Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!  (Read 2943 times)

W9IQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 8866
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #30 on: January 01, 2021, 06:10:34 AM »

That's an interesting observation, Peter. I imagine the ham response would be similar to that of the hobby electronics market and Agilent feature unlocking  - a lot of whining and hacking.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged
- Glenn W9IQ

God runs electromagnetics on Monday, Wednesday and Friday by the wave theory and the devil runs it on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by the Quantum theory.

K6OK

  • Member
  • Posts: 151
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #31 on: January 01, 2021, 08:38:08 AM »

Just my opinion, but with the increasing popularity of remote operations all rigs should have ethernet (or wireless) connectivity and be IP-addressable.

Couldn't agree more.  These high-end rigs without a network data port seem to be just expensive planned obsolescence (maybe they meet a temporary need for multi-multi contest station ops).

An iPhone 12 mini is capable of more Gigaflops of SDR DSP than the processors in any of these rigs (except for the ones with internal FPGAs).  But that compute power can't be used unless there's a way to get high bandwidth digital data steam(s) in or out from high dynamic range IF or front ends of rigs, and an API to use such.  Think of being able to run any filter widths or shapes or phase delays you can think of, machine learning for noise reduction or audio enhancement, pre or post distortion, other new DSP algorithms, etc.  And not having to wait for manufacturer updates.

Even inexpensive kit rigs such as the Hermes Lite 2 manages to include a 1Gig ethernet port.

You're right for the more deluxe models. For a low end rig I could live without the I/Q stream. Just give me full CAT control over the ethernet plus Ogg Opus streaming of the audio both ways.  Same goes for all accessories -- rotor boxes, SWR meters, amplifiers, antenna switches, etc. should all be IP addressable.  It's 2021.  And if we do this radio software will no longer insist on exclusive sole control of radios via COM ports (it's good to see increasing adoption of UDP messaging in some programs, so we're headed in the right direction).   
« Last Edit: January 01, 2021, 08:45:43 AM by K6OK »
Logged

KX2T

  • Member
  • Posts: 1545
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #32 on: January 01, 2021, 09:05:59 AM »

Hi Peter, at first I thought Yaesu's 2 crystal roofing filter might have been a joke at 3Khz but then I placed a signal generator in like and did some testing between the 3Khz and 12Khz roofing filter and there was a decent measurable difference but what really surprise me was the very low phase noise in the 10 over the 7300 I owned. That to me was astounding for a radio south of the $2K mark. The addition of the roofing filter 9Mhz IF with apparently a very low noise mixer stage then going into a second SDR based section to do additional filtering works and works well.

What I feel is what you are paying the extra money for is a more complex design not some feature like two antenna inputs or a RX second input which would bring additional cost to the radio but NOT make it perform any better. Hell s second RX input or external antenna switch will give you allot more flexibility besides most hams do run an amp plus the 100w and a wire guys don't have a antenna field full on 500ft beverages so who is kidding who. If you have the ware withal to have a missive antenna far I would say the FTDX101D or comparable higher tier HF radio would be a better choice. I think Yaesu is on the right track and the difference between the 7300 I had owned and the Ten are more than justifiable and I am sure Yaesu will be working on some firmware upgrades in the very near future. Not buying a radio with this type of performance with 20+db better phase noise that is still under the $2K mark well then in some minds you settle for good enough or want  the best for the money can buy for under a certain mark.
Logged

KC8HXO

  • Member
  • Posts: 139
    • homeURL
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #33 on: January 01, 2021, 06:15:14 PM »

Couple notes. Rob is beginning to come around to the idea I mentioned several years ago. Throw away his RECEIVER data. Nearly ALL decent receivers made today are "good enough". Start a NEW chart. Transmitted composite noise. THIS is the underlying issue yet today. (And most hams don't care, nor are they even savvy enough to adjust transmitters to keep the ALC in the correct area for clean operation). Check the TOTAL transmitted (Composite) noise from the IC-7300. Not great. Phase noise alone isn't enough. Be curious to see the test run on the FTDX-10 when the ALC is getting hit pretty hard. They (Yaesu) don't have a good track record when that happens. (I am being kind). Until TRANSMITTERS start getting cleaned up, we'll never have receivers good enough. Maybe the new chart will hold Mfg's feet to the flame. There is NO reason pre-distortion is not common today. It was groundbreaking technology. It should be DEMANDED by all good hams today.
PS- Those 2Kc spacing Icom SDR numbers.... the good numbers are with dither and random ON..... how many of you run that on? No? Use the lower number. Move down the chart a bit please. 
iknowthebandnoiseislikedither/randombeing on....anyoneelseknow
?
Logged

VK6HP

  • Member
  • Posts: 1222
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #34 on: January 01, 2021, 06:59:04 PM »

Rick (K2XT)

I certainly agree that it pays to do your homework in terms of optimizing your choice of the many good radios now available.  For example, I routinely use the flexible TX/RX antenna switching in the TS-890S, as well as the LF/MF exciter outputs, and the per band/per mode power control/limit for both tuning and operating alongside an LMOS amplifier.  The very clean transmitter and excellent audio/ALC were also important factors.  (As an aside I see the TS-890S still sits at the top of a couple of the Sherwood columns, if that matters).

So far as upgrades go, there is definitely something satisfying about a little box, rather than an upgrade key!  The roofing filters in the Kenwood are user accessible and the other night I plugged in the one option available: a 270 Hz CW filter.  The result was a worthwhile gain to an already excellent CW radio, with DSP bandwidths of course available down to 50 Hz width.

Having designed quite a few receivers I'm quite agnostic about architectures, although I think the high-IF sampling of the FTDX101 or 10 is a good choice right now.  The problem I have with the TS-890S is that it works so well on the development bench, I almost need another one for physical convenience. (The hybrid SDR main receiver and fast, parallel path display SDR give my FFT spectrum analyser a run for its money). Having used an FTDX101 I'm impressed overall but not greatly taken with the ergonomics or display.  However, I'd compromise at the FTDX10 level except for the fact there's no LF/MF output.  But without that imperative, I'm sure you'll enjoy an excellent radio.

73, Peter.
Logged

K0CWO

  • Member
  • Posts: 610
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #35 on: January 01, 2021, 09:20:37 PM »

My hat is off to Mr Sherwood for his extensive testing.  Congratulations to Yaesu for being the #1 & #3 horse in this race (for now).  As a very casual rag chewer I was impressed with the receiver in a mid 1980’s Kenwood TS-830S.  I’ve owned a bunch of Yaesu, Kenwood, and Icom radios and I have noticed definite improvements in receiver performance as time has passed.  I use an Icom 7300 and 7600 now.  I often compare the receiver performance between the two in actual conditions as they exist at my operating position.  I find it difficult to see a discernible difference between the two in receiver performance during tough weak signal conditions.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that regardless of where you find yourself on the list with whatever radio you own, you can probably hear what 99% of the other hobbyists can hear non withstanding all the variables in antenna setups etc.  The bottom line is that we all win when radio manufacturers want to be at the top of Mr Sherwood’s list.  Thank you Mr Sherwood!
Logged

K0CWO

  • Member
  • Posts: 610
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #36 on: January 01, 2021, 09:24:55 PM »

Oh, by the way, I bet I can still dig out those hard to hear stations with that old 830.  It may take a bit more knob twisting but I bet I could.

Happy New all!

k0cwo
Logged

K0CWO

  • Member
  • Posts: 610
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #37 on: January 01, 2021, 09:28:07 PM »

(Year)
Logged

N2DTS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1368
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #38 on: January 02, 2021, 05:46:51 AM »

This is very interesting, the 7300 did not do well with really weak signal low noise situations...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjIZLo4KpVQ
Logged

N6YWU

  • Posts: 362
    • HomeURL
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #39 on: January 02, 2021, 06:50:27 PM »

This is very interesting, the 7300 did not do well with really weak signal low noise situations...

There is a hypothesis that direct sampling receivers require a certain level of RF noise floor, which has the effect of increasing effective processing gain and thus optimizing weak signal performance.  Essentially the noise, as a side effect, can allow something similar to the inverse of sigma delta noise shaping for DACs.

Thus, a super low noise floor might actually not be optimal for direct sampling radios such as the 7300 and Hermes Lite 2.  That's where direct conversion and high IF sampling rigs might have another advantage over direct sampling rigs when used in quiet location contest stations.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2021, 06:56:49 PM by N6YWU »
Logged

KX2T

  • Member
  • Posts: 1545
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #40 on: January 02, 2021, 07:04:30 PM »

With the two SDR radio's I have owned both the 7300 and the 7610 the end results on receive is the sum an quality of the parts used, the 7300 does not have the same circuit design of the 7610, the end results is an overall better receiver and better quality reception with lower internal circuit noise. Yes bot will be able to copy a weak signal but the overall intelligibility will always be better on the 7610.
Logged

N2DTS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1368
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #41 on: January 03, 2021, 06:59:08 AM »

But in the video, he found the Hermes lite 2 to work much better on weak signal reception with a strong signal close by.
I tend to think it may be how the filters are built in software.
That or some early stage is getting disturbed by a close in strong station.
The Hermes lite 2 uses a cheap lna and A/D converter yet does better with weak signal work in a very quiet location.
He was very disappointed with the 7300....

Looks like the weak signal champ is the K3S at .08uv.
The 7300 and 7610 are .125 and .11uv.
The ftdx 10 and 101 are about the same as the Icoms...


Things might not work as well if he had a lot of really strong signals close by....
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 07:04:47 AM by N2DTS »
Logged

KX2T

  • Member
  • Posts: 1545
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #42 on: January 03, 2021, 08:35:54 AM »

I wonder how many hams live in a location this has such a low signal to noise environment to take real advantage of that type of week signal work, in most households there is enough RFI/EMI to kill a hoarse so unless you are talking about a lab test bench your kidding yourself with thinking you will hear these difference in most stations you try and compare these radio's at. The real differences between radio's is the ultimate selectivity which today with many of the twenty five radio's listed on Sherwoods chart compared to rigs that are 10 to 20 years ago plus the audio quality on receive, this is a real difference that I have seen between rigs. Having owned a K3 not the "s" model I found the audio on the RX side lacking, this is were Yaesu,Icom and Kenwood have made improvements by just comparing the lab numbers on THD at a certain audio output levels, this directly effect how a radio's audio might grade on you from hours of use but these specs are not found on Sherwoods lists yet but are on ARRL lab reviews.
Personally I feel that way too much attention has been placed on the GUI of modern rigs, its a nice feature but if it comes down to top RX performance or the GUI I would pick the RX performance every single time plus the ability to be able to listen to the RX for long periods of time and not get tired of its sound .
Logged

N6YWU

  • Posts: 362
    • HomeURL
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2021, 09:48:58 AM »

But in the video, he found the Hermes lite 2 to work much better on weak signal reception with a strong signal close by.
I tend to think it may be how the filters are built in software.

Just a technical note: The filters in the Hermes Lite 2 are not built in software.

The CIC and FIR filters in the HL2 are built in Cyclone 4 FPGA gateware (e.g. out of connecting individual logic elements and embedded arithmetic units). 

The HL2 ADC samples at 76.8 MHz, but sends IQ data out the ethernet port at 384ksps per spectrum slice, which requires a bandwidth reduction of 200X.  IIRC, in theory each bandwidth reduction of 4X, if done optimally (correct arithmetic precision at each step in the band-limiting filters, etc.), allows a processing gain of up to a 3 dB gain in S/N ratio (over the quantization noise).

Note that is possible to do these bandwidth reductions well, or do them badly. 

After this initial sample rate reduction in gateware/hardware, further DSP filtering in the SDR software for SSB, CW, etc. can add to this processing gain.  The total system processing gain potentially allows detection of much weaker signals than one might infer from just looking at the raw ADC samples over the full direct sampling bandwidth.

Here's on reference on the theory: https://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/MT-001.pdf

And all this processing gain might actually work better given a certain amount of noise at the RF front end stage.  So testing a direct sampling SDR in lab conditions with zero RF noise may not be the best indication of how well the receiver will work in typical QTH conditions.
Logged

W6QW

  • Member
  • Posts: 462
Re: FTDX10 Lab numbers first batch run at Rob's Lab notes!
« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2021, 10:47:51 AM »

And all this processing gain might actually work better given a certain amount of noise at the RF front end stage.  So testing a direct sampling SDR in lab conditions with zero RF noise may not be the best indication of how well the receiver will work in typical QTH conditions.

I currently live in a zero-background noise QTH and anecdotally can say that my IC-7300 can effectively hear signals down in the noise (~S0) on 40M about 95 percent of the time.  The remaining 5 percent, can be effectively copied on my TS-890S but difficult to pull out of the noise on the IC-7300 (again, an anecdotal observation).

My point is that lab RX shoot-off's need to revised to also provide a pragmatic RF noise pollution assessment.  Nowadays, the ability to mitigate RF noise pollution is way more important than parochial RX measurements that provide benefit for just a few hams. So an additional criteria (RF pollution mitigation, if you will) should become a additional mainstay comparison criteria. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9   Go Up