Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: General History of Amateur HF Receivers, over the past 50 some years...  (Read 450 times)

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL

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?   

Frank, Zak, Jim, Ed, et al,
1)  Rig choice for experienced radio ops is rather easy....and, except for those looking for a serious CW contest rig (particularly for 160m CW contesting), the ranking on the list is rather moot.

This is not only my opinion and of many, many other experienced ops....but, surprisingly to some, is also Rob Sherwood's opinion! (read what he writes and listen to what he says, don't just look at a list)

But, these days, (in my opinion), it seems that many newer / less experienced hams (or those new to HF / less experienced in HF comms), seem drawn to the simplicity of "a list", rather than understanding the nitty-gritty of what is needed / what works best in various environs and applications....so...

So, here we are....with this discussion
.

So....

1)  While I'm known here-abouts for concentrating on "the other half of our transceivers", you know ---- the transmitters!  I've seen a bit of confusion and/or misused terms in reference to our modern HF receivers.

And, while I've written here in this thread...in some detail:

https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,128776.msg1194749.html#msg1194749

https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,128776.msg1195427.html#msg1195427


https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,128776.msg1221132.html#msg1221132

https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,128776.msg1224671.html#msg1224671

https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,128776.msg1227431.html#msg1227431

https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,128776.msg1227433.html#msg1227433

....written in some detail, and included quotes from Rob Sherwood, etc., regarding various criteria for transceiver choices, as well as many specific receiver specs/numbers and their meanings/relevance, etc.

But, I still see some of my fellow hams (AND the marketing teams of some radio manufacturers!) that are mixing various terms and/or misunderstanding some things...SDR, DSP, super-het, phase-noise, "roofing filters", etc., etc...

So, I thought maybe a brief bit of history and a quick look at our HF receiver progressions over the past 50 some years, might be helpful to some of my fellow hams?  (or, it might not?  heck, some cynics might even wonder "why is he bothering?"....but in any case, I'll try to be brief and just talk in generalizations so as to not tick-off anyone...)


2)  So, here ya' go...

The unfortunate facts are that today's local RFI environs (and today's transmit IMD / splatter of our SSB transmitters on the phone bands) eliminate most hams' ability to even come close to using all the capabilities of most of our receivers (whether good old venerable classics, or modern 21st Century rigs)...

But, many still desire to "buy the best" or at least "buy what works best for them, at the price they can afford".....and, unfortunately many are still looking at "the list", thinking this is what will determine "the best", rather than actually reading what Rob Sherwood (and others) actually say/recommend, let alone learn about these criteria and make their own decisions....so...here's some history / info that might provide some additional clarity...

A case-in-point....modern Direct-sampling SDR's might be great, but they ain't perfect....i.e. super-hets, properly designed, still rule! :)


    Have a look down the tunnel of history with me for a moment....(don't worry, I'm only going back to the late 60's, 'cuz this is as far back as I have personal experience with / knowledge of...and, forgive me if, for ease of explaining and clarity, I generalize some things here!)

Of course, there are some "outliers" such as some TenTec Omni's still being "down-conversion" radios, when most of the rest of the market having moved to VHF-first-IF's (i.e. "up-conversion" radios), here is a general outline of our HF receivers' progression over the past 50 some years...


a ---- Back in the days I started in radio comms (late 60's / early 70's), we went from single-conversion super-hets to double-conversions super-hets (and some triple-conv super-hets) .....these all had HF first IF's, with some of the early ones having simple LC first-IF filters and/or just "pre-selectors", the good ones (and later ones) had decent first-IF selectivity (or were modified to have decent first-IF selectivity), with first-IF crystal filters (what many hams, oddly even Rob himself, now call "roofing" filters?), or had options to add first-IF filters....and, some even had provisions for crystal filters in both first and second IF's...

These are what we now refer to as "down-conversion radios"...

{there were no "phase-noise" issues, as these were not PLL- synthesized radios}


b ---- Then, in order to provide "general coverage receivers", into our HF rigs, and/or even incorporate many HF transmit bands, across the 1.5mhz - 30mhz range, without gaps nor image-rejection issues, then we got "up-conversion" radios....those with VHF IF frequencies....originally these had low-VHF IF's in the 40mhz - 48mhz range...[the Drake TR-7 was the first of this design....and, still to this day holds-its-own, even in competition with modern 21st Century rigs, 45 years newer in design.]

These are what we call "up-conversion" radios....but, they were still conventional super-hets....and, later "up-conversion" radios had first IF's in the 64mhz to 75mhz range...

{most of these radios used PLL-synthesizers / VCO's...and while some were quite good....a few were very bad --- like the old Yaesu FT-ONE, and lest we forget the Collins KWM-380 is one of the worst in this regard....it's really got to burn those "Collins guys" when they find out their '380's RMDR is beat by 20 - 25db by the likes of a bone-stock IC-735, or the older TS-830, etc.}


c ----  Then, we got DSP....Digital Signal Processing....which at first was done at AF / Audio stage of the radio....and, some worked "okay" but providing minimal "improvement" in our receivers....(and some weren't even worth turning on)....most were simply additions into existing designs...and, as many more up-conversion radios were made, some of the receiver functions (noise blankers, etc.) were migrated to DSP-implementation...


d ----  Shortly followed by IF-DSP's....which at first were done at a very low final IF freq (some at an IF freq of 12khz, or so), and while this was supposed to be an improvement over Audio-DSP (and some were), some allowing the AGC loop to be run thru this low-IF / DSP, but in some rigs the overall implementation wasn't great (not trying to be overly-critical here, it's just that the technology wasn't quite there yet, at amateur-radio price-points)....but, some did function well and provide some rather steep-skirt IF filtering, without serious ringing, etc...

As time went on the DSP algorithms improved....as did the hardware (the DSP processors, etc.)...so, we had higher-frequency DSP-IF's and better AGC controls, etc., as well as better DSP implementation over all...and, things were getting better....well, sort-of...

We also had noise blanking being done in DSP in many radios now, which if done correctly could've been a good thing ---- but that didn't happen....as, the DSP just wasn't good enough yet, and about this time we also the first narrow VHF First-IF filters appear (and, they took on a new moniker: "roofing filters"), and some were pretty crappy, which made noise blanking difficult (as the poor narrow first-IF filters significantly changed the noise shape, thereby making blanking of impulse noise pretty difficult to do.....note that this still holds true today, and it's only through better noise-blanking algorithms that any modern radio with a narrow first-IF filter has a functioning noise blanker at all.)

Please take note here, excellent noise blanking and narrow, step-skirt, first-IF filters are counter-intuitive....perfecting the latter, all but eliminates the perfection of the other!   Hence, the 9khz wide, smooth 4-pole crystal filter in the 48mhz first-IF of the TR-7 is one of the reasons its optional noise blanker works so well....(fyi, the 7-NB noise blanker for the TR-7, was a ~ $75 option in 1977 dollars = ~ $370 in today's dollars....for just the noise blanker!)  Still 45 years later, one of the best noise blankers in any HF radio, ever!   Sorry about the digression...

So, now we had manufacturers putting narrow first-IF filters into their rigs, some were crap --- some were good....but we still had some noisy VCO's (poor phase noise / poor RMDR)...

{together with DSP tech, we had radios now sporting "band scopes" which quickly became not just a toy, but a useful tool for contesters....}


e ---- At this point (10 - 12 years ago), concurrent with the advancements in DSP tech.....Rob Sherwood, et al, had been concerned about the poor oscillator noise (poor phase noise) from many of our radios' VCO's, for quite a while at this point....and, with these many squeaky-wheels pointing this out, many of the manufacturers (all the while working behind-the-scenes on designs of amateur-priced direct-sampling systems) simply changed from old-tech, bargain-basement VCO's to lower-noise oscillators (not super-perfect, but pretty good....although the TS-590S and SG were in 2010-2014 almost as good as today's state-of-the-art rigs)....and, we got some pretty decent "up-conversion" IF-DSP radios!

{and again, band-scopes, etc., had become an almost mandatory feature....and, at some point "waterfall" displays also started to show up....}


f ----  And, again, at about the same time and just after (8 - 12 years ago)....although we had Flex SDR's around for a while at that point, they were "niche" radios and not really a mature technology at amateur-radio price points....but, we had other manufacturers working behind the scenes on Direct-Sampling-SDR type radios.....and, Icom beat 'em all with a reliable, mature-tech, amateur-priced direct-sampling-SDR, the IC-7300!

And, it had "everything" that "everyone" needed....bandscope, waterfall, touchscreen, etc...but, it was also a great little radio, with excellent transmit audio, and in comparison to most modern 21st Century amateur radios a pretty clean transmitter (although, still not as clean as I'd like / not as good as we had 40+ years ago)  BUT...

But, as many found out....direct-sampling-SDR's needed good operators to use 'em, especially in crowded bands / with lots of strong signals....AND...

And, as we also saw the TS-590SG (which is both an "up-conversion" and "down-conversion" super-het) actually worked better in contest environs, crowded bands, noisy locales, etc...

{BTW, around 5 years ago we had the roll-out of FT-8.....which by happenstance was a solution to the many hew hams / those new to HF, that had been suffering with significant receive RFI for the past few years (due to the rise in so much "made-in-China" consumer electronics / switch-mode power supplies / LED-light regulators / etc. / etc....that surrounds so many urban/suburban ham locations)...and, since the radio becomes less of an important factor in FT-8 operations, and since the '7300, in addition to it being a great little radio over all, was also an excellent FT-8 rig with its 100% duty-cycle ability, etc...so, is it any wonder that the '7300 (and direct-sampling SDR's in general) garnered quite a following....}


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 "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

P.S.  Once again, I know some may quibble with the details / dates, etc....but, I'm just using generalities here for ease-of-explaining / clarity....and, with a few quick exceptions to make a specific point, I'm not mentioning specific radios, so that nobody feels offended nor put-upon to respond / defend something.  :)
So, for my fellow old timers or purists, please just take a breath before being overly critical.....thanks!
« Last Edit: July 22, 2022, 09:22:35 AM by KA4WJA »
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1950

Do you get paid by the word?
Logged

W7CXC

  • Member
  • Posts: 336

John:
Having had,over the many years, a DX20, HQ110,R4a/T4xb, Ht32, SX101,SX100, TS450sat, IC706mk2g, HQ140x,DX60b,NC300,AL80b and now a FTDX3000 there are some that are favorites. The HT32 an SX101 were by far the best at "eye candy" while the TS450 worked for years and years without so much as a hickup. The FTDX3000 is by far the best receiver and is truly outstanding. That's not surprising as it is newest. It could be better with more knobs/ switches and fewer menus IMHO. My bottom line opinion is that any of the modern rigs exceed the needs of the large majority of HAM's. Living in rural Montana with a noise level around S 0.5 I can solid copy signals that do not even move the needle, what more can one ask of a receiver. Yes even in crowded bands of course the S meter is not at almost 0 any more,Hi Hi.. Find what feels comfortable and enjoy!  David
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL

Don,
No.
Do you get paid by the word?
73,
John,  KA4WJA
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL

David,
Yep, I agree with ya'!  (as do many of us old timers....hi hi)

My bottom line opinion is that any of the modern rigs exceed the needs of the large majority of HAM's.

But, if many of our fellow hams are being BS'ed by both the marketing hype AND (unfortunately) by the "group think" of many of their peers, in my opinion it's up to us to do what we can to educate / inform / clarify things as best we can, so that they all have the knowledge to make their own decisions ...


BTW, I have the same low noise level on-board my boat....I hear stations who are constantly complaining that the "bands are noisy" and/or "propagation stinks today", when I have no issues there at all... :)


73 my friend!
John,  KA4WJA
Logged

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6041

To each his own.

I owned, and loved, a TS 930 for many years.  It's receiver was well-rated for its time (you can't work what you don't hear, including filtering out adjacent stations in contests).  It was, of course, a super het design.  I bought it many years used, so it was no longer top of the line, but my rig was a great value.  Not cheap, but not Collins expensive, either.

I then went hard over on the SDR stuff from Flex, starting with the SDR 1000, which was a bit of a plumber's nightmare, but gave so much performance for the money, that I never looked back and was rewarded with rigs that were easier to deploy over time. 

It was because of the SDR revolution that panadapters went from a high end toy that most of us never got to use to a competitive advantage for those of us willing to do SDR to (today) a feature that most of us simply require in a rig.  Being able to use my eyes as well as my ears is just such a huge advantage, it dwarfs a lot of the differences in Rob's chart or anyone else's.

And nowadays, if you have the space and can manage it, a 200 dollar SDR rig that sits in the corner can monitor the ham frequencies and become your own private "cluster"; certainly on FT8 but even on CW if you work at it a bit.  You can even run that rig off of a 75 dollar Raspberry Pi.  All you have to do is remember to shut it off when you are actually transmitting, one way or another.  I don't know where such rigs sit on the Sherwood charts (maybe doesn't even show up).  But, I suspect, reasonably high.  But, there was a time where a second, receive only rig was something restricted to high end contesters with unlimited funds.  Now, anybody can deploy one with reasonable (that is, reasonable for the price) performance.

These sorts of considerations probably matter more, most of the time, than the receiver spec differences between modern rigs.  I mean, it's been at least 30 years that we have to attenuate HF rigs on the low bands, because they are too sensitive to get the right S/N ratio down at such frequencies.
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL

Hello again to all,

Just to be clear, I hoping to NOT start a discussion here about "rig choice", or "what's my favorite rig", or goodness help us NOT "this is the best rig", etc....
Those are all dime-a-dozen discussions out there....join 'em and have fun.

What I am hoping for, is that this could be a reference or informative thread, where folks could see what some of the marketing BS actually means, and where / when / how we got here!
And, here Larry, WO7R, added some great info! 
THANKS LARRY!


So, while I have posted before, ELSEWHERE, about my "favs" or my "criteria" for choosing a rig.....this is not what I did here...and, hope others will do as Larry did ---- add some additional input and context to the discussion!  :)
(and, perhaps keep the specifics and "recommendations" to the other discussions, where it would be on-point?)

73,
John,  KA4WJA
Logged

K9MOV

  • Member
  • Posts: 118

That was good reading. Thanks for taking to time to edit and post.
Lane--K9MOV
Logged

AF5CC

  • Posts: 1664
    • HomeURL

So, while I have posted before, ELSEWHERE, about my "favs"
John,  KA4WJA

I am going to go way out on a limb and guess the Drake TR-7!

73 John AF5CC
Logged

KA4WJA

  • Posts: 1601
    • HomeURL

In the other thread here, a friend from the UK pointed out their use of the marketing term "hybrid-SDR", and thought I was mis-characterizing two specific (hybird-sdr) radios, as Super-Het radios, 'cuz I left off the "IF-DSP" in my summarizing final sentence....
So, I'm clarifying things here...  :)

BTW, if I could go back and edit my original post, I'd just need to add five letters (IF-DSP) to clarify....but, since I cannot go back and edit it....here is the long-form of clarity[sic], I think?  hi hi

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


(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, 01:52:13 PM by KA4WJA »
Logged

AE0Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 414
    • AE0Q Amateur Radio
Re: General History of Amateur HF Receivers, over the past 50 some years...
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2022, 11:47:55 AM »

It was because of the SDR revolution that panadapters went from a high end toy that most of us never got to use to a competitive advantage for those of us willing to do SDR to (today) a feature that most of us simply require in a rig.  Being able to use my eyes as well as my ears is just such a huge advantage, it dwarfs a lot of the differences in Rob's chart or anyone else's.

I'm curious, for what kind of operating is a panadapter a huge advantage? 
Contesting?  If so, what mode would that actually help on?  A band map that you can see calls on seems more useful than a panadapter full of stuff?

FTx modes?  Don't they decode everything in the passband?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2022, 11:56:01 AM by AE0Q »
Logged
NSGA Edzell 1974-77  CTM2  GM5BKC : NSGA Rota 1972-74   ZB2WZ, SV0WY
https://radioandtravels.blogspot.com/
http://www.qsl.net/ae0q/

K0UA

  • Member
  • Posts: 9589
Re: General History of Amateur HF Receivers, over the past 50 some years...
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2022, 01:21:00 PM »

It was because of the SDR revolution that panadapters went from a high end toy that most of us never got to use to a competitive advantage for those of us willing to do SDR to (today) a feature that most of us simply require in a rig.  Being able to use my eyes as well as my ears is just such a huge advantage, it dwarfs a lot of the differences in Rob's chart or anyone else's.

I'm curious, for what kind of operating is a panadapter a huge advantage? 
Contesting?  If so, what mode would that actually help on?  A band map that you can see calls on seems more useful than a panadapter full of stuff?

FTx modes?  Don't they decode everything in the passband?

I would be happy to answer that one for you.

Panadaptors/waterfalls, are useful for MANY kinds of amateur operations. They can be useful for pileup busting on CW and SSB to see where the successful "tail ender" that the DX is working is located so can assist you in deciding where to put your next call. They are useful in contesting to work your way up or down the band so that you don't "miss" any other stations . They are EXTEMELY useful on "dead" or nearly dead bands for finding activity to pounce on.  Even when monitoring an FT8 channel they can be useful to find DX activity that has sprung up  and not spotted yet like a DX Fox and Hound operation which is not normally on the regular FT8 "watering hole" frequency.  If you suddenly see a wad of activity you know you had better go there and find out what that is.  That along has netted me many DX stations I would have ordinarily missed.  As for looking at FT8, it is not of much value to monitor a typical FT8 watering hole of 2.5 khz width, as you have pointed out the audio waterfall will show and decode all that is in there,  but I am talking about looking wider than that for other activity in the RF domain not the audio domain of the waterfall as provided by WSJT-x. I will often keep the RF pan adaptor/waterfall of the rig set at 25 Khz to see other activity. My audio waterfall is set to 3.6 Khz. which happens to be maximum My Icom rigs will go in Audio bandwidth.  Of course the RF bandwidth of these rigs will go to 1 Mhz wide, looking 500 Khz either side of the VFO frequency.

Bottom line: I will never own another "blind" radio. Using a radio is as much about using your eyes as using your ears.

"Sokath, his eyes uncovered!"
Logged
73  James K0UA

AE0Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 414
    • AE0Q Amateur Radio
Re: General History of Amateur HF Receivers, over the past 50 some years...
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2022, 02:58:46 PM »

I can see it being useful for breaking a pileup on a DX station, but in many contests a bandmap from a cluster with calls is a lot better than squiggles on the waterfall.

Being a CW op I pretty much focus on the calls in my headphones and not looking at the rest of the spectrum 25 kHz away.

But, use the tools you have, of course.
Logged
NSGA Edzell 1974-77  CTM2  GM5BKC : NSGA Rota 1972-74   ZB2WZ, SV0WY
https://radioandtravels.blogspot.com/
http://www.qsl.net/ae0q/

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Re: General History of Amateur HF Receivers, over the past 50 some years...
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2022, 07:22:40 AM »

I can see it being useful for breaking a pileup on a DX station, but in many contests a bandmap from a cluster with calls is a lot better than squiggles on the waterfall.

Being a CW op I pretty much focus on the calls in my headphones and not looking at the rest of the spectrum 25 kHz away.

But, use the tools you have, of course.

For me, mainly a CW contester, the panadapter/waterfall is the greatest receiver advancement in my 63 years as a ham. Being in the propagation black hole of southern Arizona and confined to compromised HOA antennas, using a bandmap/telnet cluster in an “assisted” category (despite adjusting the filters) can be a very frustrating experience.

In a DX contest for example, the cluster can show tons of European stations (where the multi are) that propagation denies me from receiving. Maybe it’s different for mid-westerners or east coasters. Point-and-clicking up and down a bandmap hits silent holes, whereas tuning to a panadapter trace is an actual station. Saves a lot of wasted time tuning, or clicking, around blind. Also, changing bands reveals at a glance how much activity is there, whether it’s worth changing to the band, and lets me go right to a trace to pick up a new Q or mult.

In the last couple of years, I’ve given up on using clusters and “assisted” contesting. IMO, there’s no real skill of point-and-click operating…like shooting fish in a barrel when conditions permit. I’d much prefer to manually tune around, using the panadapter as a tool, in S&P, actually decoding a CW station rather than clicking on a cluster spot.
Logged

K0UA

  • Member
  • Posts: 9589
Re: General History of Amateur HF Receivers, over the past 50 some years...
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2022, 07:56:12 AM »

I can see it being useful for breaking a pileup on a DX station, but in many contests a bandmap from a cluster with calls is a lot better than squiggles on the waterfall.

Being a CW op I pretty much focus on the calls in my headphones and not looking at the rest of the spectrum 25 kHz away.

But, use the tools you have, of course.

For me, mainly a CW contester, the panadapter/waterfall is the greatest receiver advancement in my 63 years as a ham. Being in the propagation black hole of southern Arizona and confined to compromised HOA antennas, using a bandmap/telnet cluster in an “assisted” category (despite adjusting the filters) can be a very frustrating experience.

In a DX contest for example, the cluster can show tons of European stations (where the multi are) that propagation denies me from receiving. Maybe it’s different for mid-westerners or east coasters. Point-and-clicking up and down a bandmap hits silent holes, whereas tuning to a panadapter trace is an actual station. Saves a lot of wasted time tuning, or clicking, around blind. Also, changing bands reveals at a glance how much activity is there, whether it’s worth changing to the band, and lets me go right to a trace to pick up a new Q or mult.

In the last couple of years, I’ve given up on using clusters and “assisted” contesting. IMO, there’s no real skill of point-and-click operating…like shooting fish in a barrel when conditions permit. I’d much prefer to manually tune around, using the panadapter as a tool, in S&P, actually decoding a CW station rather than clicking on a cluster spot.

Here once again, and as usual, you bring up very good points.
Logged
73  James K0UA
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up