eHam
eHam Forums => Software Defined Radio => Topic started by: N6IJB on February 08, 2023, 06:13:25 PM
-
I've noticed price reductions on both rigs recently. Are they about to be replaced by new models from Icom? If so, does anyone have details. Both Icom rigs have been in production for about 6 years.
-
Been thinking the same, maybe the 7300 first. Also the Kenwood 590/590SG has been out a long time and maybe they will replace it with a display type rig. Love my 890S Time will tell.
-
ICOM has had a long history of updating their existing models before they eventually come out with a brand new model. A few examples of their update history: the IC-706 to IC-706II to IC-706IIG, the IC-756 to IC-756Pro to IC-756 ProII to IC-756 ProIII, the IC-7600 to IC-7610, and the IC-7800 that was eventually updated to the IC-7850 and IC-7851. And their IC-705 and the soon to be released IC-905 share physical attributes too. Compared to engineering a completely new model, making improvements to their existing models no doubt saves ICOM a lot of money.
Given how popular the IC-7300 has been and ICOM's past history of updating their models, it wouldn't surprise me if we eventually see an update to the IC-7300 model, perhaps an IC-7300 Pro?
Butch, KF4HR
-
There has been some speculation when the PW2 hits the market it will require diffrent kind of 7610 ?
-
The 7610 is still $3250. I think the 7300 reduction to $1000 after rebate is in response to the Yaesu FT-710AESS at $1050, to have a competitive edge. Just merchandising strategy.
Both Icoms are still selling very well, and can be software updatable by Icom if need be. I don’t see Icom spending R&D to retool either one in the near future.
Another factor is the changing technology and operators’ mode preferences…mainly the popularity of digital modes like FT8. Just listen to the bands to see the imbalance/disparity between FT8 and legacy CW and SSB operation. If anything, I can imagine the manufacturers releasing “digital-only” radios…fixed frequencies with no provision for a mic, key, speaker, or headphones…for under $500. Just a transceiver with a sound card and USB connection to a computer.
Far fetched? I hope so ;).
-
Far fetched? I hope so
Why? We've had mode-specific radios since. . .forever.
We've had crystal controlled radios since. . .forever.
It may be a specialty market in the end, but we've long had rigs that did less than everything. If someone does this, it would be . . . normal.
The real deal is that the IC 7300 is so cheap (it would have cost about 450 in 1990), that most people can buy it as their starter rig.
I probably still would find somebody's used rig if I were starting out again today, but I would expect to pay 500, maybe 750 dollars and get something other than an entry radio. And, in so doing, would have paid something similar to what I actually did.
Indeed, the 7300 itself did a number on rig prices, which affects the used market, too.
The real reason we haven't seen digital only radios is that there isn't much money to be saved anymore. The SDR concept is kind of inherently all-mode.
You can get a real good SDR receiver for about 100 dollars. All mode practically by definition.
Way back when the SDR 1000 came out, you could get a rock-bound, single band rig (again, a receiver) for idiotically small dollars. 40 bucks, as I recall. But, again, all mode.
It's the transmitter that costs.
You can find SDR transmitters or transceivers available via kickstarter. Regularly. They are invariably QRP rigs, but they exist, and are about as complicated as a 2m FM brick. Because SDR takes out all the knobs and adjustment stuff.
Once you get to the end of a SDR QRP transmit chain, then the issue becomes one of "can I buy the amps that get me from one watt to one hundred to fifteen hundred". You can certainly get from 100 to full legal any number of ways.
And, there are a couple of nice specialty amps that get you from QRP to 100. The KXPA100 will take anything with 5 watts out to that 100. Not as many alternatives here, and the KXPA100 is pricey these days, but all this is pretty much off the shelf.
Moreover, radios like the KX3 or the Yaesu 850D cut the legs out from under most scenarios (SOTA, for instance) that require seriously low weight or portability. Why, exactly, am I bothering with a single mode rig again? Except for the sheer fun of it?
Low cost all mode rigs (and rigs that can be controlled via USB at that) are cutting the legs out from under specialty rigs of all kinds.
-
Far fetched? I hope so
Why? We've had mode-specific radios since. . .forever.
We've had crystal controlled radios since. . .forever.
It may be a specialty market in the end, but we've long had rigs that did less than everything. If someone does this, it would be . . . normal.
When was the last time an amateur radio transceiver, mode specific, didn't at least have provisions for a mic, key, speaker, or headphones? Not normal, but certainly different.
-
So say you are very satisfied with the 7300. What kind of new feature would make the new model desirable? I think a monitor output or a bigger screen, maybe a change to receive audio.
Or how about a huge touch screen and only a few knobs and a speaker mount that directs sound forward from a vent under the front of the radio.
-
So say you are very satisfied with the 7300. What kind of new feature would make the new model desirable? I think a monitor output or a bigger screen, maybe a change to receive audio.
Or how about a huge touch screen and only a few knobs and a speaker mount that directs sound forward from a vent under the front of the radio.
I use an external speaker, but yeah all those things. Plus a second receiver, APF, more antenna outputs and I/O connections, etc. Oops...that's a 7610 ;D. 64 years in ham radio and my two 7300's do the trick for me, even as an avid contester.
-
I just bought another 7300, and yes, all the below.
It works quite well for the price, its easy to use.
But the screen is small, the audio could be better and the antenna tuna could actually do something worth while.
The 7610 has a bigger screen, more buttons and I/O but its still close to a 7300 for a LOT more money.
They have sold a LOT of 7300's and just need to lower the price a bit to continue to sell boat loads of them...
So say you are very satisfied with the 7300. What kind of new feature would make the new model desirable? I think a monitor output or a bigger screen, maybe a change to receive audio.
Or how about a huge touch screen and only a few knobs and a speaker mount that directs sound forward from a vent under the front of the radio.
-
So say you are very satisfied with the 7300. What kind of new feature would make the new model desirable? I think a monitor output or a bigger screen, maybe a change to receive audio. Or how about a huge touch screen and only a few knobs and a speaker mount that directs sound forward from a vent under the front of the radio.
Three things would REALLY help the IC-7300:
1. 2 more ENOB on the RX ADC to combat saturation, in place of the really poor dither function.
2. More individual, sharper bandpass filters to further band limit QRM and noise into the ADC
3. RX only output to host a 2nd receiver or SDR/enhanced band scope
A video output would be a nice "bells and whistles" extra, but wouldn't have much impact on radio utility. Call it "Item 4" on the list. Might sell some more radios to some operators.
Wouldn't need to change the form factor much. It could use the same case and be called the "IC-7300SP" (Super Performance). No doubt it would have to be released for at least $1,600 to cover added/better hardware and redesign costs.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Brian - K6BRN
-
A couple of quick wins would be the inclusion of a socket to drive an external monitor and an RF output to drive an external SDR - effectively build in a PTRX-7300. Neither should require major redesign and it would go a long way towards modernising a rig which has been excellent value but is beginning to look a little boring...
Martin (G8FXC)
-
How about a LAN interface in addition to USB, so the 7300 can be operated remotely without a local PC? While they’re at it, how about a web based interface so it doesn’t require specialized software?
-
Or instead of “sprucing up” the current 7300, just introduce a one-receiver version of the 7610 for $2,000. Still having the Dual Watch feature that the 7600 had. A price point right between the two. That would blow away the Kenwood TS-890.
-
The 7610 and FTdx10 I had both had a monitor output for a big screen and I never used it after cheking it out.
They were not like a computer sdr screen, just bigger versions of the lower res screens on the radios.
I am unsure of the expense added to include a video output...rather have an RX antenna port which costs a relay and jack...
-
If anything, I can imagine the manufacturers releasing “digital-only” radios…fixed frequencies with no provision for a mic, key, speaker, or headphones…for under $500. Just a transceiver with a sound card and USB connection to a computer.
Far fetched? I hope so ;).
QRP labs has already done so. See the March 2023 QST product review. Does most digital modes but not PSK.
73 John AF5CC
-
Thank you for posting that AF5CC. Here is a link to the QST review. Only $69, less than the cost of the SignaLink sound card I used to have for my FT100D.
https://qrp-labs.com/images/qdx/QST_QDX_Review.pdf
-
I've been following the QRP Labs website for a while and reading the QDX material posted on their site. While the QDX is not quite the definitive stand-alone all-digital-mode radio, it is a very credible development which does many things right - such as recognizing that analog transceivers and linear amplifiers are neither required nor optimum for many digital modes.
There's a lot of very useful background information in the article by Hans (G0UPL) at: https://qrp-labs.com/images/qdx/fdim2022.pdf The method of determining the "audio" offset is interesting and I'd be curious to have a look at the very near-in JT mode spectra to compare them with typical analog transceiver spectra. I suspect they are much improved, as in many all-digital exciters. Analog exciters (transceivers) are often beset with far more artifacts than most operators realize, simply because they don't measure them, nor check secondary decode levels etc.
One other commendable aspect of the QRP Labs development is that they are making monoband transceivers available for 630 and 2200 m (recognizing the difficulty of very wideband switching in the multi-band units), continuing their support for an LF/MF community often ignored by the likes of Icom and Yaesu - but not Kenwood, Flex, Elecraft, and some others.
One comment I would make is that the QST review is very poor. For a novel, low-cost and potentially popular kit, I would have expected a more detailed lab review, looking at some potentially interesting points of differentiation with the traditional way of doing the signal generation, transmitting and receiving. For example, there are no near-in JT-mode spectra, nor any quantitative measurements of receiver performance. Fortunately, QRP Labs do post some pretty decent transmitter test data on their site which, with a bit of interpretation, presents a fairly favourable view of that side of the radio.
73, Peter.
-
it is a very credible development which does many things right - such as recognizing that analog transceivers and linear amplifiers are neither required nor optimum for many digital modes.
Pptimum and required is what gets your signal to where you want it to go.
If you require to get to Lebanon from California , smoke signals, is not an optimum method.
Neither is 5Watts.
-
You've missed the point: it's not about the power output so much as the architecture of the radio. However, leaving aside transceiver signalling systems for FSK, contemporary non-linear RF power amplifiers are capable of competitive outputs at very high efficiencies and spectral purity.
-
One comment I would make is that the QST review is very poor. For a novel, low-cost and potentially popular kit, I would have expected a more detailed lab review, looking at some potentially interesting points of differentiation with the traditional way of doing the signal generation, transmitting and receiving. For example, there are no near-in JT-mode spectra, nor any quantitative measurements of receiver performance. Fortunately, QRP Labs do post some pretty decent transmitter test data on their site which, with a bit of interpretation, presents a fairly favourable view of that side of the radio.
http://www.arrl.org/employment-opportunities
Digital RF Engineer
Assist in the development of the testing of the performance of amateur radio equipment in digital operating modes.
-
The 7610 and FTdx10 I had both had a monitor output for a big screen and I never used it after cheking it out.
They were not like a computer sdr screen, just bigger versions of the lower res screens on the radios.
I am unsure of the expense added to include a video output...rather have an RX antenna port which costs a relay and jack...
I agree with you about the video monitor port. The 7610 has that of course, and after looking at that at friends shacks, I decided they were of no value. The display on the 7610 is large enough. Even for my old eyes. So no value added there. At least not to my operation. The receive antenna port of the 7610 IS useful, and I do use it. It would be handy on a 7300 also. An audio peaking filter in the 7300 would be a welcome addition for CW. The 7610 has it and I use it a lot. The 7300 does not. Unfortunately.
-
You've missed the point: it's not about the power output so much as the architecture of the radio. However, leaving aside transceiver signalling systems for FSK, contemporary non-linear RF power amplifiers are capable of competitive outputs at very high efficiencies and spectral purity.
Skipping the "arrl lab bashing " vs "qrp labs design praise" ,as far as missed points go, the point you seem to be making is that there are "better" ways to design radios and concesquenty amplification stages , rather than going through the audio stage.
All I was trying to point out is that's all fine and dandy as long as I'm not limited to 4.98 Watts. Otherwise gimme all the power I can get by whatever method will get me there. :)
-
As a member and supporter of the ARRL I'll continue to comment freely on the published material, much of which is good but some of which misses the mark editorially and technically. It's also the case that companies like QRP Labs deserve praise for their innovation in ham radio, notwithstanding the inability of the technically and comprehension-challenged to appreciate them. Zak's link to the ARRL job ad is very relevant and interesting; it shows that at least the League appreciates the need for more horsepower in the digital communications area.
-
When was the last time an amateur radio transceiver, mode specific, didn't at least have provisions for a mic, key, speaker, or headphones? Not normal, but certainly different.
The Hermes Lite 2 QRP transceiver (currently in production) only has an ethernet port and a key jack. No front panel controls, tuning knob, mic, speaker, or headphone connection. Of course software on the connected PC, Pi, or iPad can synthesize a digital IQ signal containing CW, SSB or FT8, etc. (or any combination thereof).