eHam
eHam Forums => Station Building => Topic started by: AC7CW on March 06, 2020, 04:37:31 PM
-
Dan Sherwood has done a lot of work to build his repository of test info. It's at http://www.sherweng.com/table.html for the few that are unfamiliar with it. He ranks rigs by ability to operate with close spaced interference. That might not mean a lot for a casual operator though. I'm not a contester so I am wondering what parameter would be the next in importance were I sorting the list to choose a rig. The data can be copied and put in a spreadsheet. I sorted by noise floor and a TS-830 comes to the top of the list. Other radios rate higher under different circumstances such as preamp turned on but the TS-830 at the top of the list! That rig is very highly rated by casual ops so maybe noise floor is the parameter to work with?
-
Due to the prevalent RFI from consumer electronics, noise floor is now a meaningless metric for most hams.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
I believe CW contesting is where maximum receiver performance is needed and Dynamic Range Narrow Spaced is the parameter of interest. I've owned several transceivers that did not hold up under 160 meter contesting. The two I've owned that were excellent for CW contesting are the Elecraft K3 and the Icom IC-7300 with narrow spaced dynamic range of 101 and 97 dB respectively. One of several that were nearly unusable under 160 meter contest conditions is the Kenwood TD570S at 69 dB. In the paper cited below, Bob Sherwood says 80 dB or better at 2 kHz (that is narrow spaced dynamic range) is needed for CW.
Here's a link to the paper Transceiver Performance and how do we measure it?, by Bob Sherwood.
"Contesters – DXers – Pileup operators need a good receiver for SSB and an even better receiver for CW."
Near the end of the paper he presents a the list Considerations in Choosing a Transceiver.
http://www.na0tc.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=technical:transceiver_performance_and_how_do_we_measure_it-_rob_sherwood_nc0b-285-techconnect-1w.pdf
Sherwood Receiver Test Data
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
-
Don't forget there's much more to picking a rig than good Sherwood numbers. You want something that's also a good ergonomic fit to your operating likes and dislikes eg how many choices are hidden in multiple menus rather than being a knob(s) on the front panel and things like that. How large is it ? How heavy is it? And so on.
-
A lot of the choice will involve what your activities are in ham radio and what the QTH is like. With all of the noise we get today from consumer electronics, if you live in a suburban or urban environment, a good noise blanker and noise reduction might be the most important feature. If you live in a rural area, then that might not be much of a factor.
If you are not into contesting but are into DXing, you probably want a radio with dual receive and a good noise floor. Not as important if you spend most of your time on traffic nets or just ragchewing. Creature comforts like a voice recorder and CW memory keyer are always nice, same for a good built in autotuner.
Most important are ergonomics and it has to be a radio you enjoy operating. If you don't like the layout of the radio and how you interface with it, good dynamic range or other features aren't very important.
73 John W5TD
-
I don't know CW; my Icom 7300 does really great for RTTY contests.
My Flex 6600 does even better. I still don't know CW. I did not look
at Sherwood's list before buying either rig, but HE own's and likes his
Icom 7300. :-)
Neal
-
His name is Rob Sherwood. For details on using his Tables, see https://www.icqpodcast.com/download-the-show/2019/9/15/icq-podcast-episode-305-sherwood-engineering
73,
Frank
K4FMH
-
Dual receive is a great feature for net operation. You can send folks off to another frequency and listen to how they are doing. You can also make sure that the frequency is unused before sending them there--not just a brief listen, but continuously monitoring it while running a net.
Dual receive is also great for CW DXing, as finding stations giving reports is an effective way of tracking the listening frequency.
Zak W1VT
-
Dual receive is also great for CW DXing, as finding stations giving reports is an effective way of tracking the listening frequency.
Many people would agree with that. I prefer using a high resolution panadaptor where I can not only see all the folks who think they're working the DX station all at once, but I can also see the timing of the exchanges, which sometimes helps identify the station who is REALLY working the DX station.
73, K8AC
-
Any rig in the top 20 of Sherwood's list will outperform the abilities of most antennas and locations. QRM/QRM etc. All these factors will degrade reception more than you gain with a rig's great capabilities.
-
Any rig in the top 20 of Sherwood's list will outperform the abilities of most antennas and locations. QRM/QRM etc. All these factors will degrade reception more than you gain with a rig's great capabilities.
I'd like to add to that comment like this: "Any rig in the top 20 of Sherwood's list will outperform the abilities of most antennas, locations and operators."
From operator comments over the past few years on these forums, it's clear that very few operators have any idea what the effects of a receiver performing poorly in the narrow-spaced IMD arena are, or what one can do to alleviate the symptoms when they occur. I've owned a couple of transceivers that were marginal in this area, and the only time any symptoms were observed were on 160 and 20 meters during contests where the band was loaded with very strong signals. Even then, the workaround was pretty simple - switch a bit of attenuation into the receiver antenna input and the IMD disappeared. As W8JI pointed out some time ago, any narrow-spaced IMD number of 80 or greater is adequate most of the time.
-
His name is Rob Sherwood. For details on using his Tables, see https://www.icqpodcast.com/download-the-show/2019/9/15/icq-podcast-episode-305-sherwood-engineering
The Sept 15 2019 Podcast can be downloaded as a MP3 file and is 78,117kb Size; Total show runs approx 1-hour and 50-minutes
The Rob Sherwood interview starts at the 1-hour and 2-minute mark. Very interesting.
-
Point to remember: The highest rated rigs are all generally interchangeable in the field - the differences being personal mechanical preferences (like your buttons where?). The great equalizer is the noise conditions we operate under and have little control over. The numbers are lab report.
In short, I feel that a 7300 is able to do 99% as well, in most conditions and uses, as any of the over $5000+ rigs. Of course, there are no bragging rights. Unfortunately, the latter is very important to some ops.
There is a lot of pleasure and enjoyment to a 7300 and a MyAntennas end fed all band antenna. You could call it a $1000 station.
The real key is to get on the air with something and enjoy what you have!
-
My 706mk2g made the top 100, :o but I'm in no hurry to chuck it based on some list. I wanted something versatile and easy on my wallet @ under $600 used with all the filters from my local HRO, it fit the bill.
-
It will always be true that a perfect plan for tomorrow will ruin a good plan for today. Personally I'm starting out my shack build with a FT-991A. My club having Fusion repeaters being one reason for that and the band coverage being another. If I buy a high-end rig it will be fine as a backup. It certainly won't work if I'm trying to dig weak signals out of the noise in a contest.
I had some fun with Rob Sherwood's list: copied it into excel, removed extraneous data keeping the best noise floor data for each rig and sorted by that. The rigs at the top of that sort were some of the all time most desirable, best spoken of rigs. It's true that in our ordinary noisy environments noise floor doesn't mean much but nonetheless....
-
Bob is normally the final presenter at Contest University in Dayton. One question that is always asked is 'what's the best rig'? His response is usually something to the effect 'which ever radio suits your needs and operating interests'. Keep in mind, the Sherwood list in receive characteristics, not transmit. It also doesn't consider the 'bells and whistles' factor on each rig. Bob's list is a great place to begin, but there are other factors to keep in mind.
-
I've found that I have an excellent opportunity to work SSB DX when a station goes from simplex to split operation.
I've often worked the DX first when they do that. Even when it was obvious I had little chance of breaking the simplex pileup.
I suspect a lot of operators aren't very good at setting up split operation.
Zak W1VT
-
There is an old saying "when in doubt, C4" meaning when in doubt which weapon to deploy, C4 is always a good choice. Just blow the heck out of everything.
Reference radios: "when in doubt, 7300" Meaning While the 7300 may not be the top dog, and of course it isn't, it is an under $1000 radio, it is a good choice when you are overwhelmed with choices. I have two of then and think highly of them, as well as a 7610.
Unfortunately Noise floor is a totally meaningless metric now for 99% of all operators. They will NEVER see that noise floor in our day and age of RFI. The man made RFI noise floor has been rising so fast in the past few years that the rigs own noise floor is so far below it that it is meaningless. Before the invention of the switch mode power supply, the noise floor of a reciever may have made some sense, but no more.
-
The noise floor of my Heathkit HR-1680 built in 1977 was totally adequate for operating from Lihue Kauai on 10 meters.
The following year I helped perhaps a dozen hams complete their Worked All States award.
HF receiver sensitivity has not been an issue as long as I've been a ham.
Zak W1VT
-
There is not a bad transceiver made today with the big three- ICOM, Yaesu and Kenwood. The best deal is the IC-7300. It performs.
-
I think Rob Sherwood makes his list for reference material on today modern HF radio's not as a buying guide. If you look at what he owns he has his own personal reasons why he pics the radio he has not because its on the top of his list plus if you look at the list its rated by mainly one parameter not several but from what I have seen is most hams really do not fully understand what these numbers mean to begin with.
You can do allot of chest beating on the air that you own which radio is at the top of this list but in reality the radio may be far more confusing for you to operate to begin with but bragging rights are what some just go by to begin with. Bottom line its more on how your able to use the radio and its features that will make operating more enjoyable.
Rob also has given many talks plus has placed much info on the internet on how and for what reasons to chose an HF radio which make a whole lot of common sense but here again its like asking someone if they did read there radio's manual, most do not. I heard three guys talking on 75 meters the other night, they all owned FTDX101D radio's, they were not working any DX stations, they seemed to rag chew there either all day or night but it was very important that they all owned a list topping radio yet none of these hams ever opened up there manual to get to use some of the functions of there rigs, they just pushed the buttons and played with controls. Maybe I am losing something here but even before I purchase any radio I pop up the manual on line, read threw it and try and understand the logic of its design and the control flexibility but clearly were the radio ranks on some list is not really why a buy a radio in the first place besides most of the top 20-25 radio's on Robs list will all work extremely well for even some of the most competitive of stations yet for rag chews on 75 meters any radio will do just fine.
The IC7300 is the deal breaker for under $1K, packs a wicked punch and a great RX/TX combo, yes there will always be better but that radio upset the apple cart, it became a radio that almost every ham could afford and give more than just average performance plus was easy as pie to use!
-
The Icom 706MKIIG comes in higher on Sherwood's list than does the Yaesu FT1000MP, but I think you would have to look hard to find a contester who says the 706MKIIG will do better under contest conditions.
73 John AF5CC
-
I can tell you from personal experience it is not a good rig for a moderately popular IOTA activation. An IC-7300 would beat them both out in that environment.
Icom really reset the market with the IC-7300. It caught the others with their pants down - still no response in over two years.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
Unfortunately Noise floor is a totally meaningless metric now for 99% of all operators. They will NEVER see that noise floor in our day and age of RFI. The man made RFI noise floor has been rising so fast in the past few years that the rigs own noise floor is so far below it that it is meaningless. Before the invention of the switch mode power supply, the noise floor of a reciever may have made some sense, but no more.
Which brings up another point-which radio best handles the noise at your QTH? IMD range is useful, but doesn't mean much if you have a S8 noise level you can't get rid of. So things like noise blankers and noise reduction becomes important when choosing a rig. DSP noise reduction seems to work better on atmospheric noise, knocking down the static a bit, which can reduce listening fatigue.
The noise blanker is usually the tool to take out the RFI crud we get some powerlines and all of these switching power supplies in every consumer electronic product. Some radios have better noise blankers than others. While the Icom 7300 and Kenwood TS590SG both have good receivers, their noise blanker performance, at my QTH, was rather underwhelming. I found that the NB in the recent Yaesu rigs worked better on the RFI crud I get. The experience at your QTH could be totally different. Or you may be fortunate and live out in the country where this isn't an issue.
If you can borrow a couple of the different models you are interested in from local hams, and get the RFI to cooperate when you have the borrowed rigs there, it can go a long ways to finding which radio best handles the noise at your QTH. It often is trial and error.
73 John AF5CC
-
I can tell you from personal experience it is not a good rig for a moderately popular IOTA activation. An IC-7300 would beat them both out in that environment.
Icom really reset the market with the IC-7300. It caught the others with their pants down - still no response in over two years.
- Glenn W9IQ
Do you mean the 706MKIIG or the FT1000MP?
-
I took my 706 with me not anticipating the pile ups from the minute I transmitted until I turned it off each day. Just a constant din of stations. I chose poorly.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
The 706 would be like a barn door wide open compared to the ole MP's but when I sold my last Mp and tried out the kenwood TS590s that was an eye opener, the 590S dusted the old MP and that was with NB mods, adjusted the gain between IF stages, installed IRC roofing filter and adjusted the gain on its boards so it would not drive the crap out of the next stage but that 590s just tromped on the MP. Then after that I bought a K3 placed it side by side next to the 590S and this was before the SG and I just could not warm up to the K3 audio on SSB or even CW. After that I tried the FTDX3000 which did have about the same RX but its selectivity and noise reduction was an improvement but after three plus years I had to try a 7300 to see what all the ruckus was about, well it was bought as a backup rig and lets say the 7300 became the main radio and the 3000 the backup, ultimate selectivity on the little Icom was 20db better than the Yaesu, on CW with the 3000 I would hear key clicks a KC away from a 20db over S9 station switch to the 7300 and at 1kc that there were no clicks at all, I didn't need the first stage pre amp at all except maybe on 10 and six meters, the Noise Blanker and Noise reduction was way better and the NR didn't affect the audio were you would get that underwater sound. I didn't want to believe that the Yaesu which I paid $2400 new and the Icom which at that time was $1300 was dusting the Yeasu all across the boards. Hell yes the 7300 was a game changer!
-
The 7300 puts superheterodyne receivers into the history books.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
The 7300 puts superheterodyne receivers into the history books.
- Glenn W9IQ
Although the superhets are still at the top of Sherwood's list, both in terms of 2khz IMD dynamic range, and LO noise.
73 John AF5CC
-
Dan Sherwood has done a lot of work to build his repository of test info. It's at http://www.sherweng.com/table.html for the few that are unfamiliar with it. He ranks rigs by ability to operate with close spaced interference. That might not mean a lot for a casual operator though. I'm not a contester so I am wondering what parameter would be the next in importance were I sorting the list to choose a rig.
I think everything that needed to be said regarding noise floor was said: it is irrelevant in our present environment.
I do remember however listening to shortwave on an old JRC 545 a couple years ago, when we had a statewide blackout in South Australia, and I was absolutely floored by just how silent the receiver was (and this is 20 year old technology).
I think the main metrics we should be using are cost/performance ratios where "performance" stands for whatever is most important for your particular style of operating.
Dj0ip (viz. www.dj0ip.de) did some very nice work in 2019 to assess cost / dB of DR3 performance.
I am unable to paste the images of the charts here, but you can peruse Dj0ip charts here (keeping in mind these are 2019 prices):
https://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/performance-cost/
You could do exactly the same calculations with any other metric that was significant to your particular situation (noise floor if you are alone on an island). Then for bragging rights, I don't know how to calculate that one!
Now, to quote Rob:
What do you need in the way of close-in dynamic range? You want a number of at least 70 dB for SSB, and at least 80 dB for CW. A 10 dB safety factor would be nice, so that means you would prefer 80 dB for SSB and 90 dB for CW. Now there are approximately 20 radios that meet that specification.
In my own case, CW is my only mode of operation and I have never been interested in competition, so while I am quite relaxed about DR3, I attach a lot of importance to good noise blankers and noise reduction. I also look for radios that are reliable, have decent ergonomics and I try to avoid "niche" brands.
-
The 7300 puts superheterodyne receivers into the history books.
- Glenn W9IQ
Although the superhets are still at the top of Sherwood's list, both in terms of 2khz IMD dynamic range, and LO noise.
73 John AF5CC
Could that be because SDRs do not have an LO? Paradigm change...
- Glenn W9IQ
-
Glenn
I don't think it's anything to do with a paradigm change, just a legacy term ("LO Noise") which really relates to reciprocal mixing dynamic range. With low conversion jitter fairly easily obtained, SDRs are typically very good in this regard but, as the new generation superhets clearly demonstrate, other architecture can excel as well.
The religion associated with SDRs and superhets is an odd quirk of amateur radio. As a designer of radios and radiometers, direct sampling and other over the course of a career, I've never encountered it in any other community. And I don't think it does anyone a service to just blindly recommend an IC-7300 as the answer to everyone's application need! As it happens, I like IC-7300s - particularly on a bang per buck basis. But there are applications when other tools are needed: for example, two of a number of requirements in my situation steering me away from the 7300 are ultimate (out of passband) receiver blocking and a more respectable 6 m transmit IMD.
73, Peter.
-
I understand, Peter. My response, posed as a question, was to see how engaged people are in this topic. My experience is that most seem to be consumers that just want to see some number on the top of a chart to ensure they are buying "the best" or to debate a statistic of precipice.
It is fun to point out, for example, that if you want the "best" in-band IMD3 spec, you should buy a single conversion superhet with good filters. This being proffered to people that never operate in a DX expedition or multi-operator contest station.
With that being said, we do need to adjust the test regimes and reports to provide meaningful data to consumers and engineers alike in this direct sampling DSP era. The proposed IFSS test is one such example that merits discussion. Once there is industry agreement on key metrics and procedures, the manufacturers can move forward with rewarded tweaks.
With regard to specific radio recommendations, I don't think that the select buyer will come on eHam to ask which transceiver to buy, A or B. This is nearly defacto evidence of an entry level buyer for which the 7300 is generally very well suited.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
I remember when the FT1000 MP MKV was considered a great rig. If I had to go by that one magic column on the Sherwood list, I wouldn't even consider the rig.
-
Don Keith (N4KC) recently posted a wonderful, but ever so slightly exasperated, note on the state of internet radio comparisons in the TS-890S user group:
"I was just wondering if anyone in the group has had the opportunity to directly compare the TS-890 and the Swan 500C? I have a chance to purchase a TS-890 new or a Swan 500C that has been in daily use for about 50 years. The Swan apparently still works okay but the finals are original and only make about half power. There are also some cigarette burns on the cabinet and something unidentifiable has been spilled behind the meter. But I've also seen posts saying the 890 doesn't make full power on SSB when measured on a $20 wattmeter into an end-fed run of clothesline. That tells me the Swan might be the better rig. But I can't seem to find it anywhere on the Sherwood list so I cannot compare."
Most managed a laugh, and Rob even undertook to do better and see if he can get the Swan on his list. I guess it appealed to me because it's similar in kind, and only a little different in degree, to some ham life on the internet :)
73, and Happy World Telecommunication Day,
Peter.
-
Hi Peter & Glenn
Peter - had to laugh your reference re Don N4KC's TS-890 user group radio comparo!
I reckon -
Buying the Swan is the obvious answer, more scrap value at the recycler when it goes belly up!
OR you could use it as a soap box to safely stand on and proselytize other operators of the best rig to purchase....dual use!
OR .... actually use it as a boat anchor when we are able to take the boat out fishing again, not so sure the IC-7300 is very capable at 10 meters....deep, couldn't find that spec in Rob's list, a glaring error IMHO !
just my take.
Ross.
-
https://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/performance-cost/
That is a useful table. As was pointed out, though, the most important thing is that YOU HAVE TO ENJOY USING THE RADIO! If you are a DXer, you probably want dual receive. That leaves out the 7300, but you also may want a bandscope, so that would leave out the FT1000MP.
You also have to look at the law of diminishing returns. After the dynamic range gets to a certain point, you probably won't be able to really tell much difference by getting additional dynamic range beyond that point, so spending extra money JUST to get dynamic range wouldn't be worth it. However, spending extra money to get additional useful features for you would be worth it. Also, getting trading a slight drop in dynamic range to get additional useful features could be worth it as well.
In my case, the Icom 7300 didn't work in the current setup I had, so I had to go a different direction, even if the dynamic range wasn't quite as good. Another thing to notice on Sherwood's table is that the 7300's dynamic range really falls if you turn off the IP+,and Rob recommends not using the IP+.
73 John AF5CC
-
https://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/performance-cost/
That is a useful table. As was pointed out, though, the most important thing is that YOU HAVE TO ENJOY USING THE RADIO! If you are a DXer, you probably want dual receive. That leaves out the 7300, but you also may want a bandscope, so that would leave out the FT1000MP.
So many folks specify the need for a second receiver if you're a DXer. While it is a "convenient" thing to have, thousands of hams have made the DXCC honor roll with a one receiver radio. As long as the radio has VFO's A and B, you're good to go for split operation, and finding the location of stations working the DX with the push of a button to toggle between the two VFO's. The two receiver option is good for contesters monitoring a second band for openings and activity, and working SO2V. For the casual non-contesting ham on somewhat of a budget, the $$ spent on a two-receiver radio might best be put towards the antenna. IMO, many hams grossly over-buy a radio for their casual operations. But if money isn't an object, what the heck...go for it!
I'd definitely recommend a band scope. Big difference between it and tuning round blind.
73, Bob K7JQ
-
K7JQ:
The two receiver option is good for contesters monitoring a second band for openings and activity, and working SO2V. For the casual non-contesting ham on somewhat of a budget, the $$ spent on a two-receiver radio might best be put towards the antenna. IMO, many hams grossly over-buy a radio for their casual operations. But if money isn't an object, what the heck...go for it!
I'd definitely recommend a band scope. Big difference between it and tuning round blind.
Couldn't agree more with you: I had a second receiver for a long time and realized that I never used it. In 2020 a band scope is non-negotiable, it is just so convenient.
I must say, in aparte, that I have been very surprised, since I have been a member of Eham by the number of hams who are ready to spend $$$$ on transceivers with remarkable DR3 performance and connect them to a long-wire antenna or a vertical antenna.
That sort of money is much better spent on a good tower and a Yagi (or any directional antenna with gain, a Quad, whatever) and then whatever is left should go into the transceiver and not the other way round.
Then, clearly, the money one needs to spend on a good tower (including the foundations) and a tri or tetra-band from a reputable manufacturer will easily be 3-4 time what one spends on a transceiver, so maybe that is why. But the choice remains an irrational one ( I can only drive at 55mph, but I' still buy that Porsche!)
I can say in the forty-five years or so I have been involved in HF that the biggest differences I have noticed in reception always came from antennas and never from receivers.
I think every single radio I have ever had has had some defects (poor ergonomics, overloading, ringing filters, bad DSP, you name it) and you generally can work with it or live with it, but if you don't have a good antenna and it is not at reasonably high up, you may have the best radio on the market you won't hear a thing!
For those who are interested, the ARRL has a nice little brochure: "Antenna Height and Communications Effectiveness" with some interesting graphs illustrating elevation response patterns in function of height.
So the best advice I can provide to beginners is : forget about the latest transceiver, first, get the best directional antenna you can afford and put it up as high as you can without running into trouble (with the neighbors, the council and what not) and then see about getting whatever transceiver you can afford (and, ideally, try to live next to the ocean!)
-
Putting up a tower with a beam on it is a lot more effort than opening up the wallet and ordering the latest, greatest radio with the best specs.
You are definitely right in your thinking-put up the best antenna you can. It will also make a bigger difference than the radio.
But then many hams live in locations where they cannot have tall towers and large antennas. They may have to have indoor antennas, which probably have all sorts of RFI coming into them. That is when you really need a rig with a good noise blanker and noise reduction.
As has been stated before, the best radio is the one that you enjoy using the most, and that allows you the make the most QSOs in the circumstance you are operating in. There is no one best radio, because we are all operating under different circumstances, and have different requirements for our enjoyment of ham radio.
73 John AF5CC
Using a Yaesu FT450D and enjoying it!
-
I remember when the FT1000 MP MKV was considered a great rig. If I had to go by that one magic column on the Sherwood list, I wouldn't even consider the rig.
Still is here ;D
-
There are many discussions like this. Another forum I spend a lot of time on is a tractor forum and two questions are asked the most by newbies: Which tires do I need? and What transmission do I need? The answers by me are always the same. If you have to ask you need R4 industrial tires. Because if you had any experience you would not have asked. because you are a newbie and don't have a clue what you want to do with the tractor, you by default need the generic R4 tire. Is it the best tire? Depends on what you want to do with the tractor. If you were going to plow an 80 acre field, then no it is not the best tire.
For loader work on possibly dangerous surfaces, then yes it is the best tire for that. BUT because you asked, you have told us you are a newbie. Professionals don't have to ask.
Same with transmission: You need a hydrostatic. Because if you had a clue what you were going to do with the tractor you would not have had to ask. You would have known. Is the hydro the best transmission for plowing that 80 acre field, no, of course not, but since you are a newbie you need a hydro. Easiest to operate, almost no learning curve, best for loader operation, and best for all around use, but not so good for some specific operations.
How does this apply to radios? It is the same thing. IF you have to ask, you need a 7300. Period. Is it the best radio on the face of the earth? Of course not. BUT since you have to ask, then that is the one you need. You are a newbie, you don't have a clue what you want to do with the radio and what niche operation you will want. The 7300 is superior in the "bang for the buck" field, and does everything well. BUT it not the best contest radio on earth or the best DX chasing radio on earth or has the best specifications over all radios. But it is good enough, and it is extremely easy to use, has a short learning curve, and the price is low enough that most people can afford one, and for many people may be the last rig they will ever need, while offering a plethora of modern features that will keep most people satisfied for a long long time.
-
[quote author=W1VT link=topic=128776.msg1170135#msg1170135 date=1583585718
Dual receive is also great for CW DXing, as finding stations giving reports is an effective way of tracking the listening frequency.
Zak W1VT
[/quote]
Zak - can you expand on this?
Most rigs today have an A/B but I don't think this is what you mean by "Dual Receive".
You may be referring more to a sub-rcvr?
In any case - how does using a 2nd rcvr help in listening to signal reports?
Can't one just as easily find the same info by listening around with one rcvr?
Tnx in advance
N1BBR
-
I just love the comments here about buying the radio that tops Rob's list! First off if your buying an FTDX101D, TS890S or IC7610 and running it into an end fed antenna at 20 ft and expect there will be times you really need those high end RX spec you are kidding yourself. Now if you have a stack of monoband beams or one of these newer big beam antennas with forward stacked monoband elements at 50 plus feet up, phased dipoles or verticals on the low bands then maybe some of the better radio's might make some sort of difference in how its really going to be able to pull in a single station during very crowded band conditions or in use during a multi op contest station but here again you may never see much of a difference between all the top rigs on that chart.
First off any well engineered contest station already has some sort of band pass filter networks installed or even today multi op stations use not only in the RX mode but TX band pass filter networks that are used on the TX side as well. Most of the radio's in the top 25 rigs on that list have ultimate channel selectivity besting 110db so the bottom line is how well the radio works with the user interface is more likely going to make the real differences in those type of stations. Other than that it is really about Bragging Rights than anything else but if you ever take the time and read Rob's in depth reviews of some of his talks about what is really needed for most all operating situations there are a good 30 to 40 radios that will do just fine but at that point it comes down to being able to operate the radio more efficiently in the heat of the battle than how good the specs are between the better rigs.
-
Yes, I mean the sub-receiver, which allows me to listen to to two frequencies at once. Typically I'll listen to the DX in the left ear and tune around with the sub receiver and listen for people calling the DX in the right ear. Then, after a station finishes a contact, I'll call on the frequency last used by the station calling the DX. Many times a DX station will work a couple of stations on the same split frequency before tuning to a new listening frequency.
Zak W1VT
-
Yes, I mean the sub-receiver, which allows me to listen to to two frequencies at once. Typically I'll listen to the DX in the left ear and tune around with the sub receiver and listen for people calling the DX in the right ear. Then, after a station finishes a contact, I'll call on the frequency last used by the station calling the DX. Many times a DX station will work a couple of stations on the same split frequency before tuning to a new listening frequency.
Zak W1VT
Definitely an easier and more efficient way to work split. But depending on the size and signal strength of the pileup, it still could be difficult to find that calling station, especially when people are still calling while the DX is transmitting. And the DX might not stay on that calling frequency, so you still have to determine his tuning/listening pattern. The same thing, although a little less convenient, is using the (Icom) XFC, or similar button on other brands, toggling between two VFO's on a one-receiver radio. It depends on your budget to prioritize between radio and antennas.
-
A rig may have great electronics but, if the ergonomics ****, you won't enjoy operating it.
Case in point: I recently sold my FT-817nd. Since my manual dexterity is somewhat challenged, operations requiring you to push two buttons at the same time were a nuisance. Also look for push buttons or other located at the lower edge of the front panel; I had to elevate the 817nd on wooden blocks to access a control or two.
Before shelling out for a rig, go to a dealer and try it out from the ergonomics angle.
IMO: Ergonomics can make or break a rig no matter how great a performer it is.
-
Yes, I mean the sub-receiver, which allows me to listen to to two frequencies at once. Typically I'll listen to the DX in the left ear and tune around with the sub receiver and listen for people calling the DX in the right ear. Then, after a station finishes a contact, I'll call on the frequency last used by the station calling the DX. Many times a DX station will work a couple of stations on the same split frequency before tuning to a new listening frequency.
Zak W1VT
Definitely an easier and more efficient way to work split. But depending on the size and signal strength of the pileup, it still could be difficult to find that calling station, especially when people are still calling while the DX is transmitting. And the DX might not stay on that calling frequency, so you still have to determine his tuning/listening pattern. The same thing, although a little less convenient, is using the (Icom) XFC, or similar button on other brands, toggling between two VFO's on a one-receiver radio. It depends on your budget to prioritize between radio and antennas.
I made it to DXCC HR by toggling VFO's in split pileups, but a few years ago, I got the second receiver for my K3 and it made a huge difference. Wish I had taken the leap years before. Nothing like listening to both sides of the pileup constantly instead of sampling.
-
Hello to all,
Of course, the old adage of spending 80% - 90% of your $$$ on antennas and 10% - 20% on the radio, is still very valid (as well as spending > half your time/effort on learning radiowave propagation, antenna system design, etc.)....here, we're assuming the query is coming from someone who understands this and has already done what they can in that regard (after all, the original poster here, lists that he was licensed in 1958, three years before I was born)....so...
While, in the past 45 years, Rob NC0B, Tom W8JI, George, K8RRH, etc., and many of amateur radio's top contesters, and engineering folks, etc. were the impetus (i.e. loud "squeaky wheels" with $ to spend) for many radio manufacturers to seriously improve their HF receivers (starting with mainly close-in rec two-tone IMD results, then improved noise blanker operations, and then later taking on the issues of oscillator noise / phase noise issues, and more recently AGC issues in modern DSP's, etc.)....well, these same guys have been publicly commenting now for a decade or two, on what are the more important criteria....and most recently (such as in the past 5 to 10 years), they have been clear that the limiting factors in our modern HF receivers are actually the other transmitters on-the-air, spewing interference (wide CW signals, caused by too harsh/quick keying rise and fall times, too high of transmit-composite noise, key clicks, etc....and wide / splattering SSB signals, caused by poor transmit PA design and too high mic gain setting, and/or over-driven external amps), as the excellent specs of the receivers in these new modern rigs are now unable to be utilized, due to the interference of our transmitters!
And, now-a-days (in the past few years), we all see that an additional new limiting factor of our modern HF receivers for many hams (most hams, these days) is the local RFI that raises the HF noise floor, reducing the radio's actual useful dynamic range....(of course, using attenuators, etc. can help receivers with limited capabilities, as well as the very rare excellent-quality noise blankers helping with impulse noise and powerline noise....the real solution is to get rid of the RFI, altogether).
Once the new ham (or hams new to HF comms) learns that, for most hams, obtaining the "ultimate spec'd receiver", might be a moot point....their question then becomes "how do I choose a radio?", etc...
{Of course, the first part of the answer is, and always has been, not by looking at some list! And, here in this thread, and below in this post, is some of the rest of the answer!}
Although, Max, AC7CW (the original poster here), quickly learned the fallacy of an HF receiver's "noise floor", or MDS, being an important criteria in choosing a modern ham transceiver (and actually has been a rather moot point, since the 1970's when most receivers attained sufficient sensitivity)....and a couple of others posting, here did point out some much more important specs to consider....and one, did quote a sentence or two, from Rob Sherwood.
But, the overall question(s) that Max posed (through both the tittle of this thread, "Choosing a rig and Sherwood's list", and with his line "I am wondering what parameter would be the next in importance were I sorting the list to choose a rig."), are "how to choose a new rig" and/or "what are the important factors / criteria in choosing a new rig?"....of course, these can be answered by many of us here (including myself and a few others here that did answer here) ....but, have already been understood and answered by Rob Sherwood himself....all Max, and many of these others, need to do is read what Rob, himself, writes (and/or listen to some of his more recent talks in the past 2 to 3 years)...
{Now, many here know one of my important criteria in radio choice is the rig's transmit spectral purity / transmit IMD....but, I won't go off on a rant here, about that...}
Here are just a few quotes from Rob Sherwood, remember his overall focus is on serious crowded CW contesting (I just added a tiny bit of bold type for emphasis on what my personal views/criteria are, the rest, including the ALL CAPS, are all Rob's):
First up, from July 2014:
"What level of performance do we need close-in on CW for a radio to perform well most of the time? I think 85 dB will suffice most of the time. Certainly one may want a 100 dB dynamic range radio, but other factors of a transceiver’s performance are very important, too. Ten-Tec receive audio is better (cleaner) than Elecraft K3 audio, for instance.
On SSB transmitted intermodulation products from QRM 3 to 5 kHz away is usually far above the LO phase noise (RMDR) of today’s receivers.
Thus the “holy grail” of wanting a 100 dB radio is only a CW [Contesting] pile-up issue.
If every other feature or specification of a radio was top notch, it would seem logical to pick a 100 dB radio over an 85 or 90 dB radio, however this is rarely the case. With good firmware, Ten-Tec and Elecraft have made their DSP radios much less susceptible to having the AGC “load up” or “over react” to impulse noise (clicks, tick and pops). No Japan, Inc. radio at the moment has figured this out...
How a ham picks one transceiver over another is likely all over the map.
For me if the ergonomics are poor, or if the receive audio is fatiguing to listen to, then that radio falls off my selection list.
At the end of the day, hopefully whatever we buy we enjoy using.
I sold an expensive radio about 10 years ago that worked OK, but I just didn’t like it compared to my 15 year old radio [IC-781] of the same brand.
73, Rob, NC0B"
(15-JUL-2014)
And, here from a few months earlier:
"DO NOT OVER-RATE DYNAMIC RANGE
One thing that I need to stress is [that] the amateur community has become obsessed with which radio has a close-in dynamic range a few dB higher than another.
Decades ago Tom Rauch W8JI and I were saying that a close-in dynamic range (DR3) of 80 dB would perform well most of the time. Back then with all the up-conversion radios on the market, most had a DR3 around 70, with some in the 60s.
The Orion I was the first commercial radio to go back to what we now call "down conversion" and it had a DR3 over 90 dB. The amateur community now has a good selection of radios that have a DR3 value in excess of 85 dB.
It is rare that an 85 dB radio will not be adequate in a CW pileup.
[and from other papers/talks: a ~ "70db radio" works well, in SSB service/pileups/contesting.]
All the T-T products except the Omni-VII are 90 dB or better, along with products from most of the other OEMs.
Once you have decided you want a 90 or better radio, for example, then there are lots of other important parameters to consider, such as:
• clean receive audio for low fatigue in a contest,
• a good AGC (which T-T has recently improved in respect to handling impulse noise),
• the ease of use (user interface),
• reliability,
• quality of service and long-term parts support,
• long term firmware support,
• lack of ALC overshoot, (a problem with the TS-590S and IC-7410 for example) when driving a linear.
• The list goes on.
You don't buy a car with one specification, like horse power. The 427 cubic inch Corvette from years ago had lots of horse power but didn't handle very well!
73, Rob, NC0B"
(16-DEC-2013)
And, from that same month:
"THE BIG PICTURE:
With 10 or more radios with 85 to 105 dB DR3s at 2 kHz, it is time to look at the big picture:
Clean receive audio,
clean transmitter IMD,
a good AGC that doesn’t go nuts over an impulse click, tick or pop,
a reliable radio that doesn’t beak all the time,
an ALC that doesn’t overshoot and fault your linear amplifier, or even worse blow your amp.
And when service is needed, good and reasonably fast factory service.
How about long term support of radios out of production, such as on-going firmware updates and parts availability. (Unfortunately there is only so much an OEM can do about supplying out-of-production chips, PA transistors, LCD screens, etc.)
At the end of the day, do you enjoy using your radio on the air?
I hate to tell you how many radios I have had the good fortune to borrow and use on the air in contests that I really would not want to have to use on a daily basis. I sold one very expensive radio that just wasn’t a good fit for me. I took the money and put up two more towers and Yagi antennas.
Hopefully when you turn off your rig after a contest, a DX contact or just a rag chew, you feel that “that was fun”. This is a hobby, and using your radio should be enjoyable.
73, Rob, NC0B"
(21-DEC-2013)
Now, if you look at just a few short lines from Rob:
"if the ergonomics are poor, or if the receive audio is fatiguing to listen to, then that radio falls off my selection list"
"DO NOT OVER-RATE DYNAMIC RANGE"
"a ~ '70db radio' works well, in SSB service/pileups/contesting"
"• a good AGC,
• the ease of use (user interface),
• reliability,"
"Clean receive audio,
clean transmitter IMD,
a good AGC that doesn’t go nuts over an impulse click, tick or pop,
a reliable radio that doesn’t beak all the time,
an ALC that doesn’t overshoot and fault your linear amplifier, or even worse blow your amp.
Looking at just those brief words, you can quickly see that for most hams (not into serious CW contesting), the criteria to base their purchase on are those criteria that Rob himself writes are important / more important than close-in receiver IMD3 specs! :)
And, with our modern residential world being filled with HF RFI, if ridding RFI from your immediate surroundings isn't possible, having a radio with an actual effective and non-destructive noise blanker (for powerline noise / impulse noise) and some sort of non-distorting "noise reduction" feature, can be very important criteria....as well as provisions for a separate receive antenna input (allowing to more easily use a high RDF receive-only antenna, or external rec-ant phasing system / external noise-cancelling unit)...
So, there you go....Rob, himself, sums up what are the real criteria to use in HF rig choice....as well as the newly-important factors for many hams, of handling the increased receive RFI prevalent these days...
I do hope some find this helpful?
73,
John, KA4WJA
P.S. Again, my personal criteria has the TRANSMITTER, good transmit spectral purity / good transmit IMD, as being tops on my list (as well as clean receive audio, good ergonomics, and ease-of-use, reliability, etc.)....but, as my personal views are well known around here, as I wrote above, I won't go off on an IMD rant here! Just a quick polite reminder to try to at least look at what rigs have better transmit results....and, of course, please turn down your mic gain! :)
-
Last night I received an email from an old friend, who asked me if there is so much more to choosing a rig, why isn't that mentioned on "the list"...(apparently he was reading this thread, but didn't want to stir things up?)
My answer was....well, it was long....but, in brief I wrote that if you read the rest of what Rob writes and read thru his equipment reports carefully, you'll see these recommendations, or at least some comments on troublesome issues....and, I also mentioned that (in my opinion) the "list" does serve a purpose, as long as don't use it to decide on what rig to buy! (certainly not as the only criteria!)
In addition to Rob's (and many others) recommendations to not concentrate on one "number" (close-in 2-tone IMD3), and actually use other / many criteria when choosing a new rig....when I read VK5ISO quoting Rob Sherwood, it reminded me of the oft misunderstood fact that even if someone does actually wish to use Rob's list to better evaluate various rigs, they really do need to look at more than one "number"...and understand that sometimes even some of those numbers belie the actual real-world results (see details below)...
Then I thought....why not just cut-n-paste my reply here? So, here goes....some of the below are direct quotes from Rob Sherwood's papers, and some are my opinion, based on my readings and experience in the last 45 years... :)
If you're thinking the "king of the hill" (the rig at the top of the list http://www.sherweng.com/table.html ), is always a great choice, you really should read some more about whatever rig it may be...and, while reading what Rob himself writes about them is very good, you should also read the ARRL Product Reviews... http://www.arrl.org/reviews-listed-by-manufacturer
(I know, some here see a mention of the ARRL and their blood begins to stir....but, please let's not drift off into ham radio hysteria....can we just all agree that getting more info / education is good, no matter where it comes from?)
Regarding "numbers" and position on the "list", here are some cases in point:
---- 10 years ago, let's not forget the truly horrible audio out of an Elecraft K3, and its surprisingly rather noisy synthesizer which made its DR noise-limited, i.e. poor RMDR....And, of course, it's poor transmit IMD! (now, except for its audio amp / path, no question it did had a good receiver, but was really only designed to be a CW rig) And, yes, improvements have been made over the years...
https://www.dj0ip.de/app/download/5794190002/Elecraft+K3+rev+c.pdf
(Oh, and don't forget that the highly touted K2 was easily trounced by rigs many years older than it!)
---- And, the current top of the list, the Yaesu FTdx-101D....well, just read Rob's report! Transmit ALC issues, ALC-overshoot, etc., and overall power spikes....rather harsh keying waveform, etc., and even QSK issues...(the ALC issues and keying waveform continue a poor Yaesu tradition, I'm afraid), but also has a bandscope anomaly, and like most modern rigs (sans the Apache ANAN's and the K3) has serious receiver AGC issues on noise pulses...not to mention, like many "modern" rigs, has rather average-to-poor transmit IMD, and unlike the FTdx-5000 (and 9000, and even the old FT-1000), no provision for "Class A" transmit operation (although with their ALC issues, Class A operations from these other Yaesu's needed to be done with precision...little-to-no processing and NO ALC action...in order for any significant improvement in transmit purity)
But, heck....it's on the top of the list, it must be great, right? Shaking my head...
https://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/sherwood-hf-xcvr-tests/yaesu-ftdx-101d/
---- Of course, the recent "hot girl" that every ham wants to get their hands on, and test drive....the Icom IC-7300....no dispute that, for the price, it's got a lot going for it.....but, it ain't perfect...(of course, no rig is perfect!) And, again, some improvements have come and sometimes errors are made in the tests / reports (see the two-samples report)...
In some hams' opinions, the IC-7300 is a better radio than the current king-of-the-hill, the FTdx-101D...even with its close-in 2-tone IMD3 being 13db to 16db worse than that of the FTdx-101D, many hams think the 7300 to be a better radio...oh, the horror! :) LOL
https://www.dj0ip.de/app/download/5806181195/Icom+IC-7300+A.pdf
https://www.dj0ip.de/app/download/5811576452/Icom+7300+Two+Samples+D.pdf
{BTW, personally I'm still not a fan of "computer radios".....but, the Apache ANAN 7000 / 8000 have great transmit purity / IMD (with their pre-distortion)...and, while I'm still not a convert to direct-sampling SDR's (not even ones with "knobs"), the Icom IC-7610 does look nice, even in my eye.....and while I'm not going to buy an IC-7300, to be clear I don't think it is evil, nor one of the seven signs of the apocalypse!}
To get a better understanding of the "list" and the numbers there....have a look at what Rob writes:
"Blocking:
Blocking occurs when the radio is just beginning to overload from a signal outside the passband. It is usually about 30 dB above the Dynamic Range of the radio (to be described below). If a radio has a good dynamic range, then it will have a good blocking number. 130 dB is a good number. With direct sampling radios, blocking is technically not the correct term. An A to D converter has an absolute overload point, unlike a 1 or 3 dB gain compression point. Note: Instantaneous overload from many strong signals may cause the overload indicator flicker, but may not have an audible side effect."
"Phase Noise:
Old radios (Collins, Drake, Hammarlund, National) used a VFO or PTO and crystal oscillators to tune the bands. Any noise in the local oscillator (LO) chain was minimal. When synthesized radios came along in the 70s, the LO had noise on it. It is caused by phase jitter in the circuit, and puts significant noise sidebands on the LO. This can mix with a strong signal outside the passband of the radio and put noise on top of the weak signal you are trying to copy.
This is a significant problem in some cases: You have a neighboring ham close by, during Field Day when there are multiple transmitters at the same site, and certainly in a multi-multi contest station. You would like the number to be better that 130 dBc / Hz at 10 kHz. [corresponding to a RMDR of about 103db] A non-synthesized radio, such as a Drake or Collins, has so little local oscillator noise the measurements were made closer-in between 2 and 5 kHz.
Note: Very few legacy superhet radios have low phase noise, though most direct sampling radios have low phase noise. The ARRL has clearly emphasized low phase noise (RMDR) since 2013. (RMDR = Reciprocal Mixing Dynamic Range) To convert my LO Noise (dBc/Hz) column data to RMDR subtract 27 dB for a 500-Hz bandwidth."
"Dynamic Range:
Now we get to the nitty gritty. I started testing radios in 1976 because the ARRL rated the Drake R-4C very good, but in a CW contest it was terrible. The radio overloaded in a CW pile-up, so I decided to figure out what was wrong with their testing. In 1975 the League [the ARRL] had started testing for noise floor and dynamic range, new terms for most amateurs. Spurious Free Dyanmic Range measures how the radio can handle strong undesired signals at the same time as a weak desired signal, without overload. When a radio overloads, it starts generating spurious signals on its own.
Dynamic range is defined as the level in dB when two strong test signals make distortion in the radio equal to the noise floor. The radio thus can handle that range of signals before the strong signals just start to overload the radio.
The League originally only tested the dynamic range at 20-kHz test spacing, which was reasonable at the time. But as multi-conversion radios became the norm, this test was inadequate. The Drake example was a case in point. When the two test signals are 20 kHz apart, the overload distortion products are 20 kHz each side of the pair of test signals. In other words, the League was testing as if the QRM was always going to be 20 and 40 kHz away! In reality the QRM is likely going to be close by.
In 1977 I published an article in “ham radio magazine” [Dec 1977, Ham Radio, page 10 - 18]discussing this subject. I tested the offending R-4C at 2 kHz in addition to 20 kHz. In that case the 20-kHz dynamic range was over 80 dB, but the 2-kHz dynamic range was less than 60 dB.
The roofing filter of the R-4C is 8-kHz wide, and in a CW contest, there were many signals inside that 8-kHz filter, overloading the radio. I installed a 600 Hz roofing filter in the R-4C, and the problem went away. When testing the Sherwood modified R-4C at 2 kHz, the dynamic range was over 80 dB, just like it was with the 20-kHz test.
Most radios in the 70s and 80s had gone to up-conversion for two reasons. This got rid of the necessity of a preselector, and it allowed general coverage without a dead spot equal to the first IF frequency. In the up-conversion radio, the first IF was always above 10 meters, and often above 6 meters. All first IF filters were at least 15 kHz wide, and there was the problem. The Drake 8-kHz first IF was bad enough, and now almost all the radios for 20+ years had a first IF what was at least 15-kHz wide. Almost all of them had a close-in dynamic range around 70 dB. That was barely adequate for SSB and inadequate for CW.
For more than 40 years I have been testing radios, and I decided to sort the table on my website by close-in dynamic range at 2-kHz spacing. This was the “acid test” for CW contest / DX pile up operation.
In 2003 the Ten-Tec Orion came along, and it went back to a 9 MHz first IF (instead of 40 to 70 MHz), and offered a narrow CW roofing filter, like I had added to the Drake. It was the first commercial rig to be better than the Sherwood roofing filter modified R-4C. Later the Elecraft K3 came to market, and now Yaesu and Kenwood have what is now called “down-conversion” radios with a low frequency first IF.
What do you need in the way of close-in dynamic range? You want a number of at least 70 dB for SSB, and at least 80 dB for CW. A 10 dB safety factor would be nice, so that means you would prefer 80 dB for SSB and 90 dB for CW. Now there are approximately 20 radios that meet that specification."
Now, in addition to reading the test reports and product reviews....even when you look at just some test result "numbers" of different rigs on the list, you will find that sometimes things are more complicated than just the "numbers" might show (similar to how things were 45 years ago, when Rob started his quest for a better receiver....when a stock Drake R4C "tested" good in the lab in Newington, but fell apart on-the-air in 160m CW contest....the numbers weren't the story...and, looking on the other side of the transceiver just like today's receiver "numbers" of the FTdx-101d, K3s, etc. etc. don't tell the story, nor do they show transmitter issues!!)
In addition to the modern radios mentioned above, here's an old case-in-point here, regarding receiver numbers:
A Drake TR-7....a high-quality legacy HF rig, from the 1970's (this is a high-quality DBM "up-conversion" HF rig, with a circa 1975 design VCO/synthesizer, mixer, etc.) that I personally know very well...(but, hey...I'm no DeMaw, Hayward, Rohde, etc....these are the guys I learned from, and have probably forgotten more than most will ever grasp about receiver design!)
I own/operate two TR-7s, the first one I bought new in 1978, the second I bought used about 20 years ago.....I understand their design pretty well, as well as have a good deal of time operating them in various environs....used them at home and in the field on 160m contests, Field Days, 75m DX'ing and ragchewing, casual 40m and 20m operating....and also one on-board, offshore at sea, on ocean-going yachts...
A cool fact of life for the TR-7 is that, except for the comparatively-noisy VCO/synthesizer, it actually holds its own against many of the modern 21st Century HF ham rigs made in the past few years (that have 40 years newer / more advanced technology)....and, of course, the TR-7's transmitter is a lot nicer than just about any other ham HF rig made today, or in the past almost 40 years!
So, using the Drake TR-7 "numbers"....
a) It has a BlockingDR of 146db (only recently beaten by the $12,000 IC-7851, and the multi-thousand dollar rigs, the Elecraft K3s / Yaesu FTdx-101d).....which if you use Rob's general rules / calculations, would mean that the TR-7 has a "Dynamic Range" (2-tone IMD3 ) of 116db? But, of course, it doesn't....(it's actually 99db wide-spaced, and 75db close-in)
b) It's Reciprocal Mixing Dynamic Range (RMDR), which is a strong signal (one signal) mixing with the "noise" of the synthesizer/VCO is approx. 90db, which is adequate even for today...(10 - 20db worse than the modern hi-end 21st Century rigs near the top of the "list", but pretty good in comparison to many radios out there....and certainly state-of-the-art 45 years ago, when, in 1975, the TR-7 was designed)
c) The measured "Dynamic Range" (2-tone IMD3) is 99db wide-spaced, and 75db close-in...not surprising as the 1st IF filter (aka "roofing filter") is only 4-poles and 9khz wide...
The reason I'm writing this here, is not convince anyone that my old favorite (Drake TR-7) is so much better than today's modern rigs, but rather just to show that the TR-7's excellent wide-spaced IMD3 of 99db and its outstanding146db BDR, are quite good.....and its RMDR is about 90db, and it's close-in IMD3 is 75db, are not that bad....I mean, we did actually make contacts back in the old days, you know!
Fyi, the TR-7's position on the list is way above that of the Elecraft K2 and right next to the Icom IC-756ProII and ProIII, and near the IC-7600 / IC-7700 and the TS-590s (in up-convert bands)....and remember that the TR-7's design/manufacture is 30 - 35+ years older than those "modern, 21st Century radios"...yep a 45 year old TR-7 can trounce an Elecraft K2 in about category!!! And, is as good (better in some applications) than the '7600/'7700, and ProII's and III's....But, you never hear anyone say that, do you....nope....that's 'cuz it doesn't fit with the "accepted lore"....but, it is true!! :)
Remember that while we've seen "100db radios" being advertised for decades, this wasn't really reality until the 2010's....things didn't really improve until about 10 years ago....and, what 'da know, somehow hams were making contacts (CW, SSB, RTTY, etc.) on the HF bands for many decades, in times of solar minimums and solar maximums....how was that possible without a "100db" radio? (maybe it was magic?...hmmm?)
And, let's please remember that except in serious CW contest pile-ups, these numbers (of the TR-7, and some others) are more than adequate for most other HF ham operations, even in today's crowded bands, and most contest environs....the TR-7 is actually to this day (along with the IC-781) is considered one of the best legacy HF rigs, especially in SSB operations!
And, while not 100% on topic, the TR-7's Noise Blanker (the $175 optional NB-7), is considered by most radio engineers and every ham that's ever used it, to be one of the best noise blankers ever made....it does not ever degrade receiver performance (even in crowded contest conditions) and it friggin' works! It remove impulse noise / most powerline noise, from S-9+ down to S-0...without disrupting the receiver....
{this is one reason that I decided to not try to narrow the first IF filter ("roofing filter") from its designed 9khz width (and only 4-poles), as I didn't want to change the input noise shape, thereby reducing the blanker's effectiveness, in order to just gain a few db of close-in rec IMD performance (heck, I'm mostly an SSB op, so no real improvement for me anyway)....
Although, I have thought of changing the VCO's (maybe employing only one VCO, as KA2WEU, Dr. Ulrich L. Rohde, suggested?) and a new mixer....to improve the RMDR....but, as I still haven't found it lacking in that criteria, I haven't yet done more than just think about it!}
BTW, Rob just recently exchanged his longtime favorite IC-781 in operating position #1 with an IC-7610, moving the '781 to position #3....how's that for longevity....the '781 is a late-'80's rig, 'ya know!...
Now, I'm certainly not a CW contester, but the fact is my 45-yr old design TR-7's are plenty good enough for 80m Dx'ing, etc. and 75m rag-chewing down here in Central Florida (where summertime static crashes can be 20+db over S-9)! And, they along with many other radios, are certainly able to hold there own even with today's crowded bands!}
While the RMDR and close-in IMD3 don't place the TR-7 anywhere near the top of "the list", they ain't bad....and, its 99db wide-spaced IMD3 and outstanding BDR of 146db, go a long way to keeping the TR-7 very competitive these days!
Yes, I know, the commonly-accepted adage that a high BlockingDR is meaningless if you have poor RMDR (i.e. noisy VCO/LO/Synthesizer)....and on paper / in the lab, yes this can be "proven", but in the real-world (like Field Day), this does not always ring true!
Just shows-to-go-ya', that looking at one "number" in a spec sheet or where a particular rig places on a "list", doesn't always tell the whole story! :)
I hope this finds some of you smiling....
73,
John, KA4WJA
-
John,
I enjoy reading your thoughts and, as you know, I share your thinking regarding supporting manufacturers producing transmitters with decent IMD characteristics. My 32S-3 (and the rest of the Collins S-line) is still in regular use and, over time, I’ve come to realize that such operation has quite an educational value – and not just for me! I get quite a few comments on the excellent communications audio and tightly contained spectrum and, in truth, I think it is an eye opener for hams too familiar with woofy, over-processed, over-driven signals amplified in poor PA stages. The basics have not changed since Collins published “Fundamentals of Single Sideband” although that volume is not widely known these days; maybe if I did an inane You-Tube video while reading it aloud using a shaky camera it might get a new audience 😉 Anyway, keep enjoying the TR-7 and underlining the IMD message.
One radio you might personally want to pay some attention to is the Kenwood TS-890S. It’s a very high performance superhet with excellent RF, LO and H-mode mixer stages. I think it still holds the top spot for blocking DR in the Sherwood list, and is well up the page in the other specs. More importantly, the style and ergonomics would probably suit you better than the other offerings you mention, while still offering a very modern interface and excellent bandscope. After a good deal of looking, I decided on an 890S myself. The class-leading transmit IMD was a factor, as was the ability to seamlessly do LF/MF transceive functions. The design emphases, form factor and excellent power control and setting capabilities were also important. No radio is perfect, as you note, but this one turns out to have fewer teething issues and vices than most of the current crop. I use the radio in a pretty noisy urban environment and as part of my development bench and have only minor gripes, such as the use of RCA connectors for some of the auxiliary analog I/O. Oh, and if you are interested, be sure and read post #34.
As you probably know, “class-leading” IMD really means “no better than it ought to be” in my book. But the 890S is 10 dB or so better than the most egregious offenders and actually pretty impressive for a 12 V radio. Driving an LDMOS KPA1500 with only the necessary minimal power (for our VK jurisdiction) the “modern” station transmit chain is pretty good, although I will migrate to a pre-distortion capable exciter when one becomes available in a format that meets my other requirements. That may be an Elecraft K4HD and I’m pleased the see that K4 beta testing is nearly finished and shipping imminent, COVID-19 and California bushfires having had a significant impact. I doubt that the configuration I want will be ready on Day 1, but it will be good to see yet another new radio in the field.
At the other end of the size range, I’ve spent a few days playing with an IC-705, which is an extremely capable little radio – effectively a shack in half a shoebox, with a good bandscope. It’s a bit quirky and replicates most of the IC-7300 shortcomings but, really, it’s hard to be too churlish when the format and capacity offer so much to those who need an ultra-portable radio. For me, though, the ergonomic issues (hardware and firmware) are too prominent to make it more than a curiosity. And I don’t know when ICOM will get the message that it’d be a good idea to cater for the LF/MF crowd by including at least a “drive” level output on those bands.
Anyway, it’s a cold day here, encouraging me to warm up the shack with the S-line and 30L-1!
73, Peter.
-
Peter,
Thanks for the nice idea....I've already done some shaky-camera work on some of my sailing videos....and I even dropped the camera once, while doing a HF radio comms video for my fellow sailors...
https://www.youtube.com/user/captainjohn49/playlists?disable_polymer=1
Maybe I can add some loud electro-music, and have teenagers following me on Tick-Toc? Hi hi :)
(and, btw, I had my TR-7 on-board sailing with me ~ 40 years ago....but, to be honest, I didn't do much ham operating, as I busy with other stuff on-board...and when needing long-range comms back then, we used the traditional crystal-controlled maritime HF radio, an SGC Intercontinental ONE.....the TR-7 didn't get used much on-board, back then....and now-a-days, I don't have the room for it and don't wish to expose her anymore than necessary, I mean she's a rather middle-aged girl, and she needs to be taken care of...)
As for working guys with your Collins....ah, sounds nice.... :)
Fyi, I use an old (50 year old?) Electrovoice 638 mic with my TR-7, and its 2.3khz transmit passband isn't "hi-fi" at all, and of course no processor in the TR-7, and I also get wonderful unsolicited reports....(although, I do get many unsolicited excellent reports from on-board, using the Icom M-802 HF Maritime rig, too.)
Okay, I don't want to drift further off topic, so....so, if I could only contribute two or three quick pieces of advice to share with my fellow hams in regards to what rig to choose, they would be these:
a) Choose a radio that you actually like using! One that is easy to listen to and easy-to-use, etc!
b) Choose a radio that meets your own needs, not what someone else says they need!
c) Choose a radio whose transmitter is clean! Just like not polluting our waterways, nor our land, nor our air....take some pride and don't pollute the airwaves with useless emissions that harm everyone!
Hmmm...I wonder if anyone will notice that I don't mention any "numbers" or "specs"?
Of course, there is a lot more (just read the postings above), but if I only had 15 to 20 seconds and a few sentences, those 3 would be it!
As for other radio suggestions....I did a cursory look at the TS-890 last year....but didn't look closely....I will do so next week...
But, with my present situation (caring for elderly family) and of course the economic issues here due to Covid, etc....I'm not buying a new rig now....maybe in a couple years?
(btw, my best friend has a TS-590SG, that he bought to make life easier for his wife to operate HF....and he thought he'd continue to use his TS-830s, just switch between the two....well, two years on now, and he uses the '590 daily, just firing up the '830 for a Saturday-night rag chew)
BTW, your mention of RCA connectors makes me smile....it seems many American radio manufactures must've gotten a great price on them back in the 60's and 70's, as Drake, Heathkit, Swan, etc. all seemed to use RCA phono connectors liberally! (Heathkit used to use 'em for 100-watt HF rig output jacks!!) Maybe Kenwood is using the same supplier? :)
And, regarding LF/MF....the TR-7's ext ant jack allows input/output from a transverter....and when grounding pin #8 of the TR-7's acc connector (which disables the entire PA), I have 0dbm transmit output (from up-converter board, and thru the hi-pass filter board) available on the "ext ant" jack for transverter operations (this is what I use for 144mhz EME, with my transverter).....but the hi-pass filter's lowest range has its stop-band starting at 1.75mhz, with the TR-7's "VLF" antenna jack bypassing the hi-pass filter, but it has a 20db pad in its path....all I have to do is bypass the 20db attenuator pad and/or rig a second output right at the up-converter board (upstream of the hi-pass filter) to allow LF / VLF operations, albeit at 0dbm transmit power, that's plenty to drive a multi-stage VLF amp....so, the 45 year old TR-7 is "one clip of resistor" or "one addition of a connector", away from LF/VLF transmit operations! :)
BTW, we had a cold front pass thru here a couple days ago, high temps dipped down to the mid-80's F (30 degrees C) for two days, but we're back up to low-mid-90's F (34 degrees C) now.... :)
FYI, in February of this year, after 10 days in NZ, I spent 16 days exploring Australia (and then a few days in Fiji on the way home).....we drove from Sydney to Port Augusta to Coober Pedy to Ayers Rock (a few thousand km driving on the left!)....then flew to Palm Cove Queensland, and spent 5 days there, exploring the rainforest, Great Barrier Reef, the beach, sailing, diving, etc...what a wonderful country you have! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NPi-StMMuc
73,
John, KA4WJA
-
John
Good advice, especially regarding the need to take pride in what your station emits. Personal responsibility always involves choices and trade-offs, and declaring oneself a passive consumer defeats a good deal of the mandated purpose of ham radio.
I understand the lure of sophistication: I had planned to use my TS-590S as the basis of the MF station but, inevitably, I find it hard to give up the 890S and now have that plumbed in on 630 m, as well as elsewhere. The classic TS-830S also gets a gallop occasionally, especially when I'm in the mood for easy-listening CW.
Glad you enjoyed the visit to Australasia - you just squeaked in of course, what with the COVID-19 developments. We now have a pretty limited travel regime, including interstate travel, but the payoff is essentially normal life and relatively few deaths. Having travelled too much over the last decade, I initially enjoyed the enforced quiet life but, with friends and colleagues scattered around the world, I now have to admit to feeling that I'd like to venture out. But we can't wish this thing away, so we do what we must. Anyway, I'm certainly looking forward to the North America trip that was postponed, and to some of the great driving routes you have, including a return to Zion National Park and NM. And yes, driving on the "wrong" side of the road is indeed more challenging in the quieter areas, requiring care and a lot of coffee.
73, Peter.
-
Any rig in the top 20 of Sherwood's list will outperform the abilities of most antennas and locations. QRM/QRM etc. All these factors will degrade reception more than you gain with a rig's great capabilities.
I would add the first 50 radios will outperform not only the operators but the locations by at least 20 dB.
I'd like to add to that comment like this: "Any rig in the top 20 of Sherwood's list will outperform the abilities of most antennas, locations and operators."
From operator comments over the past few years on these forums, it's clear that very few operators have any idea what the effects of a receiver performing poorly in the narrow-spaced IMD arena are, or what one can do to alleviate the symptoms when they occur. I've owned a couple of transceivers that were marginal in this area, and the only time any symptoms were observed were on 160 and 20 meters during contests where the band was loaded with very strong signals. Even then, the workaround was pretty simple - switch a bit of attenuation into the receiver antenna input and the IMD disappeared. As W8JI pointed out some time ago, any narrow-spaced IMD number of 80 or greater is adequate most of the time.
-
Mike, et al,
Remember, I love Rob! He has so much for ham radio, he should get a lifetime achievement award!
(especially from those who love R.L. Drake products!)
But, of course it's not just the top 50 radios on the list that will outperform the operators and locations...
I would add the first 50 radios will outperform not only the operators but the locations by at least 20 dB.
In my opinion, except for a few inexpensive "shortwave receivers" and a couple old clunkers (like an FT-101, or SB-303), just about every radio on Rob's list will perform adequately for most hams these days....
Heck, my first HF ham contacts (as a "3rd party", before I was licensed) in the early/mid 70's were on some old Collins gear at BCC, and a friends new TS-520....and, with todays modern RFI issues and HOA-restricted antenna systems, even the old TS-520 will still make lots of contacts! :)
And, the "top 50" or more, will do well in just about any situation, except for serious CW contesting....
Bottom Line:
....so, if I could only contribute two or three quick pieces of advice to share with my fellow hams in regards to what rig to choose, they would be these:
a) Choose a radio that you actually like using! One that is easy to listen to and easy-to-use, etc!
b) Choose a radio that meets your own needs, not what someone else says they need!
c) Choose a radio whose transmitter is clean! Just like not polluting our waterways, nor our land, nor our air....take some pride and don't pollute the airwaves with useless emissions that harm everyone!
Hmmm...I wonder if anyone will notice that I don't mention any "numbers" or "specs"?
Of course, there is a lot more (just read the postings above), but if I only had 15 to 20 seconds and a few sentences, those 3 would be it!
73,
John, KA4WJA
-
I've said many times before that the ultimate radio is clearly and obviously the Heathkit HW-101. Soft, gentle audio. Preselector and 400 Hz CW filter. Crystal calibrator and main oscillator phase noise to die for. Keeps your hands nice and warm in the glow from the tubes. Drifto-matic tuning that ensures every contact is an adventure. (sigh!) They really knew ho to build them, way back when!
How anybody could possible purchase and use transistorized terrors like the Yaesu FTDX-101D or the Icom IC-7300 is beyond me! Heck, they're no fun at all and pretty much work every time you turn them on! Their ALC is horrible - NO radio should have automatic gain control... it's "Un-Hamican". And the overshoot! Geeze! It lasts for milliseconds! Crimeny!
The HW-101 ALC was much better (it didn't really work) - and output simply went to 150 watts (on good 6146Bs) for a few seconds before it settled back to (about) 100 watts. Great for testing amplifier beefiness. If the amplifier wasn't "tube tough" it'd simply be barbequed. As above - a truly superior radio.
The HW-101 laughs at Sherwood's List, demonstrating how irrelevant stability, selectivity, dynamic range and band scopes really are! Because it's audio tone was the best (it really was, too) and all-important HFF figure (Having Fun Factor) was off the charts! (back in the day).
Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced mine and have to rely on the operator adored (see eham.net user reviews) but truly miserable FTDX-3000, which is far superior to the IC-7300 and FTDX-101D simply because it's band scope is far too small to be distracting (so I plug an SDRplay to its IF output port and gaze at my 2nd monitor, mesmerized and slack jawed).
Icom IC-7610, Flex-6600, Yaesu FTDX-101D and FTDX-10... all junk. More bugs in those radios than on a coyote walking through a flea circus. And I don't like their paint color, either.
Certainly not like the old (green) radios where there were no bugs at all. Just a few cute eccentricities. Including ones that could electrocute the operator if he or she was not paying attention. Exciting! And very useful to weed out no-code operators.
Ahem.
Well, time to get back on the radio. Everything from 10M to 80M was hopping today and tonight, including 60M, which was packed, wall to wall. Nice to be going into a solar upswing. And all I have to do is tell my computer what I want my (crappy) radio and amplifier to do and it very politely makes the contact for me using my "impossible" EFHW wire antenna (and others), thanks to Joe and FT-8. (He certainly deserves the ham equivalent of the Nobel Prize for leading JT and FT development - when "contributions to the hobby" are considered, Joe sets the standard. In fact, he reinvented it.).
Propagation is so good even my FTDX-3000s can close the link without a problem, aided by their wonderful but external OOB interference fighting MTU pre-selectors straight out of "Star Trek" (no, they are NOT made out of salt shakers!). Somehow the KAT-500 amplifier seems to survive the radios terrible ALC and TX overshoot (it really does overshoot - I've yet to see a radio that doesn't when output power is throttled back) while only smoking a little bit.
Thinking it over, maybe (just maybe) the new crop of radios could work well under these fine conditions. Even in a contest. Hmmmm. Have to try that thought out on Field Day. Which is coming right up. Or find the HW-101?
Best Regards!
Brian - K6BRN
-
WJA: Without really thinking about it followed your criteria for selection and ended up with a FTDX3kD. It does all that I need and more. The rcvr is simply outstanding and quiet. Not sure what the numbers are but it sounds great on xmit, been told that, and hears well. Even the internal speaker can be listened to for hour on end with no stress. I don't want to even look at the numbers as might then decide it was the wrong choice ::) Yes it has menus but most are set and forget. Did not think the display scope was needed but end up liking it now that its here. Not the very latest or greatest but how much radio does one really need. Added benefit, it is heavy enough to stay put on the operating position. 7300... not for me. Did not like the feel, different strokes for different folks. N7wr has every award known to man and is now using a FT1000. Enough said.
73's David
-
David (WX7CXC):
Yes, FTDX-3000 audio is very nice - not fatiguing at all, and the DNR works well.
Note that the West Mountain Radio clrDSP noise reduction unit (for some reason) seems to complement the FTDX-3000 DNR very well, providing an almost FM-like listening experience on SSB.
A big advantage to the FTDX-3000 that many overlook is it's plethora of I/O. RX out (RCA), IF out (9 MHz, broadband), RX only antenna, selectable (SO239), RX pre-filter in/out for MTUs (but other custom filters can connect here as well), three selectable antenna connector for TX/RX, USB and DB9 for CAT control (separate control electronics for each, too), built-in sound card ... and the list continues.
Not even the FTDX-101D has this much useful I/O
This allows a station to evolve a great deal, easily and incrementally.
For example, I added an SDR dongle to the RX output (SDRplay RSP-1) as a second receiver. Then I discovered the RSP-1 wasn't a terribly good HF receiver and moved it to the IF output where it provides a pretty good broadband band-scope, with an inset narroband display as well. Then Iconnected an Icom R75 to the RX output port, which allows the R75 to take advantage of FTDX-3000 front end filtering and pre-amps - works VERY well as an agile 2nd receiver. Addition of the MTUs has helped my out when a fellow ham a few houses over opens up his Elecraft KPA-1500 to full power - simply suppresses his signal when he's on an adjacent band.
It's a very versatile radio, with an obtuse menu system that takes a while to get used to - and it takes a while to understand the radio's capabilities because of this. Once mastered, the radio can really be made to shine.
Further examples: 1. Output power control can be reassigned to the "PROC/CARRIER" knob on the front - very handy for FT8 and other modes, 2. The contour control can be set to EMPHASIS mode and used to peak voice on SSB or CW - work very well, 3. The SHIFT control can be set to +750 Hz to move usable RX bandwidth for FT8 up to 3500 Hz while still maintaining good sensitivity down to less than 500 Hz on the band-scope. And the good news is that it's easy to move the "sweet spot" for sensitivity in real time, if needed.
Regarding AM use - it works fine on AM as well, despite some nay-sayers. Just ignore Yaesu's instruction and turn mic gain up (No, not all the way into compression - but crank it up past the recommended 1/3 point).
As you discover the radio, it grows on you and becomes even more fun to use.
But the HW-101 is still the best radio ever :)
Brian - K6BRN
-
Brian
I dont know about the 101 but the Dx100 was great, likely could not carry it across the room now though. Same for the HT32A! ( great visual appeal) Thanks for the info. Still learning the 3K. Moving the power out also helps with amp tuning. The MOX SW is to easy to bump. 73"s David
-
A rig may have great electronics but, if the ergonomics ****, you won't enjoy operating it.
Case in point: I recently sold my FT-817nd. Since my manual dexterity is somewhat challenged, operations requiring you to push two buttons at the same time were a nuisance. Also look for push buttons or other located at the lower edge of the front panel; I had to elevate the 817nd on wooden blocks to access a control or two.
Before shelling out for a rig, go to a dealer and try it out from the ergonomics angle.
IMO: Ergonomics can make or break a rig no matter how great a performer it is.
Fully agree! These days, outside a major field-day type contest, pretty much any of the current production of HF transceivers will perform well enough in pure RF terms. It is ergonomics that make a rig.
Martin (G8FXC)
-
Mike, et al,
Remember, I love Rob! He has so much for ham radio, he should get a lifetime achievement award!
(especially from those who love R.L. Drake products!)
But, of course it's not just the top 50 radios on the list that will outperform the operators and locations...
I would add the first 50 radios will outperform not only the operators but the locations by at least 20 dB.
In my opinion, except for a few inexpensive "shortwave receivers" and a couple old clunkers (like an FT-101, or SB-303), just about every radio on Rob's list will perform adequately for most hams these days....
Heck, my first HF ham contacts (as a "3rd party", before I was licensed) in the early/mid 70's were on some old Collins gear at BCC, and a friends new TS-520....and, with todays modern RFI issues and HOA-restricted antenna systems, even the old TS-520 will still make lots of contacts! :)
And, the "top 50" or more, will do well in just about any situation, except for serious CW contesting....
Bottom Line:
....so, if I could only contribute two or three quick pieces of advice to share with my fellow hams in regards to what rig to choose, they would be these:
a) Choose a radio that you actually like using! One that is easy to listen to and easy-to-use, etc!
b) Choose a radio that meets your own needs, not what someone else says they need!
c) Choose a radio whose transmitter is clean! Just like not polluting our waterways, nor our land, nor our air....take some pride and don't pollute the airwaves with useless emissions that harm everyone!
Hmmm...I wonder if anyone will notice that I don't mention any "numbers" or "specs"?
Of course, there is a lot more (just read the postings above), but if I only had 15 to 20 seconds and a few sentences, those 3 would be it!
73,
John, KA4WJA
John,
I second your nomination of Rob for a lifetime achievement award!
Take a look at my attempt to build upon Rob’s measurements, putting ALL 9 of them into a single rig Rx index, and relate them to price and satisfaction:
https://foxmikehotel.com/hamography/studies/
See the full study linked on the above page and the edited versions published in NCJ in two parts.
73,
Frank
K4FMH
-
Frank,
1) Thank you for all that hard work!!
And, yes Rob's list is a nice resource for us (and again, I think he's great)....but, I still think this fascination for / concentration on a "list" is mostly folly for most hams.....(yeah, it's great to see what's out-there and how it performs....but, for most it's just a dream....and, I'm planning on a rather lengthy post describing my own personal rig choices / criteria, over the past ~ 45 - 50 years, with explanation / reasons for the choices, so while it won't be a statistical analysis, and it didn't use Rob's list, I do hope some will find it useful?)
As I, and many others (including Rob Sherwood, himself), have been saying for years: The list is just a list, and is not a way to choose a radio, as there are many other criteria! (see my earlier posts here, for quotes from Rob, etc.) Rob does this testing, and assembles the "list" by narrow-spaced rec IMD3 results, in order to best organize a list of radios that can serve well in tight/crowded/competitive CW Contest conditions, primarily for big-guns with big antennas, etc...and, important to understand that some of the measurements are a bit moot for most hams, as some are geared towards those out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere, in "quiet rural" RF locations....with large directional antennas, and/or some measurements are similar for most modern radios, these days...
Anyone else using the "list" to choose a rig, is.....well, they're probably wasting time and money....and as long as they understand this, that's cool / no worries! :)
A case on-point, of someone that does understand the limitations of their station location and the particulars of "the list": I know a gentleman, in a "planned-community", in a zero-lot-line townhouse, who loves 75m rag chewing.....but has been unable to get a decent 80m horz antenna up, but has gotten a small vertical up (and quite a few short radials), and has a big OM Power amp (a tetrode amp, that is sensitive to ALC spikes / overdrive)....who tried an FTdx-101d (you know, It topped the list, so he thought it would be great)....he was never able to use all of what that receiver could do, but no matter he has the $$$$ to spend....BUT.....but, he splattered (buckshot up/down the band) so bad (even his friends were telling him so) with the ALC issues of that 101d, combined with the tetrode amp, that he gave up....he now uses an ANAN (with its pre-distortion) and is MUCH happier....of course he still can't use all that the ANAN can do, but he loves it and he no longer splatters, so all is good!
2) But, there are guys with end-fed-half-waves, with lossy feed baluns/unun's, strung up 15' high, in suburban lots, etc. that are spending 1000's of $$$$ on rigs at (or near) the top of "the list"....and in my opinion, that is folly! :(
On the opposite end of the spectrum, are the big-guns with stacked-yagis on multiple towers, 8-circle rec arrays, etc.....and the big Multi-Multi stations with as many as a dozen operating positions and as many towers as national forests have trees! But, even these guys can get by with a middle-of-the-pack HF rig for SSB operations...although the Multi-Multi guys do need to assure clean transmitters....of course for serious CW contesting, this is where the "narrow-spaced rec IMD3 spec" and the "narrow-spaced RMDR spec", is paramount....and, hence "the list"!
3) When I read your post, I thought "cool!".....then I saw it was a statistical analysis, and thought "oh no"....(you see, while I majored in Physics, I actually dropped a "Stats" class, after the drop date, 'cuz I just couldn't take it, made my head hurt :), but, I have a LOT of respect for those that are great statistical analysts...)
When I read thru what you did, I found it interesting....but, to be honest there are data points (specs on Rob's list) that all but irrelevant and may be interfering with the final analysis? Maybe I'm wrong and your analysis isn't effect by them, but thought you may be interested in some further insight (heck, it might spur you to do another analysis)...
As well as my concern using eham reviews as accurate data.....now, I love eham, but when someone spends their dollars on something, especially lots of $$$$, especially on something as big of a deal as a new HF rig, I find reviews to be "questionable" data...
But, my only serious concern is that (except for the 30 rigs in the top quartile) we can only see the "top 10" and "bottom 10".....when it's the middle-of-the-pack on the list, that are the radios most often used, and most often compared...
4) Frank, while I do applaud you for doing this, in my opinion using some of those test categories / measurements to try to correlate into one index (the "SPI"), might be a problem....(maybe not, but let me explain....remember that many of his measurements are rather moot for most hams, as they are geared towards those out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere, in "quiet rural" RF locations....with large directional antennas....not for the "average ham")
Look at what Rob, himself, writes in describing the different measurements....or even better, read what I write here, to see what are the really important measurements to look at / do a stat analysis of...(you only need 5 or 6...of course if your really want to do a stat analysis of HF rigs, have a look at their occupied bandwidth / transmit IMD... :) )
HF Rec Noise Floor, Sensitivity, and AGC Threshold, are numbers that, for all practical purposes, you could leave out of the calculations.
a) Regarding the "Noise Floor" (3dbMDS=Minimum Discernible Signal with 3db S/N), spec (in a 500hz, CW Bandwidth), unless someone has their station out in the middle of nowhere, in a very RF "quiet rural" area, there is little chance of anyone ever having ambient noise floor as low as most receivers noise floors (especially on 15m and below)...so, this spec is rather moot these days.
b) And while "sensitivity" spec is based on a 10db S+N/N (in a 2.4khz "SSB" Bandwidth), just as with the actual rec noise floor spec (done with a 3db S/N), all HF ham rigs made in the past 40 - 50 years have plenty of "sensitivity" and can make a 10db S/N with no issues, at "sub-micorvolt levels"...so this spec is also rather moot now-a-days.
c) AGC Threshold changes as you vary the RF Gain (and/or switch on-off pre-amps and/or attenuators).....and after the VFO, the RF Gain is the next most often used control on an HF ham rig....so, while actual AGC operation, making sure it doesn't "pump", or doesn't respond to very short noise pulses (something many modern radios do!), are very important....these days taking an AGC Threshold measurement into the heap of numbers to compile an "SPI", seems rather moot as well.
d) Front-end selectivity spec....well, this is a judgement call whether you include this spec or not, I mean, it is an important spec, but since almost all modern radios (made in the past 40 - 45 years) have adequate RF selectivity, this spec has just about passed it's usefulness to be included in a statistical analysis.....but, probably won't effect the results...
5) And, how do "weigh" the other specs? What priority do you place on them? Or should we even try to place them in some priority (probably not)?
Those are great questions, and the answers are: "it depends".... :)
Most of all, It depends on what the application is....as we all know, for the average HF casual SSB rag chewing ham, in suburban areas, etc....anything except the very bottom few on the list will work! Heck, there are still guys yacking away on FT-101's (9th from the bottom) and TS-520's (19th from the bottom), now they unlikely to be winning contests with them, but casual HF SSB rag chews are no problem....
Of course the "Narrow-spaced Dynamic Range" spec, and the "Wide-spaced Dynamic Range" spec are what everyone raves about (and are the meat of "the list"), but in my opinion when looking at the list (other than transmit IMD, ergonomics, reliability, easy-to-listen to, etc.) "Phase Noise", "Blocking Dynamic Range", and "Ultimate Filter", are the additional things to put into a statistical analysis. And, I'd add RMDR, as well....which can be approximated by subtracting 27 from the "phase noise" spec in Rob's list...
Some might question whether "Blocking DR" and "Ultimate Filter rejection", should be included in a statistical analysis, but I say yes....Blocking DR is an important spec to see how strong of a signal a rec can actually handle without desense or overloading, which is important to many hams these days, not to mention important if using a rec as a "monitor receiver" and/or using a separate rec, and/or a separate rec with separate rec antenna, etc. etc... and of course "Ultimate Filter" is still an important spec for a lot of hams, especially those in crowded locations/bands, etc. and especially if in a multi-multi situation, and/or also if the rec has low-phase noise (otherwise any rig attempting "ultimate filter rejection" over ~ 90db, you're not likely to ever see that, as you'd be seeing phase noise distortion products....i.e. from reciprocal mixing of the signals with the noise of the oscillators)....older rigs with low "ultimate filter" specs are usually from filter blow-by....so, again, while this is an important spec for some, and I do think it should be included in a statistical analysis study, it can be confusing to some...
So, is it even possible to qualify / prioritize these specs and have everyone be able to use a SPI? Possibly yes...
And, we come back to what we have now....we have a "list" of some RECEIVE specs (NOT transmit specs), that are cool to know, and nice for some to quasi-evaluate some rigs against each other, but only significantly useful to a select few hams (serious CW contesters, in particular)...
6) Now throw into the mix personal reviews (eham, or others?) of various radios.....and you have many reviews from folks who have little HF experience (many HF operators these days run everywhere with the RF Gain cranked all-the-way-up....and/or always have a pre-amp on...etc.), and even those with experience and/or knowledge, some are hindered by antenna restrictions, neighborhood RFI, etc. that prevent a real evaluation of a radio's capabilities....
So, how do you evaluate the quality of the reviews? (maybe you don't, and "it all comes out in the wash" of the statistical analysis?)
To sum up....it's great that you did this, and I'm sure it helps some....just that part of me wishes it didn't continue to build on the myth that you can use "the list" to choose a rig. :)
Fair winds and 73,
John, KA4WJA
P.S. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow, I'll have the time to finish my rig choice history / reasons, and my detailed thoughts....hoping this will shed some more light on things, from a personal (this is what I chose, and why) perspective, rather than just looking at one list? :)
-
Frank,
In case it didn't come through well in my post of earlier this afternoon, I do appreciate your hard work!! :)
(although not my intent, when I reread my post, I realized that it might come off as critical...so, in case it does, I'm sorry....sometimes my ramblings just go on a bit too much...hi hi...)
Okay, gotta' go.
73,
John, KA4WJA
-
Frank,
In case it didn't come through well in my post of earlier this afternoon, I do appreciate your hard work!! :)
(although not my intent, when I reread my post, I realized that it might come off as critical...so, in case it does, I'm sorry....sometimes my ramblings just go on a bit too much...hi hi...)
Okay, gotta' go.
73,
John, KA4WJA
Hi John,
No worries. I think several of your Qs are because the statistical analysis was something one needs to digest a bit to appreciate exactly how those questions were actually addressed in the study.
Rob Sherwood was in contact with me during my analysis. He joined me on this talk to the Bury ARS recently and addresses a number of issues and questions that your post raised. You might get clarification through it here: https://youtu.be/mjquy-iVpW4.
Note that I explicitly state that my study is NOT to identify which exact rig to buy! Rather, it was to rule out many rigs that simply do not receive nearly as well as a smaller subset. And, if one does not think hams who post their satisfaction with a given rig on eHam is valid, why should we think their assessment is more valid? They are all valid to the individual poster.
Finally, money does not guarantee a high performing receiver that has been well-received by the amateur community. However, he may identify such a rig that may cost more than others. But, then, there are a number of others that meet the same objective criteria that cost a whole lot less! My study clearly identifies how much more we are indeed willing to pay for features and ergonomics. That’s not what a majority of hams who post about rigs appear to think and was the impetus for my study.
-
Frank,
1) Wow, I love it! I just watched your video presentation, and I love it!
a) Something that I didn't grasp from your earlier posting (that I now understand), is that you are not trying to find the "best" rig, nor are you advocating statistical analysis be used to find the "best" rig, and actually seem to imply / mention correctly that there might not be a "best" (which is good!)....and, are actually trying to see if prices "buys" performance and satisfaction. Duh!?
b) Also, I now understand the reasoning (statistician, I'm not!) of using all nine "specs" together into a composite index....maybe not my choice as a non-statistician, but I do understand it. :)
c) I also understand how you got the "price" data.
Although, this does also make me wonder if there is an "easy" way to look at the "price" based-on price of the radio when purchased by the reviewer (adjusted to current dollars), rather than the MSRP, when new? (I understand this removes the manufacturers' "signal" from the discussion, but it might also give a better indication of "bang-for-the-buck", as many quality radios [particularly those no longer manufactured] are available at significantly less cost than their 2019-adjusted MSRP...perhaps you could incorporate this into your next analysis, when looking at transmit performance?)
Don't ya' just love it, when someone says "great job" and then asks for more? :)
d) Oh, and now that I grasp how you used the stats of the eham reviews...(embarrassed that I didn't grasp that from your earlier posting....now you know why I dropped my stats-n-probability class!)...I'm now actually motivated to write some product reviews....especially of my beloved TR-7's!!
So, thanks!! :)
2) Frank, I find myself in a tough spot....'cuz I love what you've done....but I do have an issue with something....so, please take this as polite disagreement between fellow hams, nothing personal! :)
a) It's just that this isn't really a statistical analysis of "rig" performance, price and satisfaction....but rather that of "receiver" performance, transceiver price and satisfaction..
That is great! And, I commend you on mentioning this in your presentation (along with your desire to look at transmit performance in the future)!
I'd just wish you'd have stressed that fact more, and maybe titled the presentation "Does Price Buy Receiver Performance or Satisfaction, in an HF Transceiver?" That way everyone would understand the important subtlety of only comparing performance of half the transceiver. :)
While I do understand the ease of using the word "rig" (I do this, myself), in this situation (when using only receiver test results) using the word "rig" can be problematic....and in my opinion, can be confusing (at best) to many new hams and/or those new to HF comms.
{Although every modern ham HF transceiver has a mic gain control, and most newer transceivers also have adjustable power-output (and a very few have transmit audio equalizer and/or transmit-width/passband adjustment....with the older/classic tube and hybrid transceivers having PA tuning/loading adjustments), the facts are that hams don't have much in the way of transmitter "adjustments" or "features"....and placing the mic gain control in an easily-accessible location is a no-brainer...So.}
So, when it comes to "features", "ergonomics", "adjustments" of our transceivers, it is clear that most of these are "receiver-based"...hence the conundrum.
So, if hams desire to see what is the "best" receiver for their application, that's cool! Rob has given all of us a great table of data to look thru and evaluate. And Frank, you've compiled a great deal of data and analysis, that is so wonderfully done, I can't believe anyone did it!!! And, it is sure to help out a lot!
But, all of that is only taking into account half of the "rig", the receiver.....(oh, and yes...we all know that it's the antennas and operator skill that makes the most difference, but that's a whole 'nother topic)
b) So, I'm still left with lingering thoughts....I love Rob and what he has done over the decades for ham radio, etc....and I love what he has done for my fav radios (R.L. Drake radios)....and for decades now I have read articles penned by him, and of course, I've watched his presentations, and I glance at his list to see what's been added/updated.
But, in your presentation and slides, you state that "The Sherwood Tables are generally the Holy Grail of rig evaluations from a workbench assessment"....here I disagree with you....as Rob's "tables" (aka the "list") are tabulations of receiver tests, not of the whole "rig". Sure, they're a great resource and I do appreciate them, and use them to get a handle on modern receiver capabilities, but they are about the receivers.
I know some might think I'm being a jerk here, worrying about semantics and/or twisting things around to fit my argument / narrative....but, please understand I'm not....I am stating my long-held, (and long publicly-stated), opinion that looking at a "list" of receiver specs is nice, but it is not a way to choose a rig! [although your statistical analysis is getting closer to being a good guide] And, in my opinion, using the phrase "rig" when only looking at receiver test results, will continue the myths and probably add to the confusion of new hams / hams new to HF comms.
Of course, Rob does highlight some horrible transmit issues in some of his test reports (and I LOVE that!) as well as telling us all (for almost 20 years now), that in SSB operations it is NOT the receiver that is the limiting factor, but rather the transmit IMD / transmit spectral purity of all of our transmitters that is the limiting factor! But, the list is about the receivers!
3) Frank, in regards to your future analysis of transmitters....Wow, do I wish you luck! (I think you may need it!)
a) First off, we have many hams discussing receiver specs / test results and making choices of transceiver based only on test results of one half of the "rig"? And, that's a big obstacle to overcome!
b) Then you have the issue that most of the "features and ergonomics" are receiver-based.
c) The transmit spectral purity / transmit IMD data is out there for all....but you'll likely have some issues with it:
1- You must look at (and use) all the IMD data, especially the higher-order IMD products, NOT just the oft-quoted 3rd order (which is usually in the SSB transmit passband, or just on the skirt).
As, it is the 5th and 7th order products that most often fall into the immediately adjacent stations QSO, and the 7th and 9th order products that fall a few khz farther up/down from your transmit passband.
Have a look at the typical human voice freqs (especially those of "loud" and "shouted", which would be typical in contests and dx-pileups) and you'll grasp which and where these will produce IMD products....and, you should be able to see why marketing folks quoting only IMD3 specs are touting rather moot points for SSB-Voice operations....
(https://i.ibb.co/3SFJRrx/TR-7-human-speech.jpg)
(and, please be aware that it's not just the design/tuning of the PA, and its drive/output levels, that effects its overall IMD levels, but in many cases, various products will fall into a null or rise on a peak, as the drive/output level is changed....meaning that one PA may have a great IMD3 spec and a poor IMD7 at a certain drive/output level, but a great IMD7 spec and a worse IMD3 spec, at a different drive/output level...which is a reason why, even I, am hesitant to make wide blanket statements based only on one set of test results...I usually back those up with on-air experiences.)
2- You must also look at the ALC issues (not just initial overshoot), that can cause rather strong buckshot (MUCH higher than a static IMD product) up/down the band +/-15 - 20khz or more...many modern rigs have this issue (especially the modern Yaesu's)
3- Some manufactures' transmitter designs/tuning/specs changed over the years (same model, different design/tuning/specs)....and, some radios weren't the "standard" 100-watt radios...
Case in point, the Drake TR-7 originally spec'd as 150-watt output (and ARRL testing done at that power), but shortly after debut was spec'd at "125 watt" output (with slightly different tuning), with improved IMD [note the maritime/commercial TR-77 and TR-4310, which met the older (more stringent) Part 80 cert, have the same PA as the TR-7, meeting the older (very stringent) Part 80 specs at 125 watts out]...making it better than any ham HF made in the past 45 years (excluding the FT-1000 MkV, etc. in Class A, and better than any ham HF rig made today, except for an ANAN with pre-distortion turned-on) (see my personal TR-7's scans, and that's a 43-yr-old rig that needs an alignment!)....and a still further slight redesign of the PA after the first year or so of production further improved its transmit IMD.
Some older/classic rigs, such as the Icom IC-781 (which used to be Rob's favorite rig) and the JRC JST-245, etc. were 150-watt radios....and the IC-775 and TS-480HX, were 200-watt radios, as were some of the Yaesu "MP's", etc...as well as an ANAN-8000, etc.
So, do you run them all at 100 watts to compare them with most other rigs? Apples-to-apples? Or do you just run 'em wide open, and let the poorer transmit IMD from the "marketing guys" prevail? Or (my best advice) do you run them right where the factory says to?
4- Do you take only the ARRL IMD test data (I suspect yes)? Do you squint hard and look at the scans available to get the higher order products that weren't usually reported years ago? Do you use "updated" data? And, do you simply use the db(PEP) numbers for clarity/consistency, or do you use the db(c) numbers (and possibly confuse some folks)?
5- Remember, in addition to ranting about this for a couple decades, a few years ago I put together pages of transmit IMD specs (from ARRL test results) for all to see....and, most of the responses are in the vein of "it's not a big problem", "it's only the guys who crank-up their mic gains, and/or over-drive their amps", etc...but, if they actually read the data and listen to the guys on-the-air...they might just see-the-light....(like the "buckshot" I hear from the new FTdx-101) [fyi, heard my first 101MP just this past week, splattering almost as bad as the 101d].
You may find these pages useful?
https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,97093.msg1053647.html#msg1053647
https://www.eham.net/forum/view?id=index.php/topic,97093.105.html%3f
https://www.eham.net/forum/view?id=index.php/topic,100600.0.html%3f
Sorry about the missing pics and spectral scans....I used tinypic as a hosting site and as you know, they no longer save archives....so, most of those are lost.... :(
BTW, I do practice what I preach....using a older/legacy rig (Drake TR-7) with clean transmitter and a nice Alpha amp....giving me a clean signal that doesn't pollute the airwaves....just makin' sure everyone knows I ain't talking outa' both sides of my mouth here... :)
So, here is a recent (March 26, 2021) 2-tone IMD test of one of my TR-7's, showing 3rd/5th/7th/9th IMD products at -43db(PEP) / -46db(PEP) / -50db(PEP) / -57.5 db(PEP) [subtract 6db, for db(c)] Not bad for a 43-year-old radio (that needs an alignment), huh?
(https://i.ibb.co/WKd6DJ2/TR-7-IMD.png)
[fyi, that's better than the wicked expensive (and 50vdc PA) TS-990s and IC-7800....and as much as 10db better than an IC-7300 or K3/K3S (and who wants products going on and on, like a K3?)....and 10 - 12db better than an IC-7600....and 12 - 21db better than a FT-991 or FT-857/897, etc.]
Oh, and here is a scan of a K3....(courtesy of Ron Sherwood)
(https://i.ibb.co/1bgyMxv/Elecraft-K3.png)
Ask yourself who you would wish to operate 3 - 5khz away from?
As I have publicly said (and written) for many years (decades) now, in my opinion, it's the lack of resolve of hams (the customers) to demand better transmitters....and, unfortunately in the past decade, also in my opinion, it is the over-emphasis of receiver test results (and "the list"), which ignores fully one-half of the "rig" and hence gives credence to the myths that transmit IMD issues are "not a big problem" and "it's only the guys who crank-up their mic gains, and/or over-drive their amps"...when the sad fact is that there are currently new ham HF rigs on the market that splatter 10db to 20db worse than my old TR-7 (and 20-30db worse than a TS-830, or 32-S3), when operated exactly as the manual states! And, unsuspecting hams buy them all the time (I suspect out of ignorance?).
Ironically, Rob Sherwood himself, has been stating his opinion on the failing of our transmitters now, for the same couple decades, and for 15 - 20 years, he has been stressing that for SSB operations it is our transmitters (NOT our receivers!) that are limiting our reception abilities!!! But, few hams seem to pay attention to what he says about transmitters?
Again, my opinion here, but I suspect part of the reason is that way too many hams look at "the list" of receiver test results and think this is the "whole rig", forgetting the other half (the transmitter!)? The other part of the reason is that many hams (especially those new to HF-SSB comms) have no clue what transmit IMD / spectral purity is? {and, of course, also what I've written many times....most hams never listen to what they sound like on-the-air, especially off-freq a few khz....most never listen to their own transmit spectrum / IMD....a shame, in my opinion, 'cuz once you show someone what they are transmitting versus what someone else is transmitting, it becomes clear to most...}
d) Of course, in addition to the transmit IMD / Spectral purity, there are many other transmit specs:
The RF power output....power output and transmitter duty-cycle in all modes....power output adjustment range and the ability to maintain whatever output you desire (so you don't over-drive an amp, and/or overload other devices)....again, ALC issues....transmit composite noise (that Rob has been successful in getting some manufacturers to improve)....transmitter VSWR operating range / "SWR foldback".....transmit audio passband....speech processing/compression....audio distortion....RF shielding....CW keying rise time / CW bandwidth....digital-mode/soundcard-mode passband linearity and flatness....DC (or AC) power requirements....transmitter efficiency...PA cooling....PA-disable (for transverter operations)....LF and VLF operations....harmonic and spurious output....XIT....etc. etc...
You see there are just as many "specs" regarding the other half of our "rigs" (the transmitter side)... :)
Fair winds...and 73,
John
P.S. I've been caring for my Mom quite a bit this past month (she had a bit of out-patient surgery), but I will try to finish my "personal rig choice" story (including some transmitter scans)
-
David, Brian, Frank, et al,
1) As I've said for years (actually decades now), transmit cleanliness is my personal #1 criteria of rig choice...a clean transmitter, with low IMD products (especially having the higher-order products that fall off), is what I use to weed out the rigs that might be "good enough"....but, I'm NOT going to ramble on about IMD here in this thread..
This thread is about Rig Choice and Rob Sherwood's List....and, I'd like to take a slightly side-ways look at “How to choose a rig” {hint: The short answer to that question is: Unless you’re a serious big-gun CW contester, the list is not the best way to choose a radio! And, if you’re not a serious CW op, it’s the transmitter IMD that is so much more important! The long answer is: everything I posted here in this thread. :)}
And, while ergonomics is of course important, it’s pretty easy for a manufacturer to "get right"? I mean, if a manufacturer gets the basic layout wrong, or has ridiculous menu steps, etc., just pass it by and look elsewhere, 'cuz there's no telling what else they just didn't care enough about!
The most used knobs are:
a) VFO;
b) RF Gain;
c) Volume / AF Gain;
These make up 95% of the daily / continuous use.
After that, you have Carrier / power output, attenuator, RIT, the band-switch, filter selection, pass-band tuning / IF-shift, and noise blanker / noise reduction, AGC...the order of priority of these controls varies with the user/operator and their type of operating / bands / antennas / etc...but, all are secondary to the "big three" above.
Things like VOX Gain, crystal cal (how many even know what it's used for, let alone still have one in their rig?), fwd/ref power, swr, etc., these are usually a set-n-forget, or once-in-a-while use.
So...if you make the VFO, RF Gain and Volume/AF Gain, controls (and possibly the rec bandwidth/filter selection control) easy-peasy and in comfortable position to use, the ergonomics are pretty easy to get correct.....rigs that don't get this right, are probably not designed by hams / not designed by radio ops....further, if you put the attenuator, band-switch, RIT, and now-a-days the power output control, in good location on the front panel, and/or place most of the other often used controls in a logical location, you're good-to-go.
If not....just look for another rig.
2) And, if you choose a radio that sounds good / not noisy or distorted audio (as the K3 has), you're also good....Where the radio sits on a "list" is mostly irrelevant! So, how about a personal / historic look at "rig choice"?
3) In all seriousness, maybe a discussion of "rig choice" from a personal / historical point-of-view might be helpful to many folks here? You know the "I chose this, because of ____, and I've found it to be great (or useless)"
Notwithstanding Brian's fondness for the old "hot water one-oh-one", I was never a fan, but did like the Heath SB-series....although, in the early 70's it was the Drake "twins" that I drooled-over (R4B/T4XB and then the "C-line"....oh how I wanted Drake "twins")....but.
But, seriously I'd like to paint an honest picture of my own personal choices over the past ~ 50 years, showing my early ignorance as well as some happenstance that steered me to superb results....(there will be some embarrassment here, so before you criticize my ideas from my youth, or brag about how great your new radio is, I ask you all to think back decades to first see if you've ever been ignorant of something once, and then later learned the facts?)
So, here goes.
4) As I said in the early 1970's, I was reading (mostly advertisements at first) about different radios, and was dreaming of the Drake R4B and T4XB Twins...just loved their look (and oh the copper-plated chassis, I just "knew" that made them work so much better?).....now this was 1972 or so, and I was 11 years old, and fairly ignorant....all I had was a SW receiver, and scrounged a sig gen (and a couple CB radios).....I used the sig gen as a BFO to listen to some 40m and 75m ham SSB signals....(I also started to talk to some local guys on 11meters, but soon tired of that)
5) Living in Ft. Lauderdale (and sailing the islands) there was a lot of HF maritime comms going on, so I started in HF on the maritime bands and using commercial, crystal-controlled, maritime rigs.....assisted in my first HF maritime installation in 1973....learned how to use a Bird 43, and adjusting a remote antenna coupler/tuner, using both the Bird and a fluorescent light bulb!
(these remote antenna couplers/tuners were not "automatic tuners", but rather stepper-motor driven switched, with tapped coil and two air-variable caps, for each position/channel....and each position needed to be tuned/adjusted for max antenna current / minimum SWR)
The guys at the marine electronics shops loved the "Sailor brand" marine rigs, and Collins ham rigs....and I learned about "clean transmitters" from them, as they were required to maintain spectral purity!
I joined the ARRL in March of 1974, bought my first "Handbook". etc....and reading QST every month, I saw all the ads for all the radios, and was still drawn to the Drake "Twins".
Little did I know that the wide crystal filters and LC filtering (3.4:1 shape factor!) in the R4B might give you a nice sounding receiver, but just didn't have the skirts needed for crowded Phone bands...(again, this was the early 1970's, and I was only 12 to 13 years old.) And, while the Collins gear had "455khz mechanical filters", which sounded great to me....I was unsure what "mechanical filters" were, and ignorant of the short comings of this design as well, especially in crowded bands, etc.
{it took me a couple of years of on / off studying, to get a decent understanding of HF receiver design and important criteria to look at.....thanks to the Handbook, some QST articles, some reading at the library, and of course articles and papers from Doug DeMaw and Ulrich Rohde!}
Around this time, 1973 up thru 1975/76, I was exposed to the Collins KWS-1 / 75A-4 at our local community college, and was taught how to tune and operate them.....it was cool, but I think I just loved the experience of learning about these radios / learning how-to tune them / use them, more than the radios themselves! :( And, my friend (an EE student) and his professor both commented on my dreams of the Drake "twins", saying "they're just a 'poor man's' Collins"....but, that didn't deter me...They also stressed the adage that "separate trans and receivers was THE only real way to go"....'cuz it allowed you to run the transmitter hotter, and not have it effect the receiver, drift, etc...saying that "no serious ham uses a 'transceiver'" (of course, this was contrary to the experience on maritime comms, and contrary to advice from the maritime installers...but, maritime was all crystal-bound, no VFO's, so I assumed these hams / professors must know what they were talking about?
Again, it took a couple years to figure out how full-of-crap they were, my first experience with PhD's, little did I know how prolific this early exposure to academia would be...some are great, but some think the “p” and “h” should be a “g” and “o”.) Also, when I asked them about a "clean" transmitter, they said something about needing to use a "spec analyzer" (which I had no clue about, heck I was only like 12 or 13 years old!) to see, but they said that wasn't possible to do now {years later, I found out the old KWS-1 wasn't that great in that area....I think it had a pair of 4cx250b's and not designed to be "super clean".....compared to some maritime rigs, using 6146's (some using three of them, for 150 watts PEP) and/or the big ones using a 4cx1500b, that old Collins wasn't very good in comparison. :( }
Concurrently, I had a friend in the TV repair business who just bought a Kenwood TS-520....and while it was a nice radio, when at his house operating it, I found myself thinking that both the marine HF radios I'm using and the old Collins at the community college, both sounded better and some friends with other ham radios on 11 meters made contacts more easily.....of course, it was about this time that I was learning more about antennas, angles of radiation, radiowave propagation, etc. (learning that the ionosphere controls the angle that our signals are reflected at, not our antennas.....and also learned that many hams didn't know that!)
Also, around this time I had some friends with FT-101's (and Tempo One's) on 11 meters....and, quite frankly I found the FT-101b to be much better radio than the TS-520, the Tempo One, and even better than the Collins (?) and was easy-to-use/tune/etc.
Further, about this time, Drake had come out with the new "C-line" (R4C/T4XC) and I still had hopes of someday getting something like that.
And, I was reading more and more about HF receivers, radiowave propagation, and antenna system design....somewhere in there, I remember a great article, where I learned a lot more about HF receiver design than I actually knew I learned (this was my first exposure to receiver dynamic range, etc.), and this is when I started to become critical in my dreams / choices of radios...somewhere about this time as well, Rob Sherwood was writing about receiver IMD and Drake R4C improvements, but I didn't read these articles until years later (think I was in college in the early 80's when I first read Rob's articles dealing with this?)
But, about this time girls and cars were distracting me....girls especially.....but, depending on my mood, and theirs, sometimes "cars" were easier to deal with.... :) [ya' know, surprisingly, ~ 45 years later, cars sometimes are still easier to deal with!] So, while I still had dreams of the Drake "twins", that was on hold, for the moment.
Fast-forward a couple years, and my radio dreams had matured quite a bit..
I wanted a "clean" transmitter that could be used on the maritime bands, and wanted a 12vdc-powered radio (fyi, my Dad's old Raytheon marine radio had a "Dyna-motor" Hi-Voltage power supply, but his newer HF marine radio was solid-state!), and of course I also desired a "transceiver" (oh, the horror...LOL)
Using those criteria in the mid to late 1970's the choice were limited....in 1977/1978, the Drake TR-7 was the only one that fit the bill, but the Atlas 210x/215x was a secondary choice for "12vdc ham transceiver"....and, the Icom IC-701 was being advertised and soon to be released, and might also be a decent 12vdc ham rig, but neither the Atlas or the 701 would work the maritime bands, and I had no clue how clean their transmitters were?
So, the choice was a Drake TR-7...
As I looked closely at the TR-7, in addition to it passing muster in the "clean transmitter" category (not surprising...as the TR-7, the Drake TR-77, maritime version and the Drake TR-4310 commercial, land-mobile, maritime version...all use the same transmit PA, etc.); it also had a clean and well-thought-out transmit path, from a clean mic amp and balanced mixer, to the RF tightness of the entire transmit stream;
Then I also saw that the Drake TR-7 incorporated many of the receiver design criteria that had been detailed earlier in those articles / papers....hi-level DBM receiver front-end (no RF amp in the receiver); extremely high blocking dynamic range (next to impossible to overload); distributed receiver gain and selectivity, using wide skirt First IF filtering to allow excellent noise-blanker performance as well as not induce ringing nor adverse group-delay distortions in the receiver IF chain; quiet, low-distortion, receiver, that is comfortable to use for many hours straight; continuous tx/rx coverage 1.5mhz - 30mhz (what we refer-to as an "up-conversion" radio); effective noise blanker, which was a $90 option back then (that's $375 to $400 in today's dollars, just for the internal noise blanker), which to this day in 2021 is still one of the best/most effective noise blankers ever put in an HF radio, along with the attention to detail in the receiver (high-level DBM input, wide-skirted First IF filer, distributed gain and selectivity, etc.), it actually works great and doesn't materially effect receiver performance; after initial 10min warm-up, doesn't drift; "tight" second IF filtering, allowing excellent SSB/CW operations; overall RF tight and well isolated internal systems, allowing for high total ("ultimate") selectivity, no filter "blow-by", and on and on.
I researched / learned all of this before I got the radio....(my Dad offered to match me dollar-for-dollar for my first new ham radio, if I'd give up chasing girls and building hot engines....I said yes, but you know I was a teenager, so that didn't really last.....took me another year to get around to passing the tests....but, I was having fun, you know...)
So, ~ 43 years ago, I got a Drake TR-7, w/NB-7, RV-7, etc...and using some homebrew antennas, etc., set about understanding how great the radio really was! (and still is!) Also, used it aboard, and occasionally on the 22mhz maritime band...
As I wrote earlier, the TR-7's transmit IMD is very good (by today's standard) and it's receiver performance is excellent, even by today's standards....sure the VCO's are noisy in comparison to the best available today, so in narrow-spaced rec IMD testing (how Rob's list is organized) it is "noise-limited" at 76db (at 2khz).....but is 99db at wide-spacing!
And, until the IC-7851, the K3S, the TS-890s, and FTdx-101d came along, the Drake TR-7 had the highest Blocking Dynamic Range of any radio on Rob's list (darn near impossible to overload)...and even now these four wicked-expensive rigs only beat the TR-7's BDR by a couple db...
Think about that, one radio (the Drake TR-7) held the top spot in Blocking Dynamic Range, for 40 years!
And, in narrow-spaced 3rd order rec IMD, it beat the Elecraft K2, and right next to the IC-756ProII and ProIII, and the TS-590s (in "up-convert" bands) ....and, the "modern" second-gen 21st Century rigs like the IC-7600 and IC-7700 only beat the TR-7's narrow-spaced rec IMD spec by a few db (within production errors), and they're "noise-limited" as well....so, "modern" radios that are 30 - 35 years newer design are about the same in the spec that "the list" is arranged in (narrow-spaced 3rd order rec IMD), compared to a 1970's era Drake TR-7!!
(Sorta' makes you smile at how good that TR-7 is / was, huh? And, we've not even looked at how good the transmitter is, yet!)
Then a couple years later, at university we first had a Kenwood TS-820s, then a TS-830s....and a big homebrew 4-1000 amp, long-boom monobanders for 40m - 10m, on 3 tall towers on top of 2 six-story buildings (on top of one of highest hills for miles around) fed with hardline, full-size 80m dipole at ~ 140' above ground (at the top of that hill) fed with a couple hundred feet of "FM-8"...as well as a TS-700, ext pre-amp, and stacked long-boom yagi's for 2m SSB/CW.
I found the TS-830s to be a nice rig (still my favorite Kenwood!), but if you cranked-up the noise-blanker (it was adjustable) high enough to actually work, it caused serious issues in the receiver....but other than that, having filters in both IF's (8.83mhz and 455khz) and using the VBT (and IF shift) meant you could operate in very crowded bands, even with big antennas, etc....and its transmitter (with 6146b's) was wicked-clean....and good sounding audio (transmit and receive).
Still had the TR-7 (~ thousands of miles away, so I couldn't do a side-by-side comparison), but, after lots of operating I found the '830 to be very nice (better than most), but still not quite as good of receiver as the TR-7! And, of course the TR-7 runs on 12vdc, and works tx/rx from 1.5-30mhz.
That was all ~ 40 years ago!!!
6) Now....with SSB operations being constrained by the other transmitters on the air (their transmit IMD), not by the specs of our receivers (even those with mid-70db narrow-spaced rec IMD), and since I'm not into serious CW contesting, I've not changed out the VCO's to something modern with low-phase noise (which Ulrich Rohde wrote about)....
Fyi, even with what now-a-days is considered mediocre narrow-spaced rec IMD we used my TR-7 in a very successful result, in the CQWW 160m CW contest in 1990, running barefoot ('cuz our amp burnt up in the first hour of the contest), so you actually can use an older receiver that's "way down the list" for CW operations, AND actually be competitive in a cw contest... :)
Who knew that hams actually could make contacts before "100db radios" were on the market? :)
Next thing 'ya know, someone will be saying that some hams, my Mom's age, used "spark" transmitters to make contacts? Oh, the horror... :)
7) Now, about 25 years ago (late 1990's), I wanted a second HF rig....spent some time looking / researching, and found nothing even came close to the TR-7....so.
So, I found another clean TR-7 (this was before everyone thought they must be made of Gold?)....cleaned it up a bit, and viola I had a nice modern, excellent "second HF rig"!
BTW, I also own three Icom M-802 MF/HF Maritime Radios, two on-board my boat, and one at home….these are 2004/2006 era-design (similar in time-frame to the 756ProII/III)…but these have a totally different PA that is150 watt output (100% duty-cycle FSK rated), and this rig is FCC Part 80, Part 87, and Part 90 certified MF/HF-DSC-SSB-CW-FSK marine radio, that have easy-peasy “one-button” ham/vfo mode, and while tune in 100hz steps, they make excellent HF ham rigs on-board….(but are really niche radios, so I won’t detail them here)
Please see my next posting, that is a continuation of this one.
Fair winds and 73,
John, KA4WJA
-
~~~~~~~~~~~ Continuation of above posting ~~~~~~~~~~~
8 ) Except for adding a 1.0khz wide (narrow) IF filter, and making a couple minor feature modifications (configured the front panel “Carrier” control, to control max power in SSB mode as well as CW/AM, repurposed a front panel button for PA disable for easy-peasy transverter operation, etc.), my TR-7's are factory stock!
And, except for replacing S-meter light bulbs, and cleaning some internal contacts (one of my TR-7's spent time on-board an ocean-going sailboat, you know...), I've never needed to repair them!
Yep, you read that right....they've never needed repair, at 43 years old, and they still hold their own against "modern" rigs!
{I did send my original TR-7 back to Drake (in the late 80's / early 90's?) for a few updates (they added an input protection and couple other minor changes, to make it a TR-7A) and an alignment, but no actual repair of either, and they still work great at ~ 43 - 44 years old....and I do use 'em, they're not "collector's items" up on a top shelf!}
BUT..
But, I do need to do a re-alignment.... :( component aging and some internal adjustments are a bit "sensitive".
I get many unsolicited reports of "great audio" and "really clean signal".....and, hanging out with a few guys on 75m that run Apache ANAN's with pre-distortion, they commented that I have the cleanest "non-ANAN" signal they've seen! So, while I do need to do an alignment, and bring things back to new spec, my TR-7's are damn sweet! :)
9) About seven years ago (2013 / 2014), I started to think I might want a new HF rig (“just because”).....so, I started looking/researching again....and found (except for the classic MkV in Class A, or the pre-distortion equipped Apache ANAN's) none had a transmitter as clean as my TR-7....and I'm not interested in running a computer just to talk on the radio, so I just gave up...but, if I could find a reasonably-priced MkV, I still might just go for it...Class A, ya' know...
(but the Kenwood TS-590SG did look okay, and this past year someone recommended the TS-890S....and now, in 2021, Apache is debuting their "Andromeda", which is their "SDR with knobs", and that might be a contender, we’ll see?)
Of course, Rob doesn't even list transmit IMD…but, it is important to everyone on-the-air these days. (yes, some over-driving their amps, and/or running their mic gain too high, do contribute to the problem, but fact is many modern ham rigs are just crap in transmit spectral purity, and that’s when they are operated “properly”!)
And, coming back to this thread's actual subject (rig choice and Rob's list) as I look at the new progression on Rob's list, I see that full SDR / direct-sampling rigs are being topped by modern "hybrids" (FTdx-101d) which are what we used-to call "IF-DSP rigs"!
It's just now these “IF-DSP rigs” have very-low-noise synthesizers, and are more traditional "down-convert" IF rigs (which have low HF first IF's, not VHF first IF's, and hence can have narrow first IF filters, what is now called a narrow "roofing filter"), rather than the IC-756ProII/III's, etc., that had wide VHF first IF's and noisy synth...
And, while I suspect DSP noise blanking / noise reduction is improving, having the noise / noise pulses reshaped and delayed by a narrow first IF filter, will make this difficult to be truly effective?
So, that's where I'm at...
That's my history and choices....~ 45 - 50 some years of HF rig use / choice....the reasons and results.
And, I’m still running ~ 43 - 44 year old HF rigs! ‘Cuz I just can’t find ones that are “better”, unless I could spend $5k - $10k (definitely not going to happen), and/or want to operate a computer just to talk on the radio (not likely, here)
10) Finally, while I wrote up top that I wouldn't ramble on about Transmit IMD here, since that is my personal #1 criteria for "rig choice", maybe I should post some 2-tone test scans, and a few sentences about why/how this has become such an issue?
In addition to my recent (March 2021) scans of my 43-44 year old (and in need of alignment) Drake TR-7, I will include five scans for comparison here (and one clarifying white-noise vs. 2-tone testing, using an IC-781), courtesy of NC0B, Rob Sherwood, himself....saved from a couple of his presentations in the past 10 years or so:
a) a Collins 32S-3 (at ~ 100 watts PEP);
b) a Yaesu FT-1000 MkV, in Class A (w/o any ALC action) at ~ 75 watts PEP;
c) an Elecraft K3 (at 75 watts PEP);
d) one “double scan”, showing a “classic” IC-756ProII versus a “modern” IC-7600;
e) another “double scan”, showing a FTdx-5000 in Class A comparing it with NO ALC, versus ½-scale ALC;
f) 2-tone vs. White Noise, using an IC-781;
Fyi, my TR-7 has about the same IMD responses from 5-10watts PEP, up to 125-130watts PEP....some products are lower a db or so, and some are higher by a db, throughout this whole range of power output....although at 150-160 watts PEP out, IMD goes up 2db from the figure at 125-130 watts. And, since I drive an Alpha 78 (or an Alpha 77Sx) with my TR-7's, I have the TR-7’s set to have a max output of ~ 60 - 65 watts across the whole HF spectrum....and, since I also wanted to test the final IMD (of the combined TR-7 and Alpha 78) at 1500 - 1600 watts out, I decided to do the TR-7 tests at my normal drive level of about 60 watts (~ +48dbm)...I have a Coaxial Dynamics tap connected on the side of my Bird 43, set at -68db (at 3.65mhz), so max output into my analyzer from the TR-7 is ~ -20dbm... (and ~ -6dbm from the Alpha 78). {BTW, also since the K3 was being operated at its "sweet spot" of 75 watts, as well as the MkV in Class A at 75 watts...I figured this would be acceptable to show as comparisons....but fyi, this is not a scientific transmitter comparison treatise, rather just a way of showing examples of what is out there, what is clean, and what isn't. :)}
Fyi (especially for those who question the use/validity of two-tone-tests), look at human voice freqs, where normal or raised male voice freqs peak in the 400hz – 600hz range, and roll off below 200hz and above 1600hz, falling off steeply above 2000hz. And, “loud” male speech peaking about 650hz, but rolling off at the same rate and freqs. (female voices a few hundred hz higher)
So, using two (non-harmonically-related) tones, one low (600hz-800hz) / one high (1600hz – 2000hz), does actually approximate the mixing of various human voice freq, so while a “two-tone-test” isn’t perfect, it’s actually pretty good (see comparison of a two-tone vs. white noise scan of a Icom IC-781, courtesy of Rob Sherwood) and, you all do realize that it wasn't hams, nor ARRL, etc. that came up with these tests / freqs....it was old Ma Bell, RCA, Motorola, etc., etc., etc...way back decades before I was born. :)
[Of course, a static 2-tone-test typically does not show the “buck-shot”/IMD caused by poor ALC systems, nor power supply issues, etc. but, it is the “standard” that we have.]
(https://i.ibb.co/3SFJRrx/TR-7-human-speech.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/8Kv8WPx/IC-781-2-tone-vs-white-noise.png)
For marketing purposes (or maybe we should just say “for BS purposes”?), many brochures and adverts will spec an IMD3 number, but as you can see, with our normal speech freqs, typically the IMD3 product of our SSB transmitters falls either within our transmit passband, or darn close to it, on the passband skirt….so, it’s the 5th and 7th order products that are most responsible for adjacent-channel splatter, and the 7th, 9th and higher that are what presents as splatter beyond the immediately adjacent freq, 5khz to 10khz (or more!) up/down the band….but, many times a lot of hams don’t look at the higher order products.
So, to give a way to compare different rigs, just look at the width of the SSB signal at -60db from PEP, or even lower. (This is what is typically used in occupied bandwidth comparisons of various ham rigs, and by many giving seminars, such as Rob Sherwood, NC0B, etc...and as we see the 2-tone IMD products follow the curve of a white noise test pretty darn closely, so for our comparison purposes, we can make darn good comparisons!)
If you look at these scans, you'll see how nice and narrow that classic FT-1000 MkV in Class A is! (and, as long as you do not have any ALC action, it really is that wonderful....even better than pre-distortion-enabled ANAN's, or an old Collins 32S-3, unfortunately you don’t hear many using Class A on these, as Yaesu didn’t design adequate cooling for this and some have called the MkV in Class A a “blast furnace”)....and you'll see the vintage tube Collins 32S-3, is super clean and its wideband / higher-order-products are wicked low....and you can see my old TR-7 (although needing an alignment) still makes a nice clean signal....but, opppss, you'll also see that K3 is wicked-wide and a rather poor choice for SSB operations (btw, the newer K3S is even a few db worse!)...
Now, to be clear, I’m not picking on the Elecraft, the Icom IC-7700 is just as bad! [It’s just that these rigs (Elecraft and the FTdx-101's, etc.) are not only commonly talked about as the “Holy Grail”, but are also the ones that Rob Sherwood uses as comparisons in his presentations, in regards to transmit IMD, and ALC issues...]
BTW, the IC-7600 isn’t too much better…and, if you’ve got any ALC indication (especially on any Yaesu radio), you’re probably pretty wide…and anyone running a rig in Class A, should not have any ALC at all, or they might as well give up on Class A operation, ‘cuz all it’s doing is heating your shack (but, if you set it up right, with NO ALC at all, you’re going to have the cleanest signal on the band!)
So, if you’re thinking of spending $1000’s of dollars for a new rig, you may wish to actually have a look to see how that rig might be polluting the air-waves, causing you and everyone else, troubles….and ironically, it’s these crappy transmitters that prevent most of us operating Phone (SSB) from even coming close to actually using the potential of the receivers in these rigs….
Sorta’ like we are all throwing money down the drain, buying radios with great receivers that we cannot use the potential of, because of the crappy transmitters inside, huh?
SSB transmit width, at -60db below PEP:
FT-1000 MkV (in Class A) : ~ 3.2khz wide at – 60db PEP (and ~ 3.5khz wide at -60dbc), with IMD3 of -42dbc, and IMD5 at -70dbc (that’s IMD3 of -48dbPEP and IMD5 of -76dbPEP), and only 6khz wide at -80dbc – 86dbPEP…remember that’s in Class A, without any ALC action at all!
(https://i.ibb.co/DpLpWCg/FT-1000-Mk-V-Class-A.png)
FTdx-5000 in Class A : ~5.5khz wide at – 60db PEP with NO ALC, and ~11khz wide at – 60db PEP with ALC at ½-scale.
(https://i.ibb.co/PW8ykps/FTdx-5000-D-White-Noise-IMD-test-no-ALC-vs-half-scale-ALC.png)
32S-3 : ~ 11khz wide at -60db PEP (and ~13khz wide at -60dbc), with IMD(pep) numbers of -42 / -53 / -65 / -76
(https://i.ibb.co/ng5mntd/Collins-32-S-3.png)
TR-7 : ~ 5.7khz wide at – 60db PEP (and ~ 13khz wide at -60dbc) with IMD(pep) numbers of -43 / -46 / -50 / -58
(https://i.ibb.co/WKd6DJ2/TR-7-IMD.png)
IC-756ProII : ~ 11.5khz wide at – 60db PEP versus the IC-7600: ~ 16khz wide at – 60db PEP
(https://i.ibb.co/y0RZ5kx/IC-7600-vs-IC-756-Pro-II-White-Noise-IMD-test-Copy.png)
K3 : ~ 20khz wide at -60db PEP (and ~ 29khz wide at -60dbc), with IMD(pep) numbers of -33 / -40 / -48 / -50
(https://i.ibb.co/M2rtqbR/Elecraft-K3.png)
Yes, I see the asymmetrical response in the scans of my old TR-7 (needs alignment)....but, if you actually look at the numbers and examine the transmitter width at down -60db(PEP) and down -60dbc (-66dbPEP), and compare that width to that of the old Collins 32S-3 (w/ 6146b's in the PA), and that of the "modern" Elecraft K3, the IC-7600, the classic IC-756ProII, the FTdx-5000 in various configurations of Class A, and even that of the "classic" FT-1000 MkV in Class A...I think you might be enlightened?
You can see how the 6146B PA, and the Class A SSPA’s (with NO ALC) have much lower wide-band / higher-order products…and how the crappy ALC of Yaesu (and others) seriously impact transmit IMD….and, in general, how crappy our transmitters have gotten….now, as I’ve said for years, with radios marketed with dozens of controls for the receiver and only two (power output, and mic gain) for transmit, and with few hams actually listening to their own signal OFF FREQUNECY, no manufacturer cares how crappy their transmitters are….so, it is up to us, to care….and up to us to voice that concern with our wallets!
What if NOBODY bought a new HF rig this year, that didn’t have excellent (or at least improved) transmit IMD…fyi, that would mean the ONLY HF ham rigs sold were ANAN’s….what would Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, Flex, and Elecraft do? Maybe they’d get the message?
Hmmm….Maybe this is an idea worth thinking about??
Ask yourself, who do you wish to operate a few Khz from? Or even 5 - 10khz from?
I know I'd rather it was a guy with a 32S-3, a TR-7, or a MkV in Class A, or an ANAN!
But, maybe some enjoy listening to splatter?
We know the managers and executives at the radio manufacturers must love listening to splatter at home, ‘cuz that’s the radios they’re making / selling now-a-days, but what about the rest of you?
Do you all enjoy the splatter?
If not, how about stop buying new ham gear?
What if a few hundred thousand hams wrote letters (not emails, but real letters on paper) to Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, Flex, and Elecraft, saying “I was going to spend $2000 (or $3000, or $4000, etc.) this year or next, on a new HF radio, but since you don’t make a radio with decent transmit spectral purity, I’m buying an older rig, or a commercial marine radio, or a rig that has a Class A PA, or an ANAN w/ pre-distortion, etc.”
Hmmm, what would they do, if NOBODY bought any more radios with crappy transmitters?
I suspect we’d have better PA’s in 6 months, radios with Class A PA’s in a year, and mass-produced rigs w/ pre-distortion in less than 2 years?
Maybe not, but I think it’s worth a try….what do you all think?
If you all think, it’s worth a shot, I’ll be the first to write my letters….let me know… 😊
11) So, to sum up….some might actually see how to use Sherwood’s List in choosing a rig?
And, certainly Frank has showed us that many hams are satisfied with their choices, especially those rigs that score high on his SPI (Sherwood Performance Index)…but, as I have been saying for many years “few hams actually listen to/monitor their signal…and fewer still understand what their signal is doing 3-6khz (or 10khz) away”, so they might actually be “satisfied” with their rig, ‘cuz they don’t actually know what they are transmitting (and that is a sad fact).
In my opinion / in my experience, the short answer to that question is: Unless you’re a serious CW contester (especially a “big-gun”), the list is not the best way to choose a radio! And, please remember even serious CW contesters need a clean transmit signal (albeit IMD doesn’t play a role in a CW transmitter, rather it is CW keying rise-time/waveform, as well as transmit composite noise), so once they find some rigs with great narrow-spaced rec IMD, they should next be looking at its transmitter purity!!
Now, since most of us are not serious big-gun CW contester’s, “the list” isn’t nearly as important to the “average ham’s” rig choice, as some might think…I’m not arguing Frank’s statistical analysis (where some rigs that perform well on Rob’s list, do have high satisfaction scores), but merely stating a fact, that “the list” only shows specs/performance of half the radio…and reminding my fellow hams that the transmitter is the very important other half of the rig!! And, for SSB Voice (and digital modes that require linear operations), it is the crap from our transmitters (IMD / Splatter / non-linearities) that is the limiting factor in our receivers! (hence, why I keep saying that the transmitter is such an important part of our shacks…certainly more so than most folks think!)
The long answer is: everything I posted in this thread! 😊
That's my history and choices, over ~ 45 - 50 some years, of HF rig use / choice…the reasons and results....and I hope some find this helpful?
Fair winds and 73,
John, KA4WJA
P.S. I'm sure some will counter this with an argument regarding the "need" for a 60db S/N or S/I ratio on HF ham bands.....maybe saying this isn't like commercial users, etc....and sure that's all true...but how poor of S/N ratio do you desire to communicate with?
Anyone who has sat and listened to stations only 10 - 20db above the noise, or during summertime T-Storms here in Florida, when those static crashes can be S-9+30, knows that 30db S/N is good, 40db S/N is better....so maybe pick a number like 40db or 50db, and see what rig you can operate next to...and remember that this is all assuming the guy next to you is giving you the same signal strength as the guys on your freq...
Oh, and yes....I get it....some will also say that we hams move in too close to each other on the bands....and, if it's a weekday evening, no worries about moving apart....but on a cool winter's Saturday night? Or a contest weekend? Well, you're lucky if you find a spot 3khz wide! :)
{fyi, you're still gonna' want to be > 4khz above/below anyone with a K3, and that's if they're running barefoot at the sweet spot of 75 watts....and, oh baby, stay well away (6-10khz) from guys running FT-857/897''s FT-991's, etc.}
-
Hello to all,
After talking to some friends on 75m last night, I realized that a brief clarification might be good...
Please note that the "occupied bandwidth spec at -60db down" is just that, a "specification", something used as comparison, etc., not necessarily a goal to achieve for "adjacent channel response".
(Similarly to how an IF filter may have its response specified as a "passband of x.xkhz at -6db, and y.ykhz at -60db")
While I might hope for a 60db S/N on all HF contacts, that's a pipe dream! And, I hope I didn't imply otherwise! :)
I mentioned this in passing in my post-script, but thought a bit more clarity might be good?
P.S. I'm sure some will counter this with an argument regarding the "need" for a 60db S/N or S/I ratio on HF ham bands.....maybe saying this isn't like commercial users, etc....and sure that's all true...but how poor of S/N ratio do you desire to communicate with?
Anyone who has sat and listened to stations only 10 - 20db above the noise, or during summertime T-Storms here in Florida, when those static crashes can be S-9+30 [S-9 +20], knows that 30db S/N is good, 40db S/N is better....so maybe pick a number like 40db or 50db, and see what rig you can operate next to...and remember that this is all assuming the guy next to you is giving you the same signal strength as the guys on your freq...[If your friends, that you're in QSO with are S-7 to S-8, (as are the guys adjacent to you, and their IMD products are -40db down in your passband), and someone jumps in 3khz on the other side of you who is S-9+10db, remember that your "40db" S/N ratio, just became 15 to 20db! :(
Oh, and yes....I get it....some will also say that we hams move in too close to each other on the bands....and, if it's a weekday evening, no worries about moving apart....but on a cool winter's Saturday night? Or a contest weekend? Well, you're lucky if you find a spot 3khz wide! :)
I just thought I'd clarify my position, so that we're all on the same page.
73,
John, KA4WJA
-
My usual friendly reminder that the unit abbreviation is written dB, not db. Many people are trying to learn from this site - let's teach it correctly.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
He could be cited for the kilohertz abbreviation also.
-
Rob Sherwood's list can be useful to show us which receivers have serious flaws. And most of those are older models. Other than that, most of the newest ones have great receivers.
Sometimes I haul out one of my vintage receivers for nostalgia's sake, and put up with the coffee-grinder background noise on 80 and 40 meters. Without a good Noise Reduction function and a good Noise Blanker, it can get very fatiguing to listen for a long time. Good IMD and Blocking specs can help there too, and that's what most new receivers have. I am thinking of getting a BHI DSP box to use with my "classic" radios.
The same way that government rebates help the electric car industry sell clean or zero emissions cars (even though the battery manufacturing and lithium mining industries are hopelessly toxic and environmentally disastrous), perhaps the government should give rebates to buyers of clean emissions transmitters. We expect that a radio with a high-linearity and super clean transmitter PA will consume more power and cost more money than a less linear one, so a rebate would be the only incentive for most hams to buy a clean transmitter that gives themselves no obvious or immediate gratification other than the knowledge that they are doing something good for the (radio communications) environment.
73, Ed
-
Dan Sherwood has done a lot of work to build his repository of test info. It's at http://www.sherweng.com/table.html for the few that are unfamiliar with it. He ranks rigs by ability to operate with close spaced interference....
I believe CW contesting is where maximum receiver performance is needed and Dynamic Range Narrow Spaced is the parameter of interest. I've owned several transceivers that did not hold up under 160 meter contesting. The two I've owned that were excellent for CW contesting are the Elecraft K3 and the Icom IC-7300 with narrow spaced dynamic range of 101 and 97 dB respectively. One of several that were nearly unusable under 160 meter contest conditions is the Kenwood TD570S at 69 dB. In the paper cited below, Bob Sherwood says 80 dB or better at 2 kHz (that is narrow spaced dynamic range) is needed for CW.
Here's a link to the paper Transceiver Performance and how do we measure it?, by Bob Sherwood.
"Contesters – DXers – Pileup operators need a good receiver for SSB and an even better receiver for CW."
Near the end of the paper he presents a the list Considerations in Choosing a Transceiver.
http://www.na0tc.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=technical:transceiver_performance_and_how_do_we_measure_it-_rob_sherwood_nc0b-285-techconnect-1w.pdf
Sherwood Receiver Test Data
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
Thanks for sharing these guys. I found them interesting and useful even if I don't fully understand it all.
I skimmed through the thread and there are any number of valid points made. All of which I plan to take into account as I decide on my next radio.
-
We I am sure glad you like your ole TR7, it was one of the top rigs that Drake designed and remember well when it hit the streets back then cause I worked for Harrison Radio then and had my order in for a TR7 but had to wait till customer orders were filled. The TR7 had a clean transmit signal but the VFO by todays standards was not as stable as today rigs, it had more internal noise from the different conversion stages plus with age most of the mechanical switching devices get noisy but still a milestone radio for its time. For those who want a better VFO and add more up to date flexibility to a TR7 there is a small company called Nobel Radio that makes a remote DDS VFO which adds far more flexibility to the 40 year old box so if you don't wanna give up on the old girl there is a fix. One of the remote VFO gives modern day ability to the TR7 plus added extras such as speech processor, sound card ability plus be able to hook up to a computer and go threw a logging program for point and click plus there top like vfo has an integrated pan adapter module, just go to there site and you can take your TR7 into the modern age and keep her plugging along. Another area were the TR7 had some shortcoming was the IF chain and even though there filters seemed somewhat sharp they had loss and blow by but here again this little company has 8 pole crystal filters which will here again improve the old girls shape factor kind of speaking. I find it very interesting that today even a small company can bring the best out of some of the best rigs from yesteryear not just make a replacement simple accessory but make that part far more advanced for todays modern usages.
Yes you can breath new life into that good ole girl!
-
The right transceiver is the one you enjoy. And since some people contest, other rag-chew, some are mostly CW, others FT8,etc, what is most important in the radio varies by user.
Sometimes it's just the thought of owning and using exotic or state of the art gear, as many "latest and greatest" serial equipment owners on this forum do
In the '70's, I used to drool over the Heathkit SB-104, which looked like pure magic to me. Catalog cruising was a popular cold winter's night bedtime reading activity and the Heathkit products caught my imagination. We didn't have much money, so that was as close as I got to ownership.
Then the TR7 came later along with it's revolutionary up-converting receiver, I was in love again. It was was a Rolls-Royce rig, very professionally done and a rig I could only dream about. Unfortunately, my budget was more HR-10B and later HW-101 (used, with CW filter). Means came only later in life.
I don't have my HW-101 any more. But I very fondly remember the QSOs I made with it and still have my paper log from those days. My favorite mode was AMTOR. THAT was a trick, since the radio VFO was so drifty. And I had to build a SS interface for it that could drive my AMT-1 modem.
So - the "Best" radio can be different with everyone and likely changes over time. The real question (test) is: "Did it leave a fond memory?" In that light, the HR/HX of budget gear from Heathkit was a success in my world. even though technically and operationally it was pretty poor. The HW-101 was light years ahead of it - because the HW-101, despite its flaws, actually WORKED (most of the time) and gave many hours of enjoyment.
My modern equipment (analog/digital hybrid radios) are far more capable, reliable, stable and I've made many more contacts with them. But nothing beat the original thrill of my used, rebuilt (by me), Heathkit HW-101.
Therefore the HW-101 is at the top of - "Brian's List" :)
In a similar vein, my older brother had this 1967 Camaro ... ah ...well .. topic of another thread, perhaps!
Brian - K6BRN
-
The rig that I enjoyed the most was a single band [20Meter] single mode[SSB] Heathkit. All the choices were gone other than "is the band probably open?" I recall that it was a 200 watt rig but not sure. It was vacuum tube tech and I was able to repair and align it and all that... I'm looking at the modern rigs with problems with firmware updates and horrendous complications with trying to use external software and thinking that's not at all, in the least, what I want to do... so yeah I'd love to have a rig near the top of the list but only if it's pretty much turnkey... i've been computing since 1974, writing software and currently working in C++, I'm dealing with a certain level of learned helplessness really. I do not want a hobby that makes that worse...
-
You may want to look for rigs that are supported online by other users.
Nobody can make all the mistakes necessary to totally understand a modern radio, but a user base of five thousand enthusiastic hams can come pretty close. Some forums have searchable databases so the smart ham doesn't have to ask a question that has been asked dozens of times.
Zak W1VT
-
You may want to look for rigs that are supported online by other users.
Nobody can make all the mistakes necessary to totally understand a modern radio, but a user base of five thousand enthusiastic hams can come pretty close. Some forums have searchable databases so the smart ham doesn't have to ask a question that has been asked dozens of times.
Zak W1VT
Hi Zak,
Your thought here is a key part of my study, putting together Rob’s pioneering work on comprehensive Rx performance, collective consumer satisfaction, and price (including bang fir the buck). My latest talk on it to the Sutton & Cheam Club in London is here: https://youtu.be/EspoubeuE_k?t=1
73,
Frank
K4FMH
-
>"Thus the “holy grail” of wanting a 100 dB radio is only a CW [Contesting] pile-up issue."
That quote from Rob was written in 2014, before nearly everyone's bizarre obsession with FT8. FT4/FT8 carriers with extremely narrow spacing are filled within a 3-4 kHz passband in much the same manner as a CW pile-up.
Paul, W9AC
-
Hi Paul:
This is an old thread, BTW.
I operate mostly FT8 (and JT-9 and JT-65 before that, and AMTO, RTTY and CW before that, etc.)
FT8 is a lot different from CW in that the digital baseband filtering and correlation algorithms inherent in WSJT-X does a much, much better job than MY ear does in picking out even overlapping signals below the noise floor. A little more than a year ago, WSJT-X, with little fanfare, was significantly improved to tolerate overload/distortion from strong adjacent signals.
Overload occurs not only in the receiver front end but in the ADC back end before processing by WSJT-X. And although I've worked with DSP/spread spectrum systems for years, I'm very impressed with how Joe Taylor and his team handled this problem. While I have some speculation on how it was done, it works so well I know that I don't know or understand the full extent of the algorithm tweaks. So I won't speculate.
Regardless, I've found that the latest WSJT-X performs similarly on Yaesu FT-991, FTDX-3000, Icom IC-7300 and FLEX-6600 radios. This doe NOT mean that there are not (to me) relatively minor differences. But all of them have had very little problem decoding signals - even overlapping ones (I use multi-pass decoding) on todays VERY crowded FT-8 band segments.
It's pretty much like a CW contest pile-up every day, particularly on 20M and 40M.
So in my real-world use, significant (but not extreme) differences in dynamic range between radio to radio in the 3 KHz or so FT-8 segments does not seem to make too much of a difference in decode performance. And I live in a very ham-dense neighborhood in L.A.
I've NO DOUBT AT ALL if the radio's dynamic range was VERY poor and its overload distortion particularly obnoxious, the radio would make a BIG difference. But between the ones I've mentioned, not so much.
What has YOUR experience been?
Best Regards,
Brian - K6BRN
-
Interesting subject. Ones quality of their hearing is an issue as some radios are more clear sounding than others. There is no measurement for that. First an external speaker will change the quality from the 2.5 to 3" internal speakers of transceivers. But, some sound better than others on external speakers too. And, DSP quality is another factor. I find the Kenwood TS-830S to have such high quality DSP is not needed with my poor hearing. The TS-950SD is another with very clear audio. My hearing is basically full range, but lost the ability to remove background noise.
-
I agree with N8FVj... our own hearing plays a large role in the performance of the end-to-end receiving chain.
And just like the different opinions on the other recent thread about DSP Noise Reduction in this Station Building forum, we will each have our individual opinions of how well a radio sounds or performs in our particular environment.
I for example have found in my own operating habits and location, that wideband intermod dynamic range (ie interference immunity) and noise reduction are my two most important aspects of receiver performance.
73, Ed
-
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.
2) Yes, joining a particular model / brand "user group" (or at least reading some postings of long-time users of whatever model rig you're considering, especially those of experienced ops), is a GREAT idea!! (and, I've done this....and found some good info and some effective "mods"...but...)
But, please remember that not all problems/issues you'll read of are really problems with the rig, as many are operator-caused errors....and, some/many "mods" / "updates" cause more issues than they solve.
{One recent example...we've all heard/read of many IC-7300 owners lament the ease-of-overload, when the operator simply needed to apply some attenuation or reduce the gain (just like they're are supposed to do, whether using a super-het receiver, or a direct-sampling SDR), but here with an inexpensive direct-sampling SDR, this becomes more critical for the operator to actually know how-to use the radio.
And, another case-in-point....my beloved Drake TR-7 has a nice clean transmitter w/o any ALC issues, etc. (as many/most modern rigs do), as the ALC is only used as a a power limiting circuit when tx gain /power is adjusted to maximum, but also has a smooth action (no ALC pumping) with a rather long time constant....this allows ALC action to not adversely effect transmit IMD (hence no "buck-shot")....and, you can even run the rig at whatever power level you desire, and adjust so you do not use any ALC at all :) ...but, a case-in-point, on the negative side of a possible mod....there is a mod online, where some unknowing ham recommends changing a cap or two, shortening the ALC time constant significantly (making it about 30% - 40% of what it is from the factory), in order to give the audio "more punch....like a 'poor-man's' speech processor"....so, if the unsuspecting / ignorant ham takes this advice, he ruins (or at least seriously impacts) the great transmit purity of a great rig, just so his audio is "punchier". :( [another reason to be weary of buying a "modified rig"]
Now, a case-in-point, on the positive side with the TR-7....there is a simple mod (adding one small wire jumper to the "mode switch" wafer) allowing easy-peasy front panel power output adjustment on all modes (SSB, RTTY, as well as CW and AM), using the factory front panel "Carrier" level control (which originally only adjusted output power in CW and AM modes). :)
So...so, you need to remember that no matter what info you get from online user groups, etc....you really need to understand how radios work, what their spec's mean, and what/how (and if) you should do any mods, as well as understand what these "users" are talking about / if they actually know what they are talking about....etc.!!}
3) As for what rig sounds better to our own ears?
Well, yes this is an important point!
And, this is mentioned quite often here, as well as mentioned often by Rob Sherwood himself! (A rig that is fatiguing to listen to, is not one to buy!)
And, since this is such an important criteria, Rob Sherwood mentions it all the time in his presentations (as well as, for more than 15 - 20 years, repeatedly mentioning the importance of our TRANSMITTERS' spectral purity / IMD, as the limiting factor of our RECEIVERS)....however for some reason many hams simply look at "a list". :(
And, contrary to what some may think, there are specs (and features) available that can be of some help to those looking for a "better sounding" radio, especially those with hearing issues. Some manufacturers and some product reviews do show these improved specs (using more normal volume levels for a THD spec, rather than their max audio output....anyone ever needed to turn up their HF rigs AF Gain / Volume higher than halfway?), as well as receive audio freq passband, etc.
Of course, there are also some rigs that have receive audio equalizers, and/or bass-midrange-treble adjustments.
So, have a look at some of Rob's (and Adam's) reviews of various rigs....as well as look at the ARRL product reviews....and, even look at the manufacturer's specs.
Doing all of these, you should be able to find a radio that better suits your needs/desires, and possibly even find one that "sounds good" before you actually get a chance to "play with it". :)
Of course, headphones do help many, a lot more than some think. :) And, with this particular issue, where a rig's audio output isn't as clean or distortion-free as we desire, many times using headphones (usually bypassing the rig's audio amp) can make a world of difference!
73,
John, KA4WJA
P.S. Apologies for my use of db instead of dB, and khz rather than kHz, etc....and for using .... as a pause in a continuation of a thought.....and, I suspect a host of other faux pas (whether semantic or engineering), please just accept there are reasons, and me being ignorant is not one of them. Thanks.
-
John no radio is perfect but Rob's list is one tool to use when looking to buy the best radio you can for your radio dollar plus if you dig into Rob's lists he tests blocking at 100Khz which is really nothing by todays standards cause if you look at any lab numbers of radio's tested by the ARRL labs you will see they tested blocking today at 20Khz, 5Khz and 2Khz and this is were the rubber meets the road in real RX performance as well as dynamic range and phase noise plus RMDR.
If you read the ARRL lab notes on the FTDX101D not only does it have greater than 135Db>blocking spec but they go on to say that that test was with 10Dbm of signal, Yaesu stated to them that that radio would take 27Dbm of signal before blocking. This is what also separates the good radio's from the best and it also did 20 years ago when they came out with the original FT1000MP but by today standards it kind not a chart topper.
Transmit IMD is another area that has always been an Oxy moron cause you have 3rd level, 5th level and so on and it seems that everyone's trying to look at the 3rd level yet they don't look past this number to much but if those numbers don't increase its a wash and a dirty little transmitter. The 50V mosfet finals is another joke and Yaesu for years has prostituted that those designs would be best for cleaner IMD run in class A mode yet they have removed the class A mode from there 200w FTDX101MP and brought into play another circuit called AMC. Its still a mystery on the exact roll this AMC plays but it has tamed the flaming Yaesu's ALC issue they had in the past with rigs like the 9000,5000,3000,1200 and the 2000. All these radio's were designed when Motorola owned the company but the old FT1000MP,MK5 and Field were mostly Yaesu Musen designs from Japan so if you catch my drift getting taken over by a big Corporate Giant can suck allot of wind.
The newer radio's like the FTDX101D/MP and the Ten are designs from Japan, they may not have a GUI like a Flex or an Anan but the RX sections and the TX sections are not bad but as you can tell not many hams READ THE FRIGGING MANUAL cause they set the AMC plus very control all the way to the right plus pin there ALC scale.
This brings me back to the IC7300 along with the overload indicator and the use of an RF gain control in which most buyers really do not understand the real use of RF gain but you take a poll of some seasoned op's who have been in this hobby for 40 to 60 years were they know dam well how and why to use this control an all of a sudden the overload goes away. First off Icom radio's have always had way too much gain in the front end, without a pre amp engaged there around 130Db +- a few without pre amps engaged so to put that into perspective most radio except for Kenwoods are around 122Db+- so off the bat there more sensitive then they need to be in the real world, just take a look at your TR7 which had no pre amp in its front end and really didn't need to. When I owned a 7300 I use to either use the RF gain or on the low bands the 20Db pad cause I could tell it had way too much gain, I only used pre amp 1 on 6 or maybe 10 meters but never needed it on any band lower.
My own experiences I will not bore anyone on 50 years of different rigs but since 2009 I have owned 590S,K3,FTDX3000,IC7300,IC7610,FTDX10 and these days the FTDX101D, they have all performed very well but in the heat of a battle like contesting the radio's like the 10 and which I didn't expect but the RX section even more impressed me was the 101D over the 10 this really surprised me cause the lab numbers were close on these two yet the ability of the 101D not to have any blocking issues really did it for me.
I don't have an engineering degree, I have been in electronics sales plus involved with selling amateur radio's when I was younger, been involved with audio plus sound reinforcement for about 15 years, been an RF Technician for about 15 years plus been involved with this hobby Dxing for a few years then got into DX contesting for a few decades. Today just another 70 year old fart but have learned an seen allot threw the years but I still RTFM many times before I order a rig and wait for it to be delivered, I find it ALWAYS helps.
BTW, back when the TR7 came out I did buy one, I was working for Harrison radio at the time and Drake was the ONLY Amateur radio company that offered an employed discount on there radio's to retail sales people, as you know there is not any real margin in this market. I had to wait six months before Drake worked threw the backorders but it was well worth it. For that time period it was and still is today an very solid RF design plus the RX section was ahead of its time in which it started a trend for up conversion rigs that followed.
Jim
-
I recently came across this post by Rob Sherwood in the IC-7610 Groups (Ic-7610 vs FTDX 101) and thought it was interesting. All of these SDR's can be improved with firmware so I can see manufacturers pushing each other to always be on the cutting edge of this technology. As a new owner of a 7610, I'm happy to see my radio is hanging with the higher class radios.
<< Rob SherwoodDec 14 #24756
The FTdx-101D measured better than the IC-7610 on one measurement only, dynamic range because it has a roofing filter. My three 7610s have never been close to overloading from a local signal let alone a skip signal.
I spent the last two contest weekends (ARRL 160 and 10 meters) doing A/B comparisons between the 7610 and a K4D. Both are direct sampling and by definition no roofing filters. The 7610 won hands down on CW and SSB. Thank goodness modern radios are firmware upgradable for feature improvements and bug fixes. The latest update to the 7610 (and other Icom transceivers) was the new scroll feature. This was a massive improvement for a contester the way the waterfall no longer smears / skews off at an angle when tuning.
Over time the K4 will likely improve, but the last two weekends were an eye opener from a contest operating standpoint. I never got to use an FTdx-101D in a contest, but I did run the FTdx10 during January’s CQWW 160m CW contest. Lab wise the FTdx10 is only a little below the 101D, but operationally I prefer using a similarly priced IC-7300.
Rob, NC0B >>
-
Rob's comments are all well and good but like in real estate location location location so when your very effective station is located in Bolder Colorado there is a big difference between being there and having the same like station somewhere on the east coast plus place that station near water on the east coast and you have a way different type of circumstances. This is were that 20 to 30db of blocking makes the subtle differences and switching from the 7610 in which I owned for almost 3 years and now own the FTDX101D has shown me the differences. I was swayed by the sexy seductive display on the Icom, even liked the HDSDR software Icom came up with that gave me Flex like GUI but in the end I went for all out RX performance and the Yaesu delivers on all counts.
I also prefer two sets of controls for each RX section and the easy flexibility in switching between the two when you are multi tasking between 75m and 40 at night or during contesting its far easier, to get that with Icom you gotta buy the 7851, that's not happening cause its way above my pay grade.
Yaesu started something with the superhet/SDR platform which only time will tell what the K4HD will do but its clear that the K4 has come to late to the market, it is not being takin as the Radio to have cause Icom has clearly taken the HF SDR rig with knobs place and Yaesu was first in our radio market with the Superhet/SDR platform. What a great time to have radio's of this caliber to buy!
-
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
-
Fit. You won't find that on any list. How well a radio fits you. I guarantee the top 5 of that list will not fit me. Your best bet is forget that silly list and go to a brick and mortar or hamfests and spin some knobs and see what fits you best. What's that? No one ever talks about fit? Because it's too personal a thing and doesn't fit the help support the channel by buying from this link narrative. Watch out for those channels.
-
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
TLDR
-
Any rig in the top 20 of Sherwood's list will outperform the abilities of most antennas and locations. QRM/QRM etc. All these factors will degrade reception more than you gain with a rig's great capabilities.
Quite correct. The Sherwood chart is academic at best and largely meaningless to most hams and certainly to beginners regardless of antenna system.
-
Grumpy, et al,
1) Thanks for you input....and I agree with you! :)
And, if you click those links and have a read, you'll see that I'm not the only one! We have discussed this in detail....have a look see...
Fit. You won't find that on any list. How well a radio fits you. I guarantee the top 5 of that list will not fit me. Your best bet is forget that silly list and go to a brick and mortar or hamfests and spin some knobs and see what fits you best. What's that? No one ever talks about fit? Because it's too personal a thing and doesn't fit the help support the channel by buying from this link narrative. Watch out for those channels.
My reason for adding some more to this thread is directly to help those I see, and hear on-the-air, that might need some clarity in what they are reading / being told.
Grumpy, I do thank you for you input!
2) Rich, KD7HNN....I freely admit that I had to Google what TLDR meant. :(
Sorry that this was of no help to you....but, in reality it isn't targeted to longtime hams but rather to those newer hams, especially those new to HF, etc. (I thought that was implied by what I actually wrote....but, since you didn't read it, I guess that didn't register with you....oppss)
In any case, I wish you a nice day!
3) And, Don, K1SVK....that's really my underlying point (for many years).....and to some it's also ironic that this is Rob Sherwood's point as well....if folks actually read what he writes and/or listen to what he says, he makes it quite clear that he agrees with you! :)
73,
John, KA4WJA
P.S. I just hope that the hams that actually need this info / clarity will actually read it! hi hi
For the rest of you....thanks for the input. :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
Martin (G8FXC):
Excellent summary!
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Hi John (KA4WJA):
It's GOOD to agree on some things, don't you think?
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:
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
-
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....
"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:
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...
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3cU7GQPT76o/V6yrsUIVdYI/AAAAAAAAh00/mhnMbDjeYV0rWYJaNNOS5LgXbtnKV9qmgCLcB/s1600/tr7selblog1.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/caHefdv0NGs/maxresdefault.jpg)
--- Modern 21st Century rigs like the Kenwood TS-590SG, etc. (and, although I detest the ft-991, its front panel is decently laid-out)
(http://cdn.ecommercedns.uk/files/7/226987/7/8197707/324384eb41cba3836c89bf0b31f7fbb0.jpg)
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.?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wMy3f52sSvo/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://qrznow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/k4-front-white-bg-product_530x@2x-1.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l4MFjPUS6BI/XOeKHPA2CPI/AAAAAAAAmjA/judvF082rY0ZIjCvLle5eAc_Su51EAF9ACLcBGAs/s1600/FT-DX-101D.jpg)
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
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:
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!
(http://www.wb4hfn.com/DRAKE/DrakeCatalogsBrochures/PriceLists/PriceList-Apr1978-01.jpg)
(http://www.wb4hfn.com/DRAKE/DrakeCatalogsBrochures/PriceLists/PriceList_1979_02.jpg)
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):
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
-
It is quite easy to move the data from Sherwood's list to excel and sort by a different parameter. Actually if memory serves when I did that I had to edit some of the cells to get the sorts right but nonetheless...
What other headings would one want to sort by? Noise floor would seem to apply to a lot of uses by a lot of hams and swl's, Local Oscillator Noise maybe but probably that would apply to the DX'er in a pileup, Front End Selectivity is important to every situation seemingly...
-
20-30 years ago the emphasis was on Blocking Dynamic Range and a value around 130db was good, 120 really so-so. Among the top in the Sherwood List, some have a value around 120. Choosing among the top list rigs makes sense for the CW contester that aims to win a contest. However, I truly think that the best contesters with a rig listed in the bottom would still compete for a podium.
-
It is quite easy to move the data from Sherwood's list to excel and sort by a different parameter. Actually if memory serves when I did that I had to edit some of the cells to get the sorts right but nonetheless...
What other headings would one want to sort by? Noise floor would seem to apply to a lot of uses by a lot of hams and swl's, Local Oscillator Noise maybe but probably that would apply to the DX'er in a pileup, Front End Selectivity is important to every situation seemingly...
See https://foxmikehotel.com/hamography/studies/rigs-price-and-satisfaction-studies/