in early products - very useful to the ham community.
<snip>
Sherwood's List and a few dozen users reviews can provide some basis for a "guesstimate" as to what you'll find, and perhaps hint at what you might like, regarding HF transceivers (note that Sherwood's List only covers the RX side).  It's also a good indicator of whether a radio is reasonably competent for YOUR intended use.  All 1-star ratings and at the bottom of the list is a warning sign.

Funny thing is, many radio owners never take the time to really, really get to know their radio. And today's radios have so many features and capabilities - some obvious, some not - that operator familiarity often makes all the difference.  Much more so than the radio.
Brian's next-to-last line of this paragraph here, has never been more important!

Whether they have a "modern" rig with hundreds of settings, or an old clunker like the original FT-101E....if they would just learn the basics of HF reception, etc. (you know, it's all about receive S/N), they be much better off!

Heck, I still hear so many hams running their RF gains wide open on 80m SSB in the summertime!  Ugh!
All-the-while, I hear them trading "menu settings" for their noise-reduction, mic gains, processor settings, amc, etc. etc....but they've got their RF gain running wide open! 
No kidding here, guys are manipulating their noise reduction, adjusting the receive EQ, trying different filter settings, etc....but have their RF gain wide open or won't switch in an attenuator...

Oh, and here's a weird one for ya'...
One guy (again on 8om SSB, in the summertime, in Florida) runs his new rig with the pre-amp on, and then runs the RF gain down so his S-meter shows "good signal strengths"....or how about the piss-poor first mixers in some of these so-called "hybrid-sdr's", that are so bad that the need a pre-amp even on 20m, and usually on 40m as well...yeah, they work, but if they were better built and the owners knew them better, they'd work even better!
The list goes on....but, I'm just about done trying to help on-the-air...way too many "know-it-alls" out there already, and I guess offering to help your fellow ham is now taken as arrogance? 

Oh well....here's a true story...(I tried, just last week to help a couple guys out....and got called all sorts of profane names, just for offering some wise advice on-the-air....and, btw these guys were solid 59 copy for me [one was +20 over S-9, one was +10 over], as they were only a couple hundred miles away from me....and, they complained about the "noisy band", while I had a nice quiet band....gee, couldn't be 'cuz they had 20 - 30db too much gain banging away on their receiver, could it?  and, it seems that the only way they could actually hear each other well was 'cuz the each now had "new radios" [costing >$3000!]....no kidding, that's what they said, that now that each have new radios they can work each other, from ~ 100 miles apart on 80m SSB, shaking my head....(I never did find out what radios they used-to have, but even if it were a pair of HW-101's they'd still need to just back off the gain a bit, and I guess with that old hot-water-101 they'd might need to understand how to ride-the-gain, a bit, huh? :)  sorry for the digression! :( )



2)  I know the FTdx-3000's are nice rigs....but, I thought your old "hot-water-one-oh-one" was your favorite?
The Yaesu FTDX-3000 is somewhere down at 43 on Sherwood's List
<snip>
It's obviously doing SOMETHING right.

I like my two.  And I've had many others.  And had fun with most of them.[.quote]
Sorry, couldn't help myself.  (I've still got a devil on one shoulder, sometimes)


73,
John,  KA4WJA
« Last Edit: July 23, 2022, 02:39:44 PM by KA4WJA »
Logged

K6BRN

  • Member
  • Posts: 2231
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #100 on: July 23, 2022, 02:55:34 PM »

Hi John (KA4WJA):

It's GOOD to agree on some things, don't you think?

Quote
I know the FTdx-3000's are nice rigs....but, I thought your old "hot-water-one-oh-one" was your favorite

The HW-101 is probably the HF transceiver that I've had the most fun with and is still my long term favorite.  But technology moves on, and so did I.  I was successful in modifying the HW-101 for AMTOR operation (via an AMT-1 and later a PK-232), though it sure was noisey in operation - and I had to keep my hand on the tuning knob to keep the signal centered.  This is a no-go for FT8, unless I gutted the chassis, replaced them with more modern and stable "works" and simply kept the front panel for pure nostalgia.

I think you know what i mean.  Your all time favorite seems to be the Drake TR7, one of my old "Dream Radios".  And I was not alone.

Regarding: 

Quote
Here on the western side of the Atlantic the term "Direct-Sampling SDR" receiver describes a receiver that takes the RF input from an antenna and sends this (usually thru a low-pass filter or multi-mhz-wide-band-pass filter) directly to an Analog-to-Digital converter, and then the signals are processed digitally (known as DSP = Digital Signal Processing)....

Consider that the sample-and-hold (ADC front end) is always preceded with a noise and band-limiting ANALOG filter in a good receiver design  Some noise loading of an ADC is necessary for best receiver performance - but too much noise or a lot of correlated interference will simply "use up" the dynamic range of the ADC, leaving little for the signal of interest.  So a set of switched analog bandpass filters is always a good design feature at the front end of a "broad band" SDR.

Yaesu's recent practice of a highly optimized analog front end feeding DSP (SDR) IF and AF stages parallels the many DSP systems developed and deployed in the 90's and 2010's for satellite systems.  Each approach lends it's strong points to the system as a whole.

Direct sampling systems have the advantage of physical simplicity and lower cost, but are only practical where the entire bandwidth of interest can be easily captured while still fitting inside the dynamic range budget.  In the case of HF radios - 30 MHz is pretty narrow by today's standards, covers the entire HF spectrum and is pretty easy to do (even if you add 6M) as long as a bank of bandpass filters is included to limit noise/man-made interference input.  Look inside a Flexradio 6500 to see what I mean.  It's practically empty.

Brian - K6BRN
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #101 on: October 18, 2022, 01:25:10 PM »

Bob,
Ironically, just the other day over on qrz.com there was a query into front-panel layout/design/ergonomics.  :)

It's interesting that some people get so hung up on Sherwood's list, buy one of the top three, and then find out that ergonomically it doesn't work for them,

or it's just too much radio for their operations.

So...I though some here might find that useful?

Here is the exact question from the zed, that I replied to, regarding Amateur Radio Front-Panel Design and Layout / Radio Ergonomics....
 
Quote
"For those who prefer operating their radios primarily using just the knobs and buttons, not from a computer display, what radio's are considered to have the best front panel layouts for day-to-day use?
Are other radio front panel layouts better for contesting? If so, why?

And how about nominations for the worst front panel layout in a top selling full-sized transceiver?"

I thought the replies might be useful here....and contrast those specifics against the "position on a list"?
Have a look see, and hopefully enjoy?
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/radio-front-panel-layouts.833074/page-3


Here is what I replied:
Quote from: KA4WJA, post: 6331126, member: 201135
Although you will get varying opinions, which can also be heavily influenced by the "type" of operator / operations ("contester", dx'er, rag-chewer, etc.)....and, what mode is their primary use, CW, SSB, digi, etc. etc., and I freely admit that my "influence" / "opinions" here might be seen as a bit "old fashioned" (i.e. not needing a waterfall or band scope, and as you mention, desiring a radio with knobs!)...and, also as a low-band fan, the RF Gain becomes the most oft-used control (save for the VFO)...so...


With all that in mind, please understand the main gist of "good human-to-radio ergonomics" (see below for some details) is unfortunately ignored by some (many?) radio panel designers.  :(

1)  Quick, short answers of rigs with great front panel layouts:
--- Classics like the Drake TR-7 and Kenwood TS-830s...






---  Modern 21st Century rigs like the Kenwood TS-590SG, etc.  (and, although I detest the ft-991, its front panel is decently laid-out)




2)  Rigs with bad front-panel layout....K3, K4, FTdx-101d/MP, etc. (of course, the IC-7610, 7300, etc. would also fall into this category, but they are designed for "point-n-click" ops, and aren't really designed/marketed to "knob"-type ops)
And, take note that the K3 is smaller than the old Drake TR-7, with many more buttons / controls, anyone care to guess which one is easier to operate ---- especially without hours of manual-reading / testing / first-hand experience ---- or how about which one is more intuitive to use, after 20+ hours in the chair, late in a contest, in the dark, without sleep, etc. etc.?








3)  Some examples of how-to implement "good ergonomics":

a)  Placing the display in the top-center of the front panel, allows for best/easiest viewing.

b)  Placing the big VFO knob (often, the most used control on the radio), in the center (or slightly off to the right) and below the main display is usually best....(placing it low enough to allow easy-tuning with arm resting on the desk, is nice.)

c)  Understand that the majority of humans (~90%) are right-handed, and placing the more-often-used / more-important controls on the right side, with knob/control large enough to easily manipulate, is best. 
(and the most-often-used controls, such as RF Gain, AF Gain/Volume, etc.....down low to the right, to allow easy use by the right hand, while arm is resting on desk, is usually optimal)....
And, surprising to some, placing some lesser used (but also somewhat important) controls, such as receiver bandwidth, passband-tuning / IF shift, etc. (as well as sometimes the noise blanker and/or noise-reduction controls) low on the left side, so they can also be easily controlled when needed with the left hand, but also large enough knobs/controls to allow ease-of-use by either hand, while not disturbing the VFO or other knobs!

d)  Surprising to me is the ease that left-handed hams have in operating our "normal" (right-handed-designed) radios.....
My best friend is left handed, and he is an avid CW op....but he sends with his right hand (and makes most radio adjustments with his right hand, when receiving!), all-the-while writing his copied CW with his left hand!  :)

e)  Other important controls, but ones that are not usually manipulated often (such as processor, attenuator, etc.) should be well labeled and easy-to-use, and can be placed either on the far outside portion of the front panel or placed in a group of other controls.

f)   Less needed and/or less important knobs and controls (like band-switches, meter-controls, etc.) can be relegated to top-left, top-right, and/or smaller knobs/controls....
(in this vein, look at the absurdity of some designs that take a whole row of the front panel, or a large section of it, for "band selection" buttons / control....Ugh!)


4)  For more details, perhaps have a read of what I wrote this past year about rig ergonomics:
https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,128776.msg1227431.html#msg1227431

As well as the whole discussion / thread of "rig design" / "rig choice", etc.:
https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,128776.45.html


I hope this helps this discussion a bit?

73,
John,  KA4WJA

So, Bob....thanks for taking up my brief comment on ergonomics and running with it1

I hope some here will look more closely at ergonomics, front-panel layout, etc., and incorporate those matters into their own decisions of "Choosing a rig", based on their own operating / application / desires, not mine nor others.....nor where that particular radio lays on "a list", no matter how wonderful of a guy Rob Sherwood is.  :)

73,
John,  KA4WJA
« Last Edit: October 18, 2022, 01:46:16 PM by KA4WJA »
Logged

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #102 on: October 18, 2022, 04:18:59 PM »

Hi John,

Good, informative post, as usual. To me though, it can be summed up in two words: "purely subjective". There is no right/wrong, good/bad front panel layout. Whatever flips your trigger and you're comfortable with is the *one for you*. One person's nirvana could be another's nightmare. No sense injecting my personal preference or commenting further, so I'll stop here ;).

73, Bob K7JQ
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #103 on: October 19, 2022, 01:58:13 PM »

Bob,
No worries my friend....most here-abouts probably cringe when they see one of my long rambling posts....so, I'm sure they appreciate your brief comments all-the-more!  :)

Aside from an absurd argument like "what if you removed the volume / AF Gain control from the front panel, and put in a "menu" function, etc."....yes, some (much?) of what is "best" for rig ergonomics is subjective....
But...

But, when looking at conventional radios (which was the query on qrz...and described as "rigs designed / marketed as radios to control with the knobs"), I think we all can mostly agree on a few basic points (that, if a manufacturer gets wrong, it is a bad sign / bad omen to what else they were ignorant or uncaring about):

----  that too many small controls/knobs, and/or too-closely-spaced small knobs/controls

----  having to grasp a knob that is used often (like volume/AF Gain, RF Gain, etc.) which is too close to the VFO....and/or is in an odd location/position

----  simply forgetting that the most often used controls are the VFO, RF Gain, Volume/AF Gain, etc., and not taking care to place them prominently and making them easy-to-use

Hi John,

Good, informative post, as usual. To me though, it can be summed up in two words: "purely subjective". There is no right/wrong, good/bad front panel layout.

73, Bob K7JQ

The rest might be too subjective to further worry about....but, hey some nights I'm up late caring for elderly family (and cannot operate on-the-air), so I have to kill some time.  Hi hi.

73,
John,  KA4WJA
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL
Re: Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list
« Reply #104 on: March 18, 2023, 10:34:07 PM »

Just this evening, commenting in a thread regarding some minor image issues with out-of-band reception on a FTdx-101, myself and a couple others were using design concepts of various radios / from various eras, to show that there is no "perfect radio".

And, I thought this might make a good addition to this thread as well?
So, here ya' go...
Have a look at that thread, or read what I wrote...

https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,138517.0.html

Quote
  Gosh, a radio that is not perfect?  Next thing we'll be discussing is gambling in Casablanca?  Hi hi

Guess it won't come as a surprise that I agree here with most of what Jim, KX2T and Brian, K6BRN, wrote.
But, I wish Jim would tell us what he really thinks.  :) hi hi (good to hear from you Jim!)

And, a big thank you to Dave, G4AON, for giving us some rig-specific details.  Thanks!

Yes, I'm usually the guy taking about the other half of the radio ---- the transmitter!  But, guess I'll spend a few minutes commenting on the half that everyone else concentrates on.  :)


Yep....I'm one of those that prefer my old 1970's tech "up-convert" radio, the Drake TR-7....debuted for sale in early 1978, when I bought my first one (bought a second one, an early 1979 model, about 20 - 25 years later)....and continued in production 'til early 1983, with a total of ~ 12,500 made...the last 18 months of production / the last ~ 2000 units, being the TR-7a models, which are identical except they came equipped with some original "options" (noise blanker and CW filter) as standard, and had an "input surge protection" circuit added, as well as having transmit mic signal input routed to one of the two "spare" RCA jacks on the rear panel, simplifying RTTY/FSK hook-ups.

This ole' venerable rig was designed in the mid-1970's....starting about the time the "C-line" came out (mid-1973) Drake's chief design engineer (Milt Sullivan, K8YDO) started to look at designing their next rig (the TR-7), and he hired the gentleman that had just designed the Heathkit SB-104, to help him and his team....and from 1974, or so,  R.L. Drake with Milt and his team, went onto to create what would turn out to be a revolutionary radio, the TR-7....the IC-7300 of its day!  :)


Yes, yes....I'm a TR-7 "fan boy", but I'm not a new-comer to the TR-7....bought one new in 1978.
And, I am a realist, I admit that by today's standards (50 years on), the TR-7's VCO's are noisy, its PTO (vfo) does drift upon start-up and the first 10 minutes or so....and, as for "modern features", it has no memories, only one vfo (needs the optional external vfo, to run "split"), no DSP, no "band-scope", etc...
But, it's transmitter is wicked-clean....will run 150 watts out 100% duty-cycle, etc...and, aside from the above old design issues, its receiver holds its own against many modern 21st Century rigs.

About the only thing that "modern" tech could improve on this venerable beast is lower phase noise VCO's (ya' know there have been many scientific / engineering improvements in the ~ 50 years since it was designed), and none other than Ulrich Rohde wrote about this upgrade regarding some other radios of this era, and if I was interested in serious CW contesting (where close-in RMDR and close-in IMD3 was critical), I'd buy a replacement VCO board and make some changes, and try it out....but I'm not much into CW, and certainly not into CW contesting, so no worries with the TR-7!  :)
{oh....it's unlikely, but "possible", that changing the mixer and 1st IF amp to some more modern parts might help a tiny bit....but, unless the VCO's are changed, this would be a waste....especially since the TR-7's "up-conversion" uses a high-level DBM and a low-noise JFET 1st IF (48mhz) amp, producing a very sensitive front-end (MDS = -134dbm) without any RF amp / pre-amp!  So, the only major issue is the 50-year-old VCO's. }


Here's just a brief description of the TR-7's receive front end, too bad some of our new/modern rigs aren't similarly designed (with new/modern components)...from the TR-7 manual:

Quote
Incoming signals from the antenna pass through a band-switched low-pass filter module. the transmit / receive antenna switching, and a band-switched high-pass filter module [and, these filters are low-loss air-wound coils and silver-mica caps....oh, and band-switched hi-pass filtering is something many "modern" ham rigs do not have, leaving even more ways for issues to occur. :( ]. These filters create an in­put bandpass filter.  The limits of which are defined by the yellow numerals on the front panel BAND switch. A separate receiver and/or receive antenna can be connected in this path by removing the jumper between the EXT RCVR and EXT ANT jacks on the rear panel and making the appropriate connections.

The output of the high-pass filter is connected to the input of the Up-Converter module, along with the VLF antenna input and the 25 kHz calibrator output. The VLF antenna is connected through a 20 dB attenuator due to the fact that the input an­tenna filters are bypassed by this input. [this attenuator also reduces your VLF transmit output by 20db...so, 630m and 2200m operation is 20db lower, unless bypassing this internal attenuator....something I may do, as the harmonic output of the TR-7 on 630m and 2200m is within FCC spec as-is, how about that from a ~ 50 year old design....so who knows...]
Signals at the input of the Up-Converter module are mixed with the output of the synthesizer VCO to create a 48.05mHz  intermediate  frequency (IF) signal. Conversion is accomplished by a high-level, double balanced mixer to provide a very wide dynamic range.  The output of this mixer is amplified by a low-noise, high dynamic range junction FET amplifier to insure adequate receiver sensitivity. This stage is followed by a four-pole monolithic 48.05mHz crystal filter. The purpose of this filter is to attenuate signals removed more than +/-4 kHz from 48.05mHz. thus protecting the remaining stages of the receiver from strong interfering signals.
In this manner, optimum receiver dynamic range is pre­served while providing excellent sensitivity.
[Some have opined that retuning/narrowing, and/or adding more poles to this 8khz wide, 4-pole "roofing filter" would improve the TR-7's "close-in" receive IMD3 spec, which it would do....but, unless changing the VCO's, you'd still be "noise-limited" i.e. this would not do much to improve the RMDR.
As narrowing this "roofing filter" (1st IF filter), as well as adding further poles, would change the shape of noise pulses, which would require realignment (and possible redesign?) of the TR-7's excellent noise blanker (the NB-7, which was a ~ $75 option in 1978 ($90 in 1979), which is ~ $350 - $370 dollars today, just for the noise blanker!), and since changing the VCO's would go a LONG way to making the 50-year old design of the TR-7 compete quite well with 2020's design rigs, this (the VCO's) would be the first thing to upgrade...and then adding switchable narrower 1st IF filters, and a "new & improved" TR-7 would find itself floating up towards the top of "the list"....okay, it might not ever be at the top, but darn close, hi hi]
 

In 1979, a TR-7/DR-7 with NB-7, a couple narrower 2nd IF filters, etc. was ~ $1595 list / ~ $1450 - $1500 "street price"....That's a "street price" of about $6200+ in today's dollars!
Plus an addition $175 (in 1979 dollars) for the remote VFO...so, that's almost $7k in today's dollars, all-in!


 
And, have a look below, and ask yourself, how many "modern" amateur radios' manuals discuss the radio and its design like this?
Heck, how many RF design engineers discuss these things at all, anymore?
Maybe the guys at Apache Labs do, but I suspect few, if any, others....(maybe, just maybe, the boys at Elecraft...but doubtful they proceed with much that isn't something "whiz-bang" they can "sell" to the contester crowd?)

Milt Sullivan [K8YDO], et al, at R. L. Drake took great pride in the design and engineering of every system / part in the radio [TR-7]....you think "YaeComWoodFlexCraft" has even one guy/gal that even cares enough or has the smarts to do that?
Doubtful, but even if they do have someone that good on staff, are they given the time and authority to actually make a radio, noise blanker, etc., that is as good as ones made > 45 years ago, I highly doubt it.
Which is why we get the radios we get these days, fancy yes, great lab test results yes....but fun and easy to operate, hmmm, the jury is still out on that! :)

Here's a quote, from the TR-7's manual, discussing just the NB-7 Noise Blanker (and, this is just ONE circuit):
Quote
Circuit Description:
    This noise blanker system is comprised of the three major networks described below. Refer to the proper schematic for your particular version to follow this description.

    Transmit Path
    In transmit, diode CR815 is turned on with +10T via RFC812 and RFC813 from pin 37. The 5.645 MHz double sideband transmit signal is fed to the output coax connector through C833, CR815 and C838. When CR815 is on, CR814 will be reverse biased, thus holding the receive path off.

    Receive Path
    In receive, diode CR814 is turned on with +10R via RFC810 and RFC811 from pin 24. In version 1, the receive signal is applied to pin 22 and coupled directly to the blanking gate, comprised of T810, CR812, CR813, and T811, then through C830, CR.814 and C838 to the output coax connector. In version 2, the receive signal again enters from pin 22, however, then passed through a matching amplifier consisting ofQ816 and associated circuitry. The output of Q816 is then coupled to the blanking gate of T811, CR812, CR813 and T811, passes through C830, CR814 and C838 to the output coax.

    Noise Processor
    The Noise Amplifiers consist of Q810, Q811, and U810 cascaded and tuned to 5.645 MHz by L810, L811 and L812 respectively. The output of the noise amplifier string is split by C828 to the pulse detector and C827 to the noise amplifier AGC circuit. Q812 and associated circuitry comprise the noise amplifier AGC detector and amplifier. The AGC voltage is applied to gate 1 of Q810 and Q811 via R826 and R829 respectively.

    The pulse detector, CR811, responds only to the positive half of the amplified bipolar input pulse. The network of R839, C831 and C835 wave shape the pulse at the base of the pulse amplifier QB 13. Again, the output pulse of Q813 is shaped by R847 andC840 and is applied to the gate driver, Q814. Resistor network R842 and R843 provide fixed reverse bias for the blanking gate. Q815 is a DC switch for +10R and +10NB.


    Theory of Operation
    The 5.645 MHz receive signal, with noise pulses, is applied to pin 22. In version 1 this signal is coupled directly to the blanking gate. In version 2, amplifier Q8I6 amplifies the signal and noise pulses to drive the blanking gate. Tuned amplifiers Q810, Q811 and U810 amplify this low level signal up to a high level to drive the pulse detector CR811.

    This detector responds only to the positive going portion of each noise pulse from the output of U810. Following the detector is an RC network which shapes the pulses for driving the level shifter Q813. Again, on the output of Q813 is still another RC network for wave shaping. The gate driver transistor Q814 responds to the negative going pulse from Q813 which allows the blanking gate to tum off, thus muting the receive path and blanking the noise pulse.

    Since the noise amplifiers run such high gain, Q812 and associated circuitry comprise an AGC loop to maintain a near constant output level to the detector. This allows detection and processing of very weak as well as very strong noise pulses without degrading the blanking action.


Now, some are saying...."huh?  What is this guy spouting off about?  This is a thread regarding a perceived issue with a FTdx-10 image issues when operating way out-of-band, why is he off on Drake TR-7 fan-boy advertisement?"
Well...

Well, the answer is....to show you all that there is no "perfect radio", and to try to compare one designed for one purpose / in one era, to others designed for different purpose/different era, is sort-of a waste.  :)  hi hi
And, Brian went to the Kenwood 440 vs. the R-5000, to make a point, and Jim compared the Yaesu's to his old '7300 and '7610....so, I'm just a bit more long-winded.
 
But, if some also gain a new respect for an almost 50-year-old TR-7, well that's a nice secondary plus.  :)


73 to all,
John,  KA4WJA



73, to all,
John,  KA4WJA
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up