eHam

eHam Forums => Software Defined Radio => Topic started by: W6UV on May 18, 2018, 08:17:30 AM



Title: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on May 18, 2018, 08:17:30 AM
Gigaparts has a page for this new rig up, and it looks like it's not an SDR rig. They're billing it as a "full down conversion" rig. Bummer.

https://www.gigaparts.com/kenwood-ts-890s.html

(https://scontent.fprg2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/32876534_1657239187705612_2358840878421770240_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=8c8e92dfc995015f0104d2365b53f413&oe=5B8352A7)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: S58DX on May 18, 2018, 09:27:56 AM
Hi Gerard,
if the qouted receiver specifications are veryfiable,
that would be one of the best receivers so far...
Let us wait and see  :)
Though, i could not recall any manufacturer ( amateur radio, please)
ever used H-mode mixer...

I am hardcore Kenwood fan, thus i am biased 8)

Nermin S58DX


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: SP5QIP on May 18, 2018, 09:36:38 AM
Disappointing look.
Competition is selling SDR radios with touch screens, here we have chopped 990.
Numbers? Damn we can not hear that for sure.
I'm also Kenwood fan, but not this rig.
Mike


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 18, 2018, 09:45:13 AM
There is nothing disappointing about it.  Kenwood has probably built the ultimate analog front end meaning that this radio will tolerate RF environments that will crush the current DS SDR crowd.  Analog radios have an advantage in strong signal environments.  Before you go off half cocked read the presentation.

 http://www.ab4oj.com/sdr/apdxc16_sdr.pdf

It will be very interesting to see where this rig winds up on the test reviews.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on May 18, 2018, 10:32:24 AM
RF environments that will crush the current DS SDR crowd.

I've been using DS SDR rigs for the past four years and during that time I've never encountered a single instance of RX overload. Not one. Even during major contests with the bands full of extremely strong signals from the superstations.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N2DTS on May 18, 2018, 10:42:43 AM
At least it does not look like a cheap vcr or something.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on May 18, 2018, 11:13:37 AM
Probably a year or more away. The vendors are taking reservations. Reserve yours today, so you can get yours a week or two before the vendors are fully stocked, and pay the highest price with maybe a few bugs thrown in ;D.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: AB4D on May 18, 2018, 11:20:35 AM
Probably a year or more away. The vendors are taking reservations. Reserve yours today, so you can get yours a week or two before the vendors are fully stocked, and pay the highest price with maybe a few bugs thrown in ;D.

The posted advertisement from Kenwood at Dayton says, "Coming this late Summer".


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N6YFM on May 18, 2018, 11:31:10 AM
Probably a year or more away. The vendors are taking reservations. Reserve yours today, so you can get yours a week or two before the vendors are fully stocked, and pay the highest price with maybe a few bugs thrown in ;D.

The posted advertisement from Kenwood at Dayton says, "Coming this late Summer".


And recall that both Icom and Flex said something similar, which then translated into
"Summer + 9 months"  :-)
I have been in manufacturing for 30 years;  The marketing people tend to get a little excited about
potential revenue, but never give the engineers enough time.  Engineering (my area) then
finds various components that are causing trouble, not meeting anywhere near the component
vendors specs or reliability, leading to delays, etc.   Then we find the firmware teams having
bugs that did not show up in QA testing, hence more delays.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

I have been doing this long enough, yawn, that it feels a little like Bill Murray in that movie
"Groundhog Day" :-)    When the marketing folks say "Summer 2018", take that as a really
crude "Guess-timate".   They might be right, they are typically off by about 6 to 12 months.

Cheers


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on May 18, 2018, 11:33:02 AM
Probably a year or more away. The vendors are taking reservations. Reserve yours today, so you can get yours a week or two before the vendors are fully stocked, and pay the highest price with maybe a few bugs thrown in ;D.

The posted advertisement from Kenwood at Dayton says, "Coming this late Summer".


I stand corrected. Apparently, they don't follow the Flex or Icom routine. Good for them...reduces the salivating time for early adopters ;).


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on May 18, 2018, 11:44:58 AM
Disappointing look.
Competition is selling SDR radios with touch screens, here we have chopped 990.
Numbers? Damn we can not hear that for sure.
I'm also Kenwood fan, but not this rig.
Mike

You do realize that the TS-990s screen is a touch screen, don't you?

or maybe you don't.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: AB4D on May 18, 2018, 11:52:21 AM

And recall that both Icom and Flex said something similar, which then translated into
"Summer + 9 months"  :-)
I have been in manufacturing for 30 years;  The marketing people tend to get a little excited about
potential revenue, but never give the engineers enough time.  Engineering (my area) then
finds various components that are causing trouble, not meeting anywhere near the component
vendors specs or reliability, leading to delays, etc.   Then we find the firmware teams having
bugs that did not show up in QA testing, hence more delays.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

I have been doing this long enough, yawn, that it feels a little like Bill Murray in that movie
"Groundhog Day" :-)    When the marketing folks say "Summer 2018", take that as a really
crude "Guess-timate".   They might be right, they are typically off by about 6 to 12 months.

Cheers
[/quote]

I don't see it being too much of a stretch for Kenwood to deliver the TS-890S by late summer.  The TS-890S appears to be nearly a clone of the TS-990S. It more than likely did not require any groundbreaking engineering, techniques, or parts to produce.  A TS-990S, minus some hardware, and a PA derived from the TS-590SG.  Barring any unforeseen FCC approval issues. It could possibly be available by September.  You may well be correct, but as always, time will tell.  ;)

73 Jim


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: SP5QIP on May 18, 2018, 01:40:35 PM
You do realize that the TS-990s screen is a touch screen, don't you?
I did. Don't you realize, that it is kinda limited?
They just took 990 display and put it in.
Mike


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 18, 2018, 02:04:39 PM
I am convinced that the Kenwood 890 is going to be better than many here seem to think.  The folks at Kenwood are well aware of the competition and if the 890 is a good as the K3S, then I expect it to be a real winner. 

Even if it is only as good as, or slightly better than the TS-590 then it is still a top tier radio from a performance standpoint.  We have gotten far too hung up on one single performance metric.  Unfortunately, most hams these days don't have the technical knowledge to understand what the sum of all of the test data mean in terms of over all performance.  The idea that a Direct Sampling radio is better by default is a false notion.  Lets just see how this rig shakes out.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on May 18, 2018, 02:30:26 PM
Remember Adam had posted that about SDR receivers back in 2016, since that time Icom brought a radio out called the 7610 with two Digi select front end filters which greatly increases the ability to operate in a rich RF environment, as a mater of fact they have used the digi select filter in radio's as early as the 7800, 7700 and now in both the 7851 and the 7610 which there are only a few db apart. A good example is K3LR's M/M station who keeps on setting records using Icom top rigs. The New Yaesu has something called a VC controlled front end but until there is more info its a buzz word. This new Kenwood hay have 150db blocking but at what separation 100Khz, 50Khz,20Khz,5Khz or 2Khz, now if its at 2Khz then that is dam good but even other top rigs just maybe come close. There is no sub RX and its TBA price is rumored around the $4k mark well maybe they better try around or lower than $3k.
Just remember Flex advertised great RMD numbers that just before Dayton they came out with a PEN which is there fancy word for recall and any radio's before April 12 had issues along with other discrepancies, I am soo glad I didn't go that way cause there so called first batch were 20db or so below stated specs. So far the one radio to hit the streets and had no issues meeting there RX specs has been Icom plus they have improved those somewhat since V1.06 has been released but has not been tested yet.
AS far as the K3S is concerned they do test well but why in the world does Elecraft try and compare there bones basic $3K plus radio against a radio you can buy today for $1k, the AKA 7300, if Kenwood want to compete they better sharpen that list price pencil really sharp, I really think that some of these manufactures are not really looking at the big picture but I see Icom is with both eye's.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on May 18, 2018, 07:00:27 PM
Kenwood's TS-890S poster says (found it with Google on QRZ and hamlife .jp :

3rd order IMD ... 110 dB
RMDR ... 112 dB
Blocking DR ... 150 dB

and all of these are specified for 2 kHz spacing, at 14.1 MHz, CW, 500 Hz BW, Preamp off...  standard testing settings for Sherwood.

That puts it at the top of Sherwood's list.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on May 18, 2018, 08:31:01 PM
providing it meets specs, there are no specks that state at what spacing I assume you are assuming that 2Khz but until they publish them its a crap shot.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on May 18, 2018, 08:42:26 PM
Here's the poster with the specifications.

(http://www.w6rz.net/ts-890sinfo.jpg)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on May 18, 2018, 08:49:31 PM
I like Kenwood's moxie. Since it seems everyone is obsessed with the Sherwood numbers, you might as well build something that tops the list with whatever architecture that can ensure that.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3BL on May 18, 2018, 09:18:06 PM
Wrong Forum ;)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: S58DX on May 19, 2018, 03:06:08 AM
An excellent reading and article about H-mode mixer.
Have had followed up in the past in technical Topics, by Pat Hawker G3VA..

https://martein.home.xs4all.nl/pa3ake/hmode/hmode_intro.html

I am pretty certain that Kenwood engineers have reasons why did they
implement H-mode mixer and full down conversion...
Also, merits of LO and it's purity will be subject to watch..

I remember in 1990 or 1991 ,when ARRL did test first Kenwood TS-850S in their
lab...They simply said that DDS syntesizer  superseed their ability to measure
noise floor..in their lab equipment...

But again, i am biased as my entire collection is Kenwood ;)

Time and tests will tell :)

Nermin S58DX


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on May 19, 2018, 03:13:51 AM
It would be nice if the transmitter has same high performance as the receiver in regards to the transmitter IMD performance. Kenwood in the past always produced radios like the TS830S, TS930S and TS940S that had very  good IMD performance.  Not forgetting the TS950SDX which had very good IMD performance. There were some horrible transmitter IMD radios like the TS870S which was really bad.

Lets hope that Kenwoods new radio has a decent PA with decent IMD performance. But I wont be holding my breather because this new release from them is more about being cheap  rather than offering ultimate receiver and transmitter performance. With a H mode mixer it should give the K3 a run for the money and make the K3 look bad value for money.

There is nothing disappointing about it.  Kenwood has probably built the ultimate analog front end meaning that this radio will tolerate RF environments that will crush the current DS SDR crowd.  Analog radios have an advantage in strong signal environments.  Before you go off half cocked read the presentation.

 http://www.ab4oj.com/sdr/apdxc16_sdr.pdf

It will be very interesting to see where this rig winds up on the test reviews.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on May 19, 2018, 06:34:10 AM
I wish there was a tabled list of all the popular ham transmitters by performance, the way Sherwood does it for his receiver testing.

Is there is a transmitter list that anybody has compiled?

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K4FMH on May 19, 2018, 06:49:19 AM
I'm glad that you've had this positive experience. You didn't state the SDR rigs you've used but just know that this doesn't necessarily generalize to all rigs in all environments. In a contest or Field Day setup, the need for band pass filters, especially if more than 100 watts is used, can be critical. The antenna switching can also come into the mix. So, mileage may vary here.

73 de K4FMH

RF environments that will crush the current DS SDR crowd.

I've been using DS SDR rigs for the past four years and during that time I've never encountered a single instance of RX overload. Not one. Even during major contests with the bands full of extremely strong signals from the superstations.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 19, 2018, 09:15:06 AM
I'm glad that you've had this positive experience. You didn't state the SDR rigs you've used but just know that this doesn't necessarily generalize to all rigs in all environments. In a contest or Field Day setup, the need for band pass filters, especially if more than 100 watts is used, can be critical. The antenna switching can also come into the mix. So, mileage may vary here.

73 de K4FMH

RF environments that will crush the current DS SDR crowd.

I've been using DS SDR rigs for the past four years and during that time I've never encountered a single instance of RX overload. Not one. Even during major contests with the bands full of extremely strong signals from the superstations.

Thank you for bringing that up.  The necessity to plan the radio and antenna configuration, and to provide adequate filtering and isolation is lost on so many new hams.  I have seen numerous accounts of poor performance in field day setups and not just SDR but a good many newer radios.  I don't care if the rig is digital or analog, there are a number of things you should do that will improve performance when radios and antennas are in close proximity to one another.   

And FWIW, I worked my first contest with an SX-101A and an HT-32B and did not suffer any overload either.  That was more than four years ago.  There is a big difference between contesting between S9 +20 signals and operating with a couple of rigs parked 15 feet away.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on May 19, 2018, 09:54:00 AM
Lets hope that Kenwoods new radio has a decent PA with decent IMD performance. But I wont be holding my breather

Let’s hope that Zenki starts to use a callsign like everyone else, but I won’t be holding my breath because he either doesn’t have a callsign, or, more likely, he’s a bloody coward.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KN4RA on May 19, 2018, 11:03:41 AM
I like it and will own one.  :) No pre release complaints from me.

Looks like a modernized TS-870S.



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on May 19, 2018, 12:13:28 PM
It's an very interesting new radio.  So, now that they've got this one done, I hope their next step is a revised TS-2000. 

I have one of those, and it's ~16 years old already.  I have taken it as carry-on luggage on flights, used it in a few contests, tried satellites, and used it as an FM basestation too.  It keeps on working.  In terms of technology and front panel though, it could use a modernization makeover, especially in the noise reduction and filtering areas.  A bandscope would be nice too.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VA3VF on May 19, 2018, 12:45:58 PM
Kenwood's TS-890S poster says (found it with Google on QRZ and hamlife .jp :

3rd order IMD ... 110 dB
RMDR ... 112 dB
Blocking DR ... 150 dB

and all of these are specified for 2 kHz spacing, at 14.1 MHz, CW, 500 Hz BW, Preamp off...  standard testing settings for Sherwood.

That puts it at the top of Sherwood's list.

73, Ed

Yes, that's impressive.

By the way, does it matter whether it's an SDR or not, if the specs are like the ones quoted above? Do we want to buy an SDR for its own sake, or the best radio available (cost not being an issue)?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VA3VF on May 19, 2018, 12:54:23 PM
I'm glad that you've had this positive experience. You didn't state the SDR rigs you've used but just know that this doesn't necessarily generalize to all rigs in all environments. In a contest or Field Day setup, the need for band pass filters, especially if more than 100 watts is used, can be critical. The antenna switching can also come into the mix. So, mileage may vary here.

73 de K4FMH

RF environments that will crush the current DS SDR crowd.

I've been using DS SDR rigs for the past four years and during that time I've never encountered a single instance of RX overload. Not one. Even during major contests with the bands full of extremely strong signals from the superstations.

Thank you for bringing that up. 

I remember being a bit worried when I purchased the IC-7300. There were a number of reports mentioning the OVF light being 'easily' activated. While I don't doubt it can happen under certain conditions, I think most of the cases have to do with the 'all knobs fully clockwise' syndrome.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N4UE on May 19, 2018, 01:30:46 PM
I call it "N8FVJ Syndrome". What's a Manual?????

ron
N4UE


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KT0DD on May 19, 2018, 07:25:19 PM
Ok, now I'm going to rattle some cages...Price point? any guestimations as to where this will land pricewise?  I probably won't get one as I just got my IC-7300 for Christmas and It is all I need. I live in a noisy suburb with a mediocre antenna and couldn't take advantage of any hotter of a receiver anyway. Thankfully the WebSDR guys have saved my radio hobby. Maybe someday when Icom is bringing out the 7620 and cut the 7610 price to the bone, I can get one of those. I really haven't seen Kenwood chop prices on their closeout discontinued rigs, but they stick with successful models for years and do not play "Musical New Rigs" like I & Y do.

73. Todd - KT0DD


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on May 19, 2018, 08:08:32 PM
Looks to be a one-receiver radio, not competing with a 7610 in that respect, but still good features and preliminary specs. I'll put in a guess at $2,800.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3TEX on May 20, 2018, 06:49:54 AM
Let's hope the bandscope and waterfall are better than the one on the 990.

Looks to be exactly the same, hope I'm wrong.

If the same, there will be lots of diss appointments from customers....

Kenwood should hire the team who did the scope on the ICOM 7610... Now there's a nice scope....

The 990 scope is a real let down, with crap resolution and phantom signals all over the place.

The scope on my ICOM 7300 is light years ahead of the one on the 990....

Les, VK3TEX.

PS Still love my 990, except for you know what...that damn scope!!


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on May 20, 2018, 07:31:42 AM
the TS-890s receiver front-end appears to be using a so-called "H-mode" mixer that gives fabulous performance.  QEX had a few articles over the years about this one.  It's no doubt a significant reason for the stellar receiver specs that the Kenwood hamvention advertising picture is reporting.  So one can hope that the images and phantom signals will get taken out by the new design.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VA3VF on May 20, 2018, 08:09:19 AM
the TS-890s receiver front-end appears to be using a so-called "H-mode" mixer that gives fabulous performance.  QEX had a few articles over the years about this one.  It's no doubt a significant reason for the stellar receiver specs that the Kenwood hamvention advertising picture is reporting.  So one can hope that the images and phantom signals will get taken out by the new design.

73, Ed

Is the H-mode mixer use confirmed? I wonder if they could be using the same mixer as the AirSpy HF+:

https://airspy.com/airspy-hf-plus/



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 20, 2018, 09:24:32 AM
the TS-890s receiver front-end appears to be using a so-called "H-mode" mixer that gives fabulous performance.  QEX had a few articles over the years about this one.  It's no doubt a significant reason for the stellar receiver specs that the Kenwood hamvention advertising picture is reporting.  So one can hope that the images and phantom signals will get taken out by the new design.

73, Ed

If the posted specs are true this is the new gold standard in receiver performance, I don't care if it's an Armstrong regen, it will unseat everything on the Sherwood list.  All of the Flex radio guys will be beside themselves with grief.  Their one and only defense will be that the Flex has a better display, like that matters. ::)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VA3VF on May 20, 2018, 09:55:21 AM
Quote
All of the <insert the best radio brand in the world, in your mind, that is> radio guys will be beside themselves with grief.

Isn't that true. It always makes me laugh the way some people will take any criticism of 'their' radios as a personal offence. ::)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KT0DD on May 21, 2018, 02:50:58 AM
Does anyone know if the new 890 has rear connection DVI or HDMI to put the display on an eternal monitor?

Thank You.

Todd - KT0DD


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3TEX on May 21, 2018, 05:21:23 AM
Pretty sure it has the DVI like the 990.

Cheers,

Les, VK3TEX.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on May 21, 2018, 05:39:35 AM
I would venture to guess that the video out is a DVI like the one on Icom's 7610 so they don't have to pay for the HDMI fees. Before Dayton this year there were some rumors that this radio was going to be around the $4k price point, that would sink before it swims cause without a second RX and no type of extra filtering like what Icom gives with the digi select (BTW that works really well) or Yaesu's VC which sounds like a new buzz word for there VRF used in the 5000 I would say between $2500+- but who knows. I did hear some scuttlebutt about them bringing another radio to market that would be an SDR but both Kenwood and Yaesu have to do catch up to Icom who disrupted the whole market over two years back with the 7300 that has totaled over 20,000 of them sold world wide and now the 7610 which broke the $3k market this weekend and now licking but on the M version of the new Flex rigs. I also feel that any of the Japanese companies that come out with a SDR will just be a copy of the Icom's rig so who knows. As far as specs they can advertise those numbers but we all know that very rarely those number are what they do in a lab, both Kenwood and Yaesu have made claims in the past and the Icom radio's from the past two to three years have been able to meet the mark stated, only time will tell.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on May 21, 2018, 10:39:09 AM
one more thing.  The TS-890 poster (shown on previous page by W6RZ, also on the QRZnow page) says it has a 100 Watt tuner built in.  Meanwhile the TS-990 has 200 Watts transmit output.  So I guess that in addition to the single high performance receiver, it has 100 Watts output.

Not really a down-scaled TS-990S, more of an up-scaled TS-590SG.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on May 21, 2018, 02:44:29 PM
I would venture to guess that the video out is a DVI like the one on Icom's 7610 so they don't have to pay for the HDMI fees.

This I find somewhat hard to believe. HDMI licensing has two fees: an annual fee and a per-unit fee. The annual fee is $10,000, which really isn't much for a company like Icom, or, especially Kenwood (who undoubtedly already pays this fee because of other non-amateur products they make that use HDMI). The annual fee is even less if a company makes less then 10,000 units of a product that uses HDMI, which is likely to be the case with the TS-890S.

The per-unit fee is $0.15 (or $0.05 if a company puts the HDMI logo on the product).


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: NK7J on May 21, 2018, 04:09:05 PM
I have mixed feelings about this new radio. Kenwoods have been my favorite radios over the years, yet I currently own no Kenwood HF rigs. Icom has taken their place.
Though the specs appear good on the receiver, I doubt many of us will ever be able to tell the difference in the real world. I think we are at that point (and have been for a while) that RX performance improvements are very small and I think more emphasis should be paid to the overall radio performance. That includes operator comforts and preferences. I still prefer the layout on most Kenwood radios but overall operator happiness (for me) goes to Icom at this point, having both the 7300 and the 7610. 
I hope Kenwood has a winner with a good user interface. With the features I see listed I would hope this falls in around $2400 or less.
Just my .02


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on May 21, 2018, 07:48:54 PM
I really think the griped about radio's having DVI outputs instead of HDMI is a real issue, the 7800,7851,7700 all had DVI but it seems folk want to bitch about something so have had it. Clearly Flex spoils some who want a big fish finder display but I thought we are buying a good radio first not just the display plus HDMI has the audio threw the monitor but with a hi quality radio do you really need to listen to those tiny speakers in monitors today. I was able to buy a DVI to HDMI cable for under $10, 9' long from Show Me Cables and its gold plated, shielded cable, I have paid more for HDMI to HDMI cables, allot more.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 22, 2018, 07:25:57 AM
I really think the griped about radio's having DVI outputs instead of HDMI is a real issue, the 7800,7851,7700 all had DVI but it seems folk want to bitch about something so have had it. Clearly Flex spoils some who want a big fish finder display but I thought we are buying a good radio first not just the display plus HDMI has the audio threw the monitor but with a hi quality radio do you really need to listen to those tiny speakers in monitors today. I was able to buy a DVI to HDMI cable for under $10, 9' long from Show Me Cables and its gold plated, shielded cable, I have paid more for HDMI to HDMI cables, allot more.

I agree the output connector is a very minor issue and adaptor cables are easy to get so why complain.  If that is the only thing someone can find wrong with the radio then they are really fishing for problems.  Personally I find radio performance to be the driving factor, the display is secondary since I only need it for digital modes.  The idea that one needs a spectrum analyzer to work DX is drivel made up by noobs who don't have the experience or skill set to work DX with no display at all.  About 99% of them don't even know how to use an analog dial.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on May 22, 2018, 10:28:38 AM
The idea that one needs a spectrum analyzer to work DX is drivel made up by noobs who don't have the experience or skill set to work DX with no display at all.  About 99% of them don't even know how to use an analog dial.

I disagree. I find that a waterfall display is very helpful when working DX in a split pileup. When trying to work DX in that scenario, the most difficult task is identifying where the DX is listening by finding the station he's working. Sure, you can do that by tuning around, and I did that for decades, but when the pileup is really spread out it may be difficult to locate someone when all he's sending is "TU 5NN" at 30 WPM. A waterfall makes this easier because my eyes can scan the entire pileup at once and locate where the station being work likely is. I would not like to go back to doing that just by tuning by ear.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 22, 2018, 11:06:55 AM
The idea that one needs a spectrum analyzer to work DX is drivel made up by noobs who don't have the experience or skill set to work DX with no display at all.  About 99% of them don't even know how to use an analog dial.

I disagree. I find that a waterfall display is very helpful when working DX in a split pileup. When trying to work DX in that scenario, the most difficult task is identifying where the DX is listening by finding the station he's working. Sure, you can do that by tuning around, and I did that for decades, but when the pileup is really spread out it may be difficult to locate someone when all he's sending is "TU 5NN" at 30 WPM. A waterfall makes this easier because my eyes can scan the entire pileup at once and locate where the station being work likely is. I would not like to go back to doing that just by tuning by ear.

So you can tell from the waterfall who the DX is how?  If the pileup is really spread out there are a bunch of signals and I have not seen one yet that puts a call sign on them.  I still just tune and follow the DX, they rarely move anyway, and when split, the DX is on a different frequency from all of the calling stations so to me it's really just Eye Candy, and I can do without it just fine on phone or CW.  YMMV


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on May 22, 2018, 11:17:52 AM
The idea that one needs a spectrum analyzer to work DX is drivel made up by noobs who don't have the experience or skill set to work DX with no display at all.  About 99% of them don't even know how to use an analog dial.

I disagree. I find that a waterfall display is very helpful when working DX in a split pileup. When trying to work DX in that scenario, the most difficult task is identifying where the DX is listening by finding the station he's working. Sure, you can do that by tuning around, and I did that for decades, but when the pileup is really spread out it may be difficult to locate someone when all he's sending is "TU 5NN" at 30 WPM. A waterfall makes this easier because my eyes can scan the entire pileup at once and locate where the station being work likely is. I would not like to go back to doing that just by tuning by ear.

So you can tell from the waterfall who the DX is how?  If the pileup is really spread out there are a bunch of signals and I have not seen one yet that puts a call sign on them.  I still just tune and follow the DX, they rarely move anyway, and when split, the DX is on a different frequency from all of the calling stations so to me it's really just Eye Candy, and I can do without it just fine on phone or CW.

I'm not talking about the DX station. I know exactly where he is, and as you pointed out, he usually doesn't move around. I'm talking about identifying what frequency the DX station is listening on because he sure as hell isn't listening on his transmit frequency. The waterfall helps in locating the station the DX is working at any particular instant.

I actually hope that most people continue doing it your way without a panadapter because that means less competition in pileups for me to deal with.  :D


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: SP5QIP on May 22, 2018, 11:27:21 AM
I found waterfall really useful on 10m last days. We had Es skip and it was great to see where is activity on the screen.
Mike


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N3HEE on May 23, 2018, 05:48:12 AM
Totally agree with W6UV.  Panadapters are a must have when chasing DX.  Also good for contesting.  Mine does display callsigns on the panadapter.  You can  use CW skimmer to place callsigns on the panadapter.  Simply magic !


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N8FNR on May 23, 2018, 07:17:00 AM
Here is the brochure for the TS-890S. Shows the back panel.
http://www.va2pv.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TS-890-Preliminary-Info.pdf

Also has these features built in.
CW Morse code Decoder, Decode Threshold Level, Decode, Filter, USB Keyboard Encode.

FSK / PSK(BPSK 31/ 63, QPSK 31) functions:: Decode / Encode, Message with USB key board.

Equipped 4 roofing filters: 500Hz/ 2.7kHz/ 6kHz/ 15kHz

Zack N8FNR


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on May 23, 2018, 09:09:32 AM
Here is the brochure for the TS-890S. Shows the back panel.
http://www.va2pv.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TS-890-Preliminary-Info.pdf

I'm getting a "404 - Not Found" error with that link...


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K4FMH on May 23, 2018, 10:38:10 AM
Nermin,

I'm sort of on your wavelenth here. I have Flex and other SDRs in my shack and consider Gerald a personal friend as he is originally from the Jackson MS area. He visits the area every Thanksgiving. As the kids say: I'm all up in there with SDR technology and rigs!

However, I do not see why it's "a bummer" that Kenwood did not offer an SDR a la the Icom 7300 (which I have too). There's room in the marketplace for different approaches and the TS-890 appears to have some features that even the 7300 doesn't (e.g., a DVI-D video output). Once the rig is in the marketplace and the lab assessments are published, we will see where the TS-890 first among the price class of transceivers. The TS-590SG and the TS-990 has their places as do the Icom and Yaesu lines.

Each ham's preference is valid to him or her. That keeps review sites like eHam in business...

73s: one to each of you,

Frank
K4FMH

Hi Gerard,
if the qouted receiver specifications are veryfiable,
that would be one of the best receivers so far...
Let us wait and see  :)
Though, i could not recall any manufacturer ( amateur radio, please)
ever used H-mode mixer...

I am hardcore Kenwood fan, thus i am biased 8)

Nermin S58DX


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 23, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
Totally agree with W6UV.  Panadapters are a must have when chasing DX.  Also good for contesting.  Mine does display callsigns on the panadapter.  You can  use CW skimmer to place callsigns on the panadapter.  Simply magic !

As I said before, I am a casual operator, I don't contest and I work DX occasionally.  In the past I was a big time DX chaser and never had a problem so I see a pan adapter as nice to have but not essential.  I think a good pair of ears is more important to netting a difficult DX station but to each their own.   
So I will agree to disagree with you and W6UV on that point but I think we can all agree that this new radio appears, at least, to fill an uncharted gap in both performance and features.  Of course performance remains to be seen but we all like the idea.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N8FNR on May 23, 2018, 11:47:38 AM
Here is the brochure for the TS-890S. Shows the back panel.
http://www.va2pv.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TS-890-Preliminary-Info.pdf

I'm getting a "404 - Not Found" error with that link...

Now that is weird. Wish that I had saved a copy......


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3TMT on May 23, 2018, 11:54:30 AM
Not really a down-scaled TS-990S, more of an up-scaled TS-590SG.

73, Ed

100% agree.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on May 23, 2018, 12:45:02 PM
The one spec that if it meets or comes close is the blocking spec on the 890, that is up there with the K3s and it looks like the 890 is set up allot more user friendly then the ugly K3s, hey the K3s is a great lab rat but just try to listen to it for hours on end or try and manipulate it over that period of time, this is were the other radio's shine. I like the layout 
of the 890 as I like the layout on my 7610 but lets be honest these radio's are plenty good enough for most any operating environment.
If the Kenwood is over $3k well I am sorry it may sink but if priced around $2.5k they will have another good selling rig and this time they can call it a K3 Killer. I think you all have the idea of SDR all wrong, they did this cause they could create a radio with very low phase noise, blocking specs of 120-130 is plenty good enough but phase noise is the one thing that the newer higher grade SDR rigs give you and to get the same numbers in a superhet it costs allot more to achieve.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on May 23, 2018, 02:03:42 PM
I think you all have the idea of SDR all wrong, they did this cause they could create a radio with very low phase noise, blocking specs of 120-130 is plenty good enough but phase noise is the one thing that the newer higher grade SDR rigs give you and to get the same numbers in a superhet it costs allot more to achieve.

That's what may kill this rig. Sure, they can get great specs in a superhet radio, but it will be costly to do so. How many people will be willing to pay more than $2500 for a rig like this?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 23, 2018, 02:13:46 PM
I think you all have the idea of SDR all wrong, they did this cause they could create a radio with very low phase noise, blocking specs of 120-130 is plenty good enough but phase noise is the one thing that the newer higher grade SDR rigs give you and to get the same numbers in a superhet it costs allot more to achieve.

That's what may kill this rig. Sure, they can get great specs in a superhet radio, but it will be costly to do so. How many people will be willing to pay more than $2500 for a rig like this?

You might be surprised.  I paid more than $3000.00 for my IC-7600 and that was not considered too much since they sold a lot of them.  You have to consider that not everyone needs, or wants dual receivers.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on May 24, 2018, 06:53:57 AM
After this weekends Dayton Icom drove a stake threw there competitions hart at allowing dealers whatever show rebates in there cost to lower the show selling prices around $3k and that has way more then the 7600 dual watch, its two separate front ends, digi select  RX sections with very low phase noise specs, great dynamic range and on par decent blocking specs.
Electraft has been hit soo hard since the sales of Icoms 7300 world wide has been over 20,000 of just that one model they do comparo's on there site with the 7300 being below $1200 and the basic no frills K3s being $3k plus, now the K3s is a chart topper but ham's just don't want to pay over $3k for a basic radio.
Flex should have stayed in the black box SDR radio area cause they are still having problems with the displays in there M models although they didn't have that seen at Dayton but we will see as there next production rolls out there doors.
I sometimes wonder how in touch these Japanese companies are with there marketing and product development departments, Icom seem to have there ears on the floor of this market but Yaesu and Kenwood seem WTF, like lost in space. Hams are not as stead fast to be brand loyalty as they once were, yes some are but today's smart buyers do allot more research into there purchases. Ham's are just now finding out that Flex doesn't give any real info on there radio's, no real detailed block diagrams or schematics yest the big three are still doing this, the Flex secret black box syndrome is wearing thin and what if they go belly up try getting these small company products fix.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on May 24, 2018, 06:00:14 PM
Totally agree with W6UV.  Panadapters are a must have when chasing DX.  Also good for contesting. 

I guess its amazing that anyone ever DXed or contested for decades without them huh. I guess there was better operators back then that did not need help aids that many do today. 


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N0YXB on May 24, 2018, 06:20:18 PM
Totally agree with W6UV.  Panadapters are a must have when chasing DX.  Also good for contesting. 

I guess its amazing that anyone ever DXed or contested for decades without them huh. I guess there was better operators back then that did not need help aids that many do today. 

I know, and while we're at it we should give up GPS and go back to dead reckoning. And hopefully our Air Force can get rid of jets, because prop pilots have to be better, etc...  :)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 24, 2018, 09:17:24 PM
Totally agree with W6UV.  Panadapters are a must have when chasing DX.  Also good for contesting. 

I guess its amazing that anyone ever DXed or contested for decades without them huh. I guess there was better operators back then that did not need help aids that many do today. 

To this day I just don't know how I did it with Drake and Collins rigs, analog dials, and no spectrum scope.   I had to tune and listen it was agony I tell you. ;D 


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA5DOB on May 25, 2018, 03:47:57 AM
Sherwood should test and list this radio in September when it's price and availability are announced. I sure wanting one just knowing it has the latest technology receiver.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on May 25, 2018, 05:56:13 AM
Totally agree with W6UV.  Panadapters are a must have when chasing DX.  Also good for contesting. 

I guess its amazing that anyone ever DXed or contested for decades without them huh. I guess there was better operators back then that did not need help aids that many do today. 

Hey, let’s go back to AM and spark because who needs newfangled stuff like SSB and CW, right?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on May 25, 2018, 06:02:18 AM
Totally agree with W6UV.  Panadapters are a must have when chasing DX.  Also good for contesting. 

I guess its amazing that anyone ever DXed or contested for decades without them huh. I guess there was better operators back then that did not need help aids that many do today. 

In my day, we didn't need no fancy speck-trim scopes or compu-tares. We dx'd and contestered with crystal diode and cat's whisker ray-dee-o's. That's the way it was, and we liked it!  ;D


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 25, 2018, 08:17:32 AM
Spectrum scopes are nice to have but they are simply not essential for most operating and most hams, like me are casual operators.  I no longer chase paper or contest and the only reason I need a scope is for RTTY and Digital modes which I seldom work anymore.  I can snag DX any time I want too and I don't need a scope to do it.  To my way of thinking, if you need a spectrum scope to work DX you are not a very skilled operator. 

There are four or five Flex owners on here who seem to be mighty upset.  These are exactly the same kinds of responses I saw when the IC-7300 came out.  What are you all so afraid of?  Is it that this radios receiver performance might be top gun?  Wow wee, that would really but hurt the Flexerators wouldn't it. :D :'(


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3MEG on May 25, 2018, 09:32:42 AM
nice to hear the interview with the  ts 890 designer its like an improved ts 870 so similar to 590 and 990  only 1 rx should be a solid radio not my style though


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on May 25, 2018, 09:35:04 AM
Spectrum scopes are nice to have but they are simply not essential for most operating and most hams, like me are casual operators.  I no longer chase paper or contest and the only reason I need a scope is for RTTY and Digital modes which I seldom work anymore.  I can snag DX any time I want too and I don't need a scope to do it.  To my way of thinking, if you need a spectrum scope to work DX you are not a very skilled operator. 

Agreed, spectrum scopes are not "essential" for casual operating/ragchewing. Nor for chasing DX. Just go to any web cluster to see where the DXpedition or your ATNO is located. Does take out some of the fun of the "hunt" though. A scope may be useful to see the station being worked in a split frequency operation.

But for contesting, a scope/waterfall is a very useful tool, especially if you're working search and pounce. You can see at a glance the band limits of the action, and on a less crowded band fast tune or click directly to a signal blip...saves a lot of time and increases qso rates. Also easier to find an open space to run/call CQ. If you're operating all-band, a quick flip to another band lets you see at a glance if there's any action there to switch bands. Especially in this down cycle where, for instance, you're on 20M and you want to see if 15M or 10M shows any openings to grab multipliers. Again, saves time in not having to tune around blindly. Top (skilled) world-class contest operators agree on this.

It's all just a matter of individual operating preferences. A tradionalist will generally shun the newer technological tools, and others will embrace them. Using a spectrum scope doesn't mean you're not a skilled operator. No right or wrong ways or answers. Just buy and operate the radio you like best, and enjoy the hobby.

73, Bob K7JQ


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on May 25, 2018, 03:09:36 PM
Spectrum scopes are nice to have but they are simply not essential for most operating and most hams, like me are casual operators.  I no longer chase paper or contest and the only reason I need a scope is for RTTY and Digital modes which I seldom work anymore.  I can snag DX any time I want too and I don't need a scope to do it.  To my way of thinking, if you need a spectrum scope to work DX you are not a very skilled operator. 

Agreed, spectrum scopes are not "essential" for casual operating/ragchewing. Nor for chasing DX. Just go to any web cluster to see where the DXpedition or your ATNO is located. Does take out some of the fun of the "hunt" though. A scope may be useful to see the station being worked in a split frequency operation.

But for contesting, a scope/waterfall is a very useful tool, especially if you're working search and pounce. You can see at a glance the band limits of the action, and on a less crowded band fast tune or click directly to a signal blip...saves a lot of time and increases qso rates. Also easier to find an open space to run/call CQ. If you're operating all-band, a quick flip to another band lets you see at a glance if there's any action there to switch bands. Especially in this down cycle where, for instance, you're on 20M and you want to see if 15M or 10M shows any openings to grab multipliers. Again, saves time in not having to tune around blindly. Top (skilled) world-class contest operators agree on this.

It's all just a matter of individual operating preferences. A tradionalist will generally shun the newer technological tools, and others will embrace them. Using a spectrum scope doesn't mean you're not a skilled operator. No right or wrong ways or answers. Just buy and operate the radio you like best, and enjoy the hobby.

73, Bob K7JQ

Bob, Don't call me a traditionalist.  If that was the case I would happily just use my old Drake B-Line.  I have an IC-7600 that I bought new almost 5 years ago, before that I had an IC-746Pro, still have both rigs.  I understand the lure of eye candy but there does come a time when operator skill and experience will eclipse that and it has always been thus.  I agree it is a matter of individual preference and my preference is the quality of the receiver front end.  That determines everything that happens from the antenna to the headphones/speaker.  I don't need to see DX, I need to be able to hear them.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on May 25, 2018, 04:29:51 PM



Agreed, spectrum scopes are not "essential" for casual operating/ragchewing. Nor for chasing DX. Just go to any web cluster to see where the DXpedition or your ATNO is located. Does take out some of the fun of the "hunt" though. A scope may be useful to see the station being worked in a split frequency operation.

But for contesting, a scope/waterfall is a very useful tool, especially if you're working search and pounce. You can see at a glance the band limits of the action, and on a less crowded band fast tune or click directly to a signal blip...saves a lot of time and increases qso rates. Also easier to find an open space to run/call CQ. If you're operating all-band, a quick flip to another band lets you see at a glance if there's any action there to switch bands. Especially in this down cycle where, for instance, you're on 20M and you want to see if 15M or 10M shows any openings to grab multipliers. Again, saves time in not having to tune around blindly. Top (skilled) world-class contest operators agree on this.

It's all just a matter of individual operating preferences. A tradionalist will generally shun the newer technological tools, and others will embrace them. Using a spectrum scope doesn't mean you're not a skilled operator. No right or wrong ways or answers. Just buy and operate the radio you like best, and enjoy the hobby.

73, Bob K7JQ

Bob, Don't call me a traditionalist.  If that was the case I would happily just use my old Drake B-Line.  I have an IC-7600 that I bought new almost 5 years ago, before that I had an IC-746Pro, still have both rigs.  I understand the lure of eye candy but there does come a time when operator skill and experience will eclipse that and it has always been thus.  I agree it is a matter of individual preference and my preference is the quality of the receiver front end.  That determines everything that happens from the antenna to the headphones/speaker.  I don't need to see DX, I need to be able to hear them.

John, you missed my point. I didn't call you a traditionalist, but you stated that you are a casual operator and don't need a spectrum scope for that and the occasional DXing. I agreed. The majority of my post was pointing out the advantages of using a scope in contests. Even the most skilled and experienced operators are always looking for new tools to hone their skills for better scores. Like going from hand-written paper logs to advanced computer logging. Likewise spectrum scopes...more than just eye candy. BTW, everybody's preference is the quality of the receiver front end. Can't hear 'em, can't work 'em. Enjoy the holiday weekend.

73,  Bob K7JQ


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on May 26, 2018, 02:29:51 PM
And  H mode mixer design was further explored by PA3AKE.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~martein/pa3ake/hmode/index.html

It really demonstrated that a up conversion radio could perform equally as good as a down conversion radio if the right quality filters and parts were used in the design.

the TS-890s receiver front-end appears to be using a so-called "H-mode" mixer that gives fabulous performance.  QEX had a few articles over the years about this one.  It's no doubt a significant reason for the stellar receiver specs that the Kenwood hamvention advertising picture is reporting.  So one can hope that the images and phantom signals will get taken out by the new design.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on May 26, 2018, 02:37:54 PM
While the figures are terrific, it all becomes meaningless when you have a radios with keyclicks and IMD splatter thats  70 to 80 db worst at the same signal spacing that lays waste to your so called excellent receiver engineering.

 Maybe one day  all the critics of transmitter performance will wake up to this simple fact that receiver performance while important has to match transmitter performance at the same signal levels  especially when the signal strength is strong and close.

But we do have the "super golden ear" hams who can magically use their favorite  new ham brand toy who can somehow magically make this IMD and key clicks  go away. Their favorite radio brand can somehow improve another hams transmitter because they such good black box drivers..  I might have to go back to engineering school to learn how I can do that.

The new Kenwood would be a brilliant radio if the transmitter IMD performance was such that IMD suppression at 5khz was at least 50db down and anything beyond 5khz greater than 50db using a real voice. Commercial SSB  HF radios could easily achieve such levels of performance without even using pre-distortion or cartesian feedback for IMD improvement. Kenwood can design clean radio PA's with excellent IMD performance if hams demand such performance.

While hams continue to buy radios with IMD performance thats not better than a  truck stop CB radio nothing is going to change. Same goes for the radios that are still being sold with ALC splatter and keyclick faults.

Theres more than enough radios on  the top of Sherwoods list to keep all brand worshipers happy. Its just a shame that all of them are at the bottom of the transmitter performance table chart and still in the stuck on the "crap performance" table chart and have not moved for 10 years. If  Sherwood sorted that same table by transmitter performance maybe then hams would understand the issue better and then start whining to the manufacturers.

Kenwood's TS-890S poster says (found it with Google on QRZ and hamlife .jp :

3rd order IMD ... 110 dB
RMDR ... 112 dB
Blocking DR ... 150 dB

and all of these are specified for 2 kHz spacing, at 14.1 MHz, CW, 500 Hz BW, Preamp off...  standard testing settings for Sherwood.

That puts it at the top of Sherwood's list.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on May 26, 2018, 08:56:40 PM
....The new Kenwood would be a brilliant radio if the transmitter IMD performance was such that IMD suppression at 5khz was at least 50db down and anything beyond 5khz greater than 50db using a real voice. Commercial SSB  HF radios could easily achieve such levels of performance without even using pre-distortion or cartesian feedback for IMD improvement. Kenwood can design clean radio PA's with excellent IMD performance if hams demand such performance.

......
[/quote]

Yes, the key words that were missing in your post, were "and pay for", as in "... excellent IMD performance if hams demand and pay for such performance."

Because Zenki, achieving and maintaining -50 dBc intermod products without digital predistortion (DPD) and peak clipping/filtering, isn't very likely in a 100W wideband PA.  And DPD isn't cheap.  And it's protected by a mountain of IPR (ie, Patents, of which I have several granted.. look me up in the uspto if you don't believe me).  Navigating the linearization technology minefield is treacherous at best.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on May 27, 2018, 01:37:11 AM
Most of these techniques are old hat and are not covered by patents anymore.

The other point is  that you dont need to use predistortion or cartesian feedback to design clean PA's. Heck from the 80's and  onward, most  of the Commercial SSB market could produced wonderfully clean SSB radios without using  this technology.  Look at the wideband IMD performance of the Icom marine radios from the 90s they produced clean transmitters without all the mathematical wizardry.

Really all that the ham radio market requires is a professionally designed PA that has linearity in mind thats all. And lets not forget why ham radios mostly cause rotten splatter, they do so because we stuck to a stupid system called ALC that is not needed in a modern radio transmitter design.

Then what has linearity got to do with keyclicks, keyclicks and CW wave shaping of the  CW transmit signal is 60 years old. Its only a new generation of engineers that dont have the  ability to design a proper CW transmitter that does not produce keyclicks or proper transmit timing.

So with all due respect all that we have is excuses from hams and poor excuses from the ham radio manufacturers for reasons why they cant design decent transmitters  but they pour in hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in receiver performance research chasing a stupid numbers game. Why do more receiver performance than neccesary even for the best contest stations? They are going well beyond what performance  receivers really need in the real world.

The manufacturers have their priorities wrong and are more interested in receiver bragging  rights than putting effort into producing a properly designed SSB or CW transmitter  design that not does not produce keyclicks and splatter.

Kenwood used to have decent IMD performance in some of their early models. Radios like the TS950SDX, TS930 and TS940 had half decent IMD performance. If you removed the ALC issue from the design  and produced such clean radios we would not be talking about this issue. Why could  Kenwood do this in the past and somehow cant do this now? Icom never had a decent transmitter design and likewise Yaesu, they always produced marginal IMD performance from their radios.

Anyway the time is over for excuses and apologizing for these companies that cant even do basic engineering right. Its not rocket science. Scan through the old Motorola design bulletins, in those bulletins there were numerous solid state PA designs  designed with IMD performance in mind. Those famous designs of Granberg. We just looking for excuses and are not looking for solutions to fix these  problems.

We have an unhealthy obsession with receiver performance numbers and need to swing the debate towards improving transmitter performance. The new Kenwood TS890 would be a brilliant radio if it had excellent transmitter IMD performance. I guess we will know soon enough whether Kenwood put some effort toward improving transmitter design, I wont be holding my breath and would be happy to shut my mouth and go away from this  simple subject when they start doing things right.

But really why should hams be fooled with this nonsense debate about receiver performance when we have more receiver performance than we need and the more critical issue about transmitter performance that allows you to successfully use this excellent performance is ignored. Its a  good way to hoodwink ignorant hams.

....The new Kenwood would be a brilliant radio if the transmitter IMD performance was such that IMD suppression at 5khz was at least 50db down and anything beyond 5khz greater than 50db using a real voice. Commercial SSB  HF radios could easily achieve such levels of performance without even using pre-distortion or cartesian feedback for IMD improvement. Kenwood can design clean radio PA's with excellent IMD performance if hams demand such performance.

......

Yes, the key words that were missing in your post, were "and pay for", as in "... excellent IMD performance if hams demand and pay for such performance."

Because Zenki, achieving and maintaining -50 dBc intermod products without digital predistortion (DPD) and peak clipping/filtering, isn't very likely in a 100W wideband PA.  And DPD isn't cheap.  And it's protected by a mountain of IPR (ie, Patents, of which I have several granted.. look me up in the uspto if you don't believe me).  Navigating the linearization technology minefield is treacherous at best.

73, Ed
[/quote]


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3TEX on May 27, 2018, 07:05:36 PM
Hi Zenki,

Out of curiosity, what are your 10 current top 10 radio's for IMD performance in your opinion?

Cheers,

Les, VK3TEX.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4KOE on May 29, 2018, 06:33:54 AM
Totally agree with W6UV.  Panadapters are a must have when chasing DX.  Also good for contesting. 

I guess its amazing that anyone ever DXed or contested for decades without them huh. I guess there was better operators back then that did not need help aids that many do today. 

Hey, let’s go back to AM and spark because who needs newfangled stuff like SSB and CW, right?


A lot of us still use AM daily so there's no need to "go back". We're already there.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K9UW on June 01, 2018, 07:30:18 PM
Does anyone know if the TS-890 has an input for a RX only antenna?

73,

Mike, K9UW
Amherst, WI


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N5MOA on June 01, 2018, 07:45:12 PM
Does anyone know if the TS-890 has an input for a RX only antenna?

Looking at a pic of the back on qrz, and going by the buttons seen in a front view, is has

RX OUT
RX IN
ANT OUT
DRV
REF IN (10mhz)
ANT 1
ANT 2


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on June 15, 2018, 09:05:57 PM
Kenwood says TS-890s production starts in August.

See for example at the 3:45 mark, an interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9hEcc19ELQ

Is that at the Friedrichshafen hamfest?

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on June 25, 2018, 12:05:05 PM
Kenwood says TS-890s production starts in August.

See for example at the 3:45 mark, an interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9hEcc19ELQ

Is that at the Friedrichshafen hamfest?

73, Ed

I am having some doubts about the August release date.  It is just a week away from July and not a single word or advertisement out of Kenwood.  I tried to look it up on the FCC site but I don't know what the codes for Kenwood are.  So at this point, it looks like the TS-890S is still just a pretty box under glass at the hamfests.  I wonder if the release will be delayed until 2019?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: WD9EWK on June 25, 2018, 08:45:32 PM
I am having some doubts about the August release date.  It is just a week away from July and not a single word or advertisement out of Kenwood.  I tried to look it up on the FCC site but I don't know what the codes for Kenwood are.

Using the Advanced Search page for the FCC Equipment Authorization aatabase:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

I didn't see anything recently approved for the grantee code normally used for Kenwood equipment (K44) that would be like a TS-890.

73!


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on June 26, 2018, 09:24:32 AM
I am having some doubts about the August release date.  It is just a week away from July and not a single word or advertisement out of Kenwood.  I tried to look it up on the FCC site but I don't know what the codes for Kenwood are.

Using the Advanced Search page for the FCC Equipment Authorization aatabase:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

I didn't see anything recently approved for the grantee code normally used for Kenwood equipment (K44) that would be like a TS-890.

73!


Thank's Patrick.  By any chance, do you know the grantee code for the TS-590?  I am frustrated by the total secrecy surrounding this new radio.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: WD9EWK on June 26, 2018, 04:32:31 PM
Thank's Patrick.  By any chance, do you know the grantee code for the TS-590?  I am frustrated by the total secrecy surrounding this new radio.

Looks like the TS-590's FCC ID is K44407110 (grantee code K44, prodct code 407110). Google was helpful to track down that number.



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on July 07, 2018, 06:28:34 PM
funny.  I went to look up the grantee codes of a few companies. MFJ, Elecraft, Palstar, Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, Alinco can be found in the database search.

But not Flex or FlexRadio, or any Chinese company (Pofung, Wouxun, Xiegu, etc).  Maybe there are shell companies that have secret real names?

How is it that some companies do - and some apparently don't - have FCC certification for similar radios?  Is it optional for ham gear?  I would have at least thought Transmitters of 100 Watts or External PAs would need FCC certification.

73, Ed


ps. no new Kenwood HF is listed there yet.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W1VT on July 07, 2018, 06:46:13 PM
Certification: Requires submittal of an application that includes a complete technical description of the product and a measurement report showing compliance with the FCC technical standards. Devices subject to certification include: low power transmitters such as cordless telephones, garage door opener controls, radio control toys, and security alarm systems, scanning receivers and superregenerative receivers; and, TV interface devices such as VCRs.

Type Acceptance: Similar to certification, except that it typically applies to radio transmitter equipment that will be used in a licensed radio service. Devices subject to type acceptance include: land mobile transmitters such as cellular transmitters, or police, fire and business transmitters; transmitters used in the maritime and aeronautical safety services; and CB and other transmitters used in the Personal Radio Services. Amateur Radio transmitters do not require type acceptance although external HF power amplifiers and kits do require type acceptance.

Notification: Requires submittal of an abbreviated application for equipment authorization, that does not include a measurement report, to the FCC. However, a measurement report showing compliance of the product with the FCC technical standards must be retained by the applicant and must be submitted upon request by the Commission. Devices subject to notification include: point-to-point microwave transmitters; AM, FM and TV Broadcast transmitters; certain microwave auxiliary broadcast transmitters; and, other receivers (except as noted elsewhere).

From the ARRL's Part 15 page. To summarize, a typical 100W HF transceiver for Part 97 use does not require any paperwork with the FCC unless it has a scanning receiver.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on July 07, 2018, 08:22:49 PM
Certification: Requires submittal of an application that includes a complete technical description of the product and a measurement report showing compliance with the FCC technical standards. Devices subject to certification include: low power transmitters such as cordless telephones, garage door opener controls, radio control toys, and security alarm systems, scanning receivers and superregenerative receivers; and, TV interface devices such as VCRs.

Type Acceptance: Similar to certification, except that it typically applies to radio transmitter equipment that will be used in a licensed radio service. Devices subject to type acceptance include: land mobile transmitters such as cellular transmitters, or police, fire and business transmitters; transmitters used in the maritime and aeronautical safety services; and CB and other transmitters used in the Personal Radio Services. Amateur Radio transmitters do not require type acceptance although external HF power amplifiers and kits do require type acceptance.

Notification: Requires submittal of an abbreviated application for equipment authorization, that does not include a measurement report, to the FCC. However, a measurement report showing compliance of the product with the FCC technical standards must be retained by the applicant and must be submitted upon request by the Commission. Devices subject to notification include: point-to-point microwave transmitters; AM, FM and TV Broadcast transmitters; certain microwave auxiliary broadcast transmitters; and, other receivers (except as noted elsewhere).

From the ARRL's Part 15 page. To summarize, a typical 100W HF transceiver for Part 97 use does not require any paperwork with the FCC unless it has a scanning receiver.

You said "Type Acceptance: Similar to certification, except that it typically applies to radio transmitter equipment that will be used in a licensed radio service."

As far as I know, amateur radio transmitters are not part 15 devices.  I could be wrong but I don't think so.  Every amateur transmitter and receiver I have seen requires detailed technical specs and operational documentation be supplied to the FCC for review before certification can be granted.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on July 07, 2018, 10:09:35 PM
As far as I know, amateur radio transmitters are not part 15 devices.  I could be wrong but I don't think so.  Every amateur transmitter and receiver I have seen requires detailed technical specs and operational documentation be supplied to the FCC for review before certification can be granted.

Amateur radio transceivers are considered to be scanning receivers under part 15. See the TS-590SG grant.

https://fccid.io/K44407110#Grant-TCB-1


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on July 08, 2018, 09:57:33 AM
As far as I know, amateur radio transmitters are not part 15 devices.  I could be wrong but I don't think so.  Every amateur transmitter and receiver I have seen requires detailed technical specs and operational documentation be supplied to the FCC for review before certification can be granted.

Amateur radio transceivers are considered to be scanning receivers under part 15. See the TS-590SG grant.

https://fccid.io/K44407110#Grant-TCB-1

Thank you, I didn't know that.  I recall seeing a section on the FCC web site where all sorts of documentation was required but I guess that is for part 15 acceptance.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K6JH on July 08, 2018, 11:04:38 AM
The FCC is more concerned about ham equipment putting out spurious signals where it isn't supposed to, not so much the signals it puts out in the ham bands. Hence the part 15 receiver tests.

I think it also has to pass the general emissions part 15 stuff, just like computers or any other electronic devices.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on August 06, 2018, 10:20:16 AM
The FCC is more concerned about ham equipment putting out spurious signals where it isn't supposed to, not so much the signals it puts out in the ham bands. Hence the part 15 receiver tests.

I think it also has to pass the general emissions part 15 stuff, just like computers or any other electronic devices.

Well it passed.  I just read that the TS-890S has received FCC approval.  I am awaiting shipment so I can have the hottest receiver on the planet.  My goal is to work as many Flex 6600 and 6700 stations as possible and tell them how good the front end is on my rig compared to their barn door SDR's  ;D ;D


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA5DOB on August 07, 2018, 02:40:03 AM
Kenwood's new TS-890 will include one of the best low noise receivers of them all. The radio has controls similar to the 590SG but includes a 7" TFT color touch screen and lots of items brought over from the expensive 990.  

I found out today, August 6, 2018 that they started building the radios Aug 1st in the 990 factory in Japan. Shipping will be done in September and hopefully ship the radios to the many dealers by the end of September.

Kenwood tested the new receiver and it would put it at the top of the Sherwood list.  Rumors are maybe $4000 price range. If it's that low priced it would be competing with the Icom's. This is not a SDR receiver, but the better Legacy Superhet with a very low noise Local Oscillator, front end and latest technology with two 32 bit floating point processors.

(https://scontent.fprg2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/32876534_1657239187705612_2358840878421770240_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=8c8e92dfc995015f0104d2365b53f413&oe=5B8352A7)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: SP5QIP on August 07, 2018, 04:48:55 AM
If it is touchscreen why you have to press physical buttons F1-F7 and right vertical column to activate icons displayen on the screen?
I hope display and waterfall will be improved over 990, because old one sucks.
Mike


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K4RVN on August 07, 2018, 08:16:41 AM
The touch screen function can be turned off and on I think from reading the instruction manual.
Also no mic. is provided so you buyers without a mic need to add the option or already have one before you get the radio. A linear will key from the accessory plug provided but you will need wire and solder to prepare a cord or buy one and have it on hand when the radio arrives. That's a real bummer and I wish this new radio would have changed to RCA phono type on the radio back. The cords are readily available most anywhere. It appears to be a great radio for some of us provided the price is reasonable. Universal Radio posted last week that it had been approved by the FCC. The instruction manual and specs can be found on line now so release date should be coming in the near future.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N5PG on August 07, 2018, 10:18:17 AM
T-F Set button in same place as on my TS-930S ;D

However that means only one receiver, not sure I could
go back to that :(


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3TMT on August 07, 2018, 01:53:18 PM
This hobby is getting too expensive for many of us.

How about a revamped TS940 with a sticker price we can afford??


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W9IQ on August 07, 2018, 03:03:20 PM
This hobby is getting too expensive for many of us.

How about a revamped TS940 with a sticker price we can afford??

Today that is called an IC-7300 at 1/2 the price of a TS-940SAT and 1/5 of the price of the 1982 inflated price of the TS-940SAT in USD. Except for the power output, the IC-7300 is superior in nearly every way. And Icom is just the first company to launch a sub $1,500 USD full DSP transceiver with knobs. Others will "follow suit" in order to stay in the market. This is an exciting time to be in ham radio. Many more features and capabilities for a lower investment!

- Glenn W9IQ


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K4RVN on August 07, 2018, 04:30:51 PM
To clarify my previous post the linear will key from the 7 pin din plug provided and connected to the remote terminal
on the back of the TS890S. The rig also has an accessory 2 plug provided for other uses.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on August 07, 2018, 05:15:04 PM
This hobby is getting too expensive for many of us.

How about a revamped TS940 with a sticker price we can afford??

Today that is called an IC-7300 at 1/2 the price of a TS-940SAT and 1/5 of the price of the 1982 inflated price of the TS-940SAT in USD. Except for the power output, the IC-7300 is superior in nearly every way. And Icom is just the first company to launch a sub $1,500 USD full DSP transceiver with knobs. Others will "follow suit" in order to stay in the market. This is an exciting time to be in ham radio. Many more features and capabilities for a lower investment!

- Glenn W9IQ

I had a 940SAT for many many years.  The wife and I scrimped and saved so I could have it.  I really enjoyed it.  It can't hold a candle to my 7300's and I paid so much for it. in those dollars. The 7300 is the best value in radio today.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 07, 2018, 07:35:27 PM
This hobby is getting too expensive for many of us.

How about a revamped TS940 with a sticker price we can afford??

Today that is called an IC-7300 at 1/2 the price of a TS-940SAT and 1/5 of the price of the 1982 inflated price of the TS-940SAT in USD. Except for the power output, the IC-7300 is superior in nearly every way. And Icom is just the first company to launch a sub $1,500 USD full DSP transceiver with knobs. Others will "follow suit" in order to stay in the market. This is an exciting time to be in ham radio. Many more features and capabilities for a lower investment!

- Glenn W9IQ

If I had a choice between a 7300 and a cherry 940 in first rate order it would be 940 hands down... Its a class act.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on August 08, 2018, 09:35:23 AM
This hobby is getting too expensive for many of us.

How about a revamped TS940 with a sticker price we can afford??

Today that is called an IC-7300 at 1/2 the price of a TS-940SAT and 1/5 of the price of the 1982 inflated price of the TS-940SAT in USD. Except for the power output, the IC-7300 is superior in nearly every way. And Icom is just the first company to launch a sub $1,500 USD full DSP transceiver with knobs. Others will "follow suit" in order to stay in the market. This is an exciting time to be in ham radio. Many more features and capabilities for a lower investment!

- Glenn W9IQ

If I had a choice between a 7300 and a cherry 940 in first rate order it would be 940 hands down... Its a class act.

Not me, the TS-840 was a nice rig but it is pretty old.  I suppose if you want one for boat anchor nostalgia then sure but the IC-7300 will beat it hands down in every category.  It's like if someone said I could have my choice between a brand new IC-7300 and a cheery Drake TR4CW/RIT in first rate order I would take the Drake.  That doesn't mean it's a better radio, I just happen to like them.

The new TS-890S is a world away from the TS-940 and 850 rigs.  They were the top of the line in their day, and are still dam fine radios.  But lets face facts, the TS-890S is the most modern radio out there with features that were not even dreamed of in 1985 when the TS-940 was new.  Don't forget the 940 display issue, no cure for that anymore.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on August 08, 2018, 10:00:35 AM
I got rid of my 940sat when the "gettin was good" :)  Swapped it for a 756pro3 back when the 940 still had some value. Now I have swapped off the 756pro3 for a 7300. While the 756pro3 still has some value.  The 940 was a great rig in its time, and I held on to it longer than I have ever held on to a radio.

  When I swapped to the 756pro3, it was a better rig than the 940 ever thought about being. and when I swapped to the 7300, it is also a better rig than the 756pro3.

 I guess it is all what someone wants. But I want performance.  To think that the 940 is a better rig than the 7300 is laughable, unless someone wants a rig to help hold down his desk from floating off, or wants a rig that will take up more space or has more knobs. It certainly will not outperform it.

 Let along the maintenance issues of owning older rigs and cannibalizing for scarce parts. If all of that is what you want, then I am very happy for you. Like I said the 940 was a great rig in the past, but the past is past. All water and money under the bridge. :)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 08, 2018, 07:41:58 PM
What makes a good rig is how it feels and sound too. 7300 is a decent rigs but its ergonomic pale next to a 940. Also still hard to beat the sound of a good analog rig. I have a 830 I bought new about 28 years ago and it is still a decent rig if you know how to use it and are not skilled at only using a on and off button, vfo, band switch and volume.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on August 09, 2018, 08:12:26 AM
What makes a good rig is how it feels and sound too. 7300 is a decent rigs but its ergonomic pale next to a 940. Also still hard to beat the sound of a good analog rig. I have a 830 I bought new about 28 years ago and it is still a decent rig if you know how to use it and are not skilled at only using a on and off button, vfo, band switch and volume.

I also had a TS-940SAT for many years...a great radio in its' time. After that, I owned Icoms...from a 746, 746PRO, 756PRO3, 7600, and 7300. Had the 7600 and 7300 for a year and a half together, just sold the 7600, and kept the 7300. It's just, IMO, a better performing radio, despite its smaller size and lack of overt controls. It's amazing when a manufacturer can determine which knobs and buttons are most important, commonly used, and put the others in easily accessible menus and meshed into a touch-screen. Even for the rigors of contesting.

Technology advances in DSP selectivity, sensitivity, noise reduction/blanking, noise floor, receive/transmit audio adjustments, built-in CW keyers, memory keyers, RTTY and other digital decoders, computer connectivity, and LED information displays with spectrum scope/waterfall (just to name a few) all contribute to make today's radios much better performers than those of yesteryear.

73,  Bob K7JQ


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 09, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
Technology advances in DSP selectivity, sensitivity, noise reduction/blanking, noise floor, receive/transmit audio adjustments,

A good IF DSP rig still relies heavily on xtal filters for good selectivity and signal rejection. As far as sensitivity, it is no more sensitive than a analog rig real world. On noise reduction, I have seen analog rigs with good and bad noise control and same with IF DSP. The mere presence of IF DSP does not mean it will be good at it. On noise floor it has no real edge over analog as floor is more a factor of components used and mixer design than whether it is analog or IF DSP. Audio adjustments? You can add just as much AF DSP audio adjustment to a analog you want. It DOES NOT have to have a IF DSP to do good here. Just like it took many years for SS rigs to sound as good as tube finals, IF DSP is far from mature. One day it will be at the state of maturity that analog IF is but that day is not today or next year. A properly designed analog rig with nice aux filters can run with IF DSP rigs costing far more. Yes the current wave is IF DSP but that does not mean all IF DSP rigs are good. It just means people by package for label without understanding whats inside.

Some of the best audio I have heard on the air has been from old hybrid/tube finals kenwood rigs like 520, 530, 820, and 830. (never really heard one with bad audio) I have heard some good sounding 940's as well as some good sounding old Icom 735's too. I have a 830 I bought 28 years ago and I always got great audio reports and it still has a decent receiver and it does not have one bit of DSP in it. Once I bought a 850 to replace it (yes I know it is analog but it was supposed to be the greatest) and had it for a week side by side with my 830 and traded 850 after that week as it did not sound as good as 830. And yes a 940 is getting old and parts scarce but if I could find one in like new condition at a good price I would likely get it but that is not likely as most 940's have been well used by now and seen better days. It will be interesting to see how many IF DSP rigs are still in use when they are 30 years old or older like old analog classics.   


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: PU2OZT on August 09, 2018, 12:10:29 PM
Great reply, John...
As for Bob's following arguments ...built-in CW keyers, memory keyers, RTTY, other digital decoders, computer connectivity, LED information displays, spectrum scope/waterfall (usw) all contribute to make today's radios much better performers...

performers no! none of the above would trick the ether nor our ears, entertainers, can be

Oliver


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on August 10, 2018, 08:36:52 AM
Great reply, John...
As for Bob's following arguments ...built-in CW keyers, memory keyers, RTTY, other digital decoders, computer connectivity, LED information displays, spectrum scope/waterfall (usw) all contribute to make today's radios much better performers...

performers no! none of the above would trick the ether nor our ears, entertainers, can be

Oliver

So, you don't regard the features I've pointed out as "performance" items, but just "entertainment". Whatever...call them what you may.

JX no doubt states some valid points, but if you have a TS-940, and you operate fast CW, contests, use computer programs, RTTY/digital, want visual band conditions, etc, you will need a pleathora of outboard equipment and boxes attached to the radio for today's modes of operation. Newer radios have all that stuff built-in for operating convenience and efficiency. I regard them as performance features.

73, Bob K7JQ


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on August 10, 2018, 02:42:42 PM
Great reply, John...
As for Bob's following arguments ...built-in CW keyers, memory keyers, RTTY, other digital decoders, computer connectivity, LED information displays, spectrum scope/waterfall (usw) all contribute to make today's radios much better performers...

performers no! none of the above would trick the ether nor our ears, entertainers, can be

Oliver



So, you don't regard the features I've pointed out as "performance" items, but just "entertainment". Whatever...call them what you may.

JX no doubt states some valid points, but if you have a TS-940, and you operate fast CW, contests, use computer programs, RTTY/digital, want visual band conditions, etc, you will need a pleathora of outboard equipment and boxes attached to the radio for today's modes of operation. Newer radios have all that stuff built-in for operating convenience and efficiency. I regard them as performance features.

73, Bob K7JQ

Last night I was on 30 meters on 10.136.  I noticed some operation on the scope/waterfall on 10.131.  It was the FO dxpedition.  I worked them.  I call that performance.  A "blind" radio would have been useless.  Can't work 'em if you can't see them.  :)   You can keep your "good ole" blind radios.   This old timer likes the new radios.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 10, 2018, 07:31:42 PM
A "blind" radio would have been useless

Only if you do not know how to use VFO and tune around. How did ham radio even survive for many decades without spectrum scopes? Maybe because they were not plug n play operators.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N3HKN on August 11, 2018, 03:41:55 AM
Plug and Play is here to stay.  Automated radios and contesting will be the majority activity in a few years. All that will be remaining, from the old-days, will be antennas. Why do we need them? Put you station as a remote (receive only) on the internet and invite contacts via the INTERNET!! Digital DMR is a great vehicle to this important evolution.  (As a president of the USA once said - Sad!  :'(


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on August 11, 2018, 07:46:03 AM
A "blind" radio would have been useless

Only if you do not know how to use VFO and tune around. How did ham radio even survive for many decades without spectrum scopes? Maybe because they were not plug n play operators.

No, maybe because the technology back then was not as refined, and feasibly cost effective to put them in amateur radios? How expensive was the Icom 781? And that scope was rudimentary compared to the ones today, even on "entry level" radios.

C'mon John...how can you discount the effectiveness of a spectrum scope as a useful tool? I've been in ham radio longer than you , and I embrace and use the new advancements. Nostalgia is good, but you have to come into the 21st century. I've read your technical posts...you're smarter than that. It just always seems that because you're an "old timer", you think that all newer hams don't know what they're talking about, and are only "plug and play" appliance operators. When we die off, we need new blood to keep the hobby going. No sense always criticizing and demeaning them. We're all in this together ;).

73,  Bob K7JQ


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on August 11, 2018, 09:29:05 AM
Do any of the newest bandscopes show the weakest "under-the-noise" FT-8 signals?  Or do you need to rely on your PC display running JT to see where they are, if you need to do the searching at all.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 11, 2018, 10:43:44 AM

No, maybe because the technology back then was not as refined, and feasibly cost effective to put them in amateur radios? How expensive was the Icom 781? And that scope was rudimentary compared to the ones today, even on "entry level" radios.

C'mon John...how can you discount the effectiveness of a spectrum scope as a useful tool? I've been in ham radio longer than you , and I embrace and use the new advancements. Nostalgia is good, but you have to come into the 21st century. I've read your technical posts...you're smarter than that. It just always seems that because you're an "old timer", you think that all newer hams don't know what they're talking about, and are only "plug and play" appliance operators. When we die off, we need new blood to keep the hobby going. No sense always criticizing and demeaning them. We're all in this together ;).

73,  Bob K7JQ

I am old school I guess. I like lots of buttons and knobs and having to do more than just power on a twist dial. Make me feel like I and using a ham radio and not a CB. If I had  scope I doubt I would use it much at all. Too me it is just eye candy for sales.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on August 11, 2018, 12:20:59 PM

No, maybe because the technology back then was not as refined, and feasibly cost effective to put them in amateur radios? How expensive was the Icom 781? And that scope was rudimentary compared to the ones today, even on "entry level" radios.

C'mon John...how can you discount the effectiveness of a spectrum scope as a useful tool? I've been in ham radio longer than you , and I embrace and use the new advancements. Nostalgia is good, but you have to come into the 21st century. I've read your technical posts...you're smarter than that. It just always seems that because you're an "old timer", you think that all newer hams don't know what they're talking about, and are only "plug and play" appliance operators. When we die off, we need new blood to keep the hobby going. No sense always criticizing and demeaning them. We're all in this together ;).

73,  Bob K7JQ

I am old school I guess. I like lots of buttons and knobs and having to do more than just power on a twist dial. Make me feel like I and using a ham radio and not a CB. If I had  scope I doubt I would use it much at all. Too me it is just eye candy for sales.

Fair 'nuff :).


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on August 11, 2018, 01:31:23 PM
A "blind" radio would have been useless

Only if you do not know how to use VFO and tune around. How did ham radio even survive for many decades without spectrum scopes? Maybe because they were not plug n play operators.

Please explain to me how you would have noticed the DX operation down the band while monitoring the FT8 "watering hole" without a bandscope.

If there is one thing that a bandscope/waterfall is not, it is NOT just "eyecandy".  It is the heart of the radio's operation.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on August 11, 2018, 02:52:07 PM
"If I had  scope I doubt I would use it much at all. Too me it is just eye candy for sales. "

Well then, set the display to show something else.

For example, on an IC-7300 you could set the display to show the metering panel, that shows an S-meter, transmit Power Out, ALC, Compression, SWR, and power supply current.  Of course the frequency, filters, NB. NR, etc are also displayed.  It's a nice looking screen if you don't want a bandscope.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 11, 2018, 02:52:51 PM
If there is one thing that a bandscope/waterfall is not, it is NOT just "eyecandy".  It is the heart of the radio's operation.

To you it is maybe, not me. I do not even consider a FT8 a real contact for a award that "used to be" for voice or CW either. Its not a QSO and is little more than a handshake. I will not do digi modes that are little more than a handshake either.

See the "way" I look at it is if you have a budget of "x" dollars to design and build a radio for market I would rather see them take what ever money is spent on spectrum display hardware part spent on better filtering rather than eye candy. Just like fancy wheels are more popular for selling cars today but they just add to price and do not make car run any better or last and longer.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on August 11, 2018, 05:13:18 PM
If there is one thing that a bandscope/waterfall is not, it is NOT just "eyecandy".  It is the heart of the radio's operation.

To you it is maybe, not me. I do not even consider a FT8 a real contact for a award that "used to be" for voice or CW either. Its not a QSO and is little more than a handshake. I will not do digi modes that are little more than a handshake either.

See the "way" I look at it is if you have a budget of "x" dollars to design and build a radio for market I would rather see them take what ever money is spent on spectrum display hardware part spent on better filtering rather than eye candy. Just like fancy wheels are more popular for selling cars today but they just add to price and do not make car run any better or last and longer.

I just had a demonstration of FT8 at a friends' station before I try to install it at my home QTH. Ugh! A computer talking to a computer for 15 seconds...all automatic after clicking on a line. No audio or mental awareness/decoding necessary. I know it's real popular, but no thanks for me.  I guess I'm "old school" too :D.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on August 11, 2018, 05:46:01 PM
this FT-8 kind of "qso" reminds me of some of the inane things that amuse people.  the same reaction I have watching fellow passengers scrolling up and down endlessly through their contact lists and message apps on their cellphones while riding the subway.  They COULD be doing something less mind-numbing, like maybe read the newspaper or talk to somebody, but these days that's too much effort.  Same as hams...  it's too much effort to get involved in a voice or CW QSO, so letting your computer do FT-8 contest-style contacts when there is no contest seems to be the latest way of vegging out.

I think the math says that it is theoretically possible to get DXCC on FT-8 in 50 minutes.  

73, Ed


ps. and the TS-890s with it's fantastic receiver would be the radio of choice for that.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on August 11, 2018, 08:20:58 PM
Quote
I think the math says that it is theoretically possible to get DXCC on FT-8 in 50 minutes. 

Now thats funny right there. If it were only true!.  Why would you say such a thing like that when you know it is blatantly false?  It is just a dumb thing to say, and it causes bad feelings.  I understand you don't like FT8. GOOD.  But don't try to belittle others with your biases. Sure you can get DXCC much faster with FT8 than without it, but don't make ridiculous statements to try to prove a point.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on August 19, 2018, 03:35:49 AM
All meaningless numbers in the real world because the average ham transmitters poor IMD figures will never allow such performance to be realised on the air.

The main attention that is lacking from ham radio designers is improving the quality of the transmitter signal. While the majority of ham transmitters are very poorly designed we just wasting unnecessary design resources on advanced receiver performance that cannot be realized.

While we continue to have RFI noise pollution and bad transmitter pollution on the ham bands such dazzling levels of   receiver performance is a wasted effort. But hams are really being silly getting caught up in these debates that have little meaning in the real world.

The Kenwood by all accounts might have a  fantastic receiver but what good is it when its transmitter IMD performance will be sub standard and below what is considered to be good engineering practice and performance. The same comments can be made for all the ham radio manufacturers, excellent receiver but rubbish transmitter designers whose specifications are terrible. Hams might get it one day but all that they are doing is wasting their money on advertising specmanship hype.

Remember Adam had posted that about SDR receivers back in 2016, since that time Icom brought a radio out called the 7610 with two Digi select front end filters which greatly increases the ability to operate in a rich RF environment, as a mater of fact they have used the digi select filter in radio's as early as the 7800, 7700 and now in both the 7851 and the 7610 which there are only a few db apart. A good example is K3LR's M/M station who keeps on setting records using Icom top rigs. The New Yaesu has something called a VC controlled front end but until there is more info its a buzz word. This new Kenwood hay have 150db blocking but at what separation 100Khz, 50Khz,20Khz,5Khz or 2Khz, now if its at 2Khz then that is dam good but even other top rigs just maybe come close. There is no sub RX and its TBA price is rumored around the $4k mark well maybe they better try around or lower than $3k.
Just remember Flex advertised great RMD numbers that just before Dayton they came out with a PEN which is there fancy word for recall and any radio's before April 12 had issues along with other discrepancies, I am soo glad I didn't go that way cause there so called first batch were 20db or so below stated specs. So far the one radio to hit the streets and had no issues meeting there RX specs has been Icom plus they have improved those somewhat since V1.06 has been released but has not been tested yet.
AS far as the K3S is concerned they do test well but why in the world does Elecraft try and compare there bones basic $3K plus radio against a radio you can buy today for $1k, the AKA 7300, if Kenwood want to compete they better sharpen that list price pencil really sharp, I really think that some of these manufactures are not really looking at the big picture but I see Icom is with both eye's.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on August 19, 2018, 08:55:55 AM
All meaningless numbers in the real world because the average ham transmitters poor IMD figures will never allow such performance to be realised on the air.

The main attention that is lacking from ham radio designers is improving the quality of the transmitter signal. While the majority of ham transmitters are very poorly designed we just wasting unnecessary design resources on advanced receiver performance that cannot be realized.

While we continue to have RFI noise pollution and bad transmitter pollution on the ham bands such dazzling levels of   receiver performance is a wasted effort. But hams are really being silly getting caught up in these debates that have little meaning in the real world.

The Kenwood by all accounts might have a  fantastic receiver but what good is it when its transmitter IMD performance will be sub standard and below what is considered to be good engineering practice and performance. The same comments can be made for all the ham radio manufacturers, excellent receiver but rubbish transmitter designers whose specifications are terrible. Hams might get it one day but all that they are doing is wasting their money on advertising specmanship hype.

You continue to beat the dead horse of poor transmitter design.  Poor as compared to what?  This is amateur radio Bunky.

The close in phase noise of every amateur transmitter on the market today is way better than in years past, and harmonic content is nearly zero, only because it is not possible to obtain zero by any means. 

No human ear listening to a transmitted signal can hear any phase distortion in the signal because it is far too attenuated to hear.  There are hams who don't know how to properly adjust a transmitter but that is their fault and not the radio manufacturer.    If a transmitter is properly set, you  might be able to see some close in noise on a spectrum analyzer but it is so far down that it is not economical to deal with from the manufacturers view point.  I suppose transmitted signals could be cleaned up, but at a large cost increase to the consumer and no one wants to pay for it.  You want broadcast quality, go AM, or get an SDR system that can handle pre-distortion and drive everyone nuts with a broad band ESSB signal.

Better still, learn to copy CW, you can't hear any transmitted distortion in a 500 HZ or less pass band unless you not from this planet, which I am beginning to suspect anyway. :-\


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N6YFM on August 19, 2018, 09:57:34 AM
:-)  Zenki ?

He's an all or nothing kind of panic-head.   According to him, transmitters are so
bad that the world will explode, dogs and cats will attack you,  and Trump will
move into your house.  Maybe Putin too.

If existing equipment is so terrible, why are so many people successfully being
received each hour;

Modes received over last 2 hours
Mode   Count
FT8   960915
CW   3207
FT8CALL   2558
RTTY   1607
SIM31   871
PSK31   701
JT65   323
MSK144   241
ROS   86
PSK63   38
JT9   32
PSK   27
OPERA   20
PI4   10
OLIVIA   9
SSB   7
PSK125   4
HELL   3
RTTY-45   3


I would argue that right now, we need a sunspot generating machine more than we
need even cleaner transmitters.

Cheers


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on August 19, 2018, 04:06:32 PM
Quote
I would argue that right now, we need a sunspot generating machine more than we
need even cleaner transmitters.


Rgr that, you won't get any argument from me on needing some better propagation. :)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3TEX on August 19, 2018, 04:48:46 PM
Zenki,

Your like the guy chasing the perfect woman.... Never going to find it.... Transmitters are clean enough for the FCC approval so why should you care ?

I have asked you before for your 5 top Ham transmitters, in your opinion, but you never follow up others questions to you....

Just pontificate on and on.....

Maybe that's why you don't have a call sign...

Just stick to your short wave listening, you internet troll....

Les, VK3TEX.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3YP on August 19, 2018, 05:45:29 PM
I am Kenwood fan but how will the TS890S compete with the IC7610 if they are both priced at the same price points? Will people give up a second RX on the IC7610 for better IMD performance of the TS890S ?

We will need to wait for the sherwood test data on the TS890S as the TS990S also promised big IMD performance but did not quite deliver.

VK3YP
Melbourne Australia




Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 19, 2018, 06:38:45 PM
I am Kenwood fan but how will the TS890S compete with the IC7610 if they are both priced at the same price points?

IF DSP and SDR is constantly evolving and the 7610 is a older design than 890. In IF DSP/SDR world it is not so much as the price point being the same as it is the age of the technology in the price point comparison.  


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on August 20, 2018, 10:57:17 AM
I am Kenwood fan but how will the TS890S compete with the IC7610 if they are both priced at the same price points?

IF DSP and SDR is constantly evolving and the 7610 is a older design than 890. In IF DSP/SDR world it is not so much as the price point being the same as it is the age of the technology in the price point comparison.  

Not sure I understand.  I see both radios as being pretty much state of the art.  The Icom uses direct digital sampling while the Kenwood uses a high level switching type mixer.  Neither radios uses an analog LO in the front end and they both employ state of the art DSP in the IF stage so what are they really?  I don't know, just really good I guess.   

The Kenwood will likely be a bit more expensive than the Icom just because they are historically pricier.  I expect the performance of the TS-890S will be stellar but I have to wonder if the quasi analog front end will put some people off who might otherwise buy one.  There is a lot of misunderstanding about how the Kenwood receiver actually works, I have even heard people say it is old technology.

 Trust me, there is nothing old about a switching high level frequency aliasing mixer, it is just another way to skin the same cat.  The fact that it is followed by an analog IF and crystal filters just insures exceptional rejection of spurious signals in the pass band.

It is a thoroughly modern design and I can't imagine anyone thinking it is not totally state of the art in radio design.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: PU2OZT on August 20, 2018, 11:16:42 AM
The Kenwood will likely be a bit more expensive than the Icom just because they are historically pricier.  I expect the performance of the TS-890S will be stellar but I have to wonder if the quasi analog front end will put some people off who might otherwise buy one...
Trust me, there is nothing old about a switching high level frequency aliasing mixer, it is just another way to skin the same cat...

You could count me in, wished I could afford buying the Kenwood

Oliver


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 20, 2018, 07:56:17 PM
Not sure I understand.  I see both radios as being pretty much state of the art. 

7610 is a good radio but it is a older design than 890. The "state" of state of the art has changed since 7610 was built.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on August 21, 2018, 08:53:49 AM
I disagree the 890 is trying to do catch up to Icom 7851 as far as the mixer technologies are concerned, were the 7851 trumps the new 890 is Icom is light years away ahead of Kenwood in there DSP algorithms which is seen on the 7851 and also the DSP used in both the 7300 and brought to a higher performance level in the 7610 cause the DSP is done in one of the two FPGA's of the 7610 so it truly is done not as an IF but in the true digital domain. The 890 from what I can see is designed to capture the thunder of the Elecraft K3S but there is NO second RX in the radio at all, they are clearly wanting to make a statement with this radio that another one of the big 3 from Japan can sit side by side on Sherwoods list with the K3S but clearly most of the top 25 radio's on that list you would be hard pressed to see all that much differences between.
The only area the 890 should be any different in is blocking, according to there adds should be up were the K3S and 7851 are but Phase noise the 7610 is still in the group of radio's that is excellent. At a blocking spec of around 125db and the 7815/K3S and supposedly the 890 should be around 150db is excellent but its the phase noise in these rigs which you can hear once you go above the 110-120db mark and were talking about most of the SDR rigs at besting 140db at 2Khz, this is were the 7610 for what it has inside the box as far as features and phase noise levels besting 140db plus which makes this rig compete with some of the best out there. Another area were the 7610 competes is ultimate channel selectivity which as been tested at better than -110db over crystal filter roofing filters+DSP radio's falling short at around -90 except for the K3S, that 20db better is something you can hear in real world operation.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 21, 2018, 09:48:46 AM
I disagree the 890 is trying to do catch up to Icom 7851 as far as the mixer technologies are concerned, were the 7851 trumps the new 890 is Icom is light years away ahead of Kenwood in there DSP algorithms which is seen on the 7851 and also the DSP used in both the 7300 and brought to a higher performance level in the 7610 cause the DSP is done in one of the two FPGA's of the 7610 so it truly is done not as an IF but in the true digital domain. The 890 from what I can see is designed to capture the thunder of the Elecraft K3S but there is NO second RX in the radio at all, they are clearly wanting to make a statement with this radio that another one of the big 3 from Japan can sit side by side on Sherwoods list with the K3S but clearly most of the top 25 radio's on that list you would be hard pressed to see all that much differences between.
The only area the 890 should be any different in is blocking, according to there adds should be up were the K3S and 7851 are but Phase noise the 7610 is still in the group of radio's that is excellent. At a blocking spec of around 125db and the 7815/K3S and supposedly the 890 should be around 150db is excellent but its the phase noise in these rigs which you can hear once you go above the 110-120db mark and were talking about most of the SDR rigs at besting 140db at 2Khz, this is were the 7610 for what it has inside the box as far as features and phase noise levels besting 140db plus which makes this rig compete with some of the best out there. Another area were the 7610 competes is ultimate channel selectivity which as been tested at better than -110db over crystal filter roofing filters+DSP radio's falling short at around -90 except for the K3S, that 20db better is something you can hear in real world operation.

It is interesting to see someone claim that a design more than 2 years older than 890 is "light years" ahead. We live in a age where digital technology and its devices is evolving rapidly and a IF DSP/SDR rig is based on this same evolving technology. While some may not like this comparison if you take a 3 year old smart phone or 3 year old laptop and uodate firmware as much as you want it will still be a 3 year old device and not same or as good as a new one based on newer technology.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: AF6LJ on August 21, 2018, 10:39:09 AM
Just because something is "newer" doesn't make it "better"
From what I have seen the engineering team over at Icom is light years ahead of Kenwood, whom seems to have rele3nted and now builds their gear in China, not Icom.
Kenwood's glory years ended in the early 2000s When they stopped keeping up with the changes in the state of the art.
We shall see...


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on August 21, 2018, 01:54:49 PM
It is interesting to see someone claim that a design more than 2 years older than 890 is "light years" ahead. We live in a age where digital technology and its devices is evolving rapidly and a IF DSP/SDR rig is based on this same evolving technology. While some may not like this comparison if you take a 3 year old smart phone or 3 year old laptop and update firmware as much as you want it will still be a 3 year old device and not same or as good as a new one based on newer technology.
The TS-890S uses the ADSP-21363 DSP processor (the same as the TS-990S). This device was introduced in 2005.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on August 21, 2018, 07:48:40 PM
Well I rest my case on Kenwoods state of the art DSP chip which was maybe great in 2005 but its now 2018, both the 990s and the 590sg DSP is bested even by Yaesu's 1200 and 3000 radio's. I really think that most ham's do not realize that Kenwoods mother ship is now JVC and all they want is market share, they are no longer the Kenwood TRio company of days of old, they are owned by a huge conglomerate. Just look at what happened with Yaesu in the Years Motorola owned them, they really lost there share of the market with the 9000 2000 series and once the Japan counterpart started to kick back the 5000 came about. Icom has always been a communication company, there prime interest is in all types of communications products from marine, two way radio which encompasses many different sectors, VHF radio's used in planes plus amateur radio gear.
There DSP engineering team has be cutting edge since the first 756 radio but became IF DSP in the first 756Pro. Even the 7300 has a far better DSP engine then all of the current Kenwoods out today.
If your going to design a world class front end/mixer stage at least follow it with world class DSP, Clearly Kenwoods CEO's in Japan do not have there ears on the streets here in the USA but I can tell you that Icom does and tries real hard to have the proper communications between Icom USA, Icom EU and Icom Japan plus there CEO is a ham as well.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on August 21, 2018, 08:20:53 PM
Well I rest my case on Kenwoods state of the art DSP chip which was maybe great in 2005 but its now 2018, both the 990s and the 590sg DSP is bested even by Yaesu's 1200 and 3000 radio's. I really think that most ham's do not realize that Kenwoods mother ship is now JVC and all they want is market share, they are no longer the Kenwood TRio company of days of old, they are owned by a huge conglomerate. Just look at what happened with Yaesu in the Years Motorola owned them, they really lost there share of the market with the 9000 2000 series and once the Japan counterpart started to kick back the 5000 came about. Icom has always been a communication company, there prime interest is in all types of communications products from marine, two way radio which encompasses many different sectors, VHF radio's used in planes plus amateur radio gear.
There DSP engineering team has be cutting edge since the first 756 radio but became IF DSP in the first 756Pro. Even the 7300 has a far better DSP engine then all of the current Kenwoods out today.
If your going to design a world class front end/mixer stage at least follow it with world class DSP, Clearly Kenwoods CEO's in Japan do not have there ears on the streets here in the USA but I can tell you that Icom does and tries real hard to have the proper communications between Icom USA, Icom EU and Icom Japan plus there CEO is a ham as well.

Engineers and physicists working at Bell Labs worked out the mathematical models for filter synthesis and noise reduction in the 1930's.  Over the years the technology was put to use by bell telephone and other telcos as component technology and cost permitted.  Direct digital sampling is about a 40 year old concept as is the high speed switching mixer in Kenwood's latest designs.

The state of the art in amateur radios is not driven nearly as much by design concept as it is by component technology.  As components get faster and more dense, and lower cost, radios will continue to improve, but to say the Icom 7610 is more advanced than the TS-890S is not an accurate statement.  The algorithms for DSP are pretty much the same with a tweak hear or there, but the mathematical constructs for filter synthesis, noise reduction, and AGC, are well understood by the engineers in both companies.

If you want to convince me that one is better than the other, please provide more than just anecdotal stuff like, "Icom sounds better", tell us why in technical terms.  I am frankly amazed at the capabilities of even low priced modern radios compared to top of the line rigs from just 20 years past.  The future is now.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on August 22, 2018, 03:47:31 AM
Well I rest my case on Kenwoods state of the art DSP chip which was maybe great in 2005 but its now 2018, both the 990s and the 590sg DSP is bested even by Yaesu's 1200 and 3000 radio's.

Kenwood was not "state of the art" in 2005 with DSP. Where do you get this stuff? Make it up on the fly? IF DSP/SDR is still evolving and getting better but still far from fully mature. Also to my ear I was never impressed with sound of a 1200 or 3000 on a test bench. While many seem to use Sherwood tests as holy grail, to me it is ergonomics and how it plays/sounds and "feels" that means more to me than any Sherwood rating.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on August 22, 2018, 09:29:12 AM
Well I rest my case on Kenwoods state of the art DSP chip which was maybe great in 2005 but its now 2018, both the 990s and the 590sg DSP is bested even by Yaesu's 1200 and 3000 radio's.

Kenwood was not "state of the art" in 2005 with DSP. Where do you get this stuff? Make it up on the fly? IF DSP/SDR is still evolving and getting better but still far from fully mature. Also to my ear I was never impressed with sound of a 1200 or 3000 on a test bench. While many seem to use Sherwood tests as holy grail, to me it is ergonomics and how it plays/sounds and "feels" that means more to me than any Sherwood rating.

I am also not impressed with the FT-3000, an acquaintance of mine has one and I have used it on air.  The DSP is OK and does a passible job except the noise blanking is not nearly as good as Icoms, but the ergonomics are absolutely terrible.  I think Yaesu has the worst, most difficult menu system of any manufacturer, except maybe Elecraft.  On the FT-3000 you have to dig through an entire stack just to change a single parameter.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA5DOB on September 02, 2018, 06:50:34 AM
I just looked at the hamlife.jp site and their showing the TS-890 costing 448,000 Yen so that converts to $4034.60 in US dollars. So I would think Kenwood would lower the price to the hams in the US to better compete with the leading Icom company.

The site in Japan also said the 890 will be released in the middle of this month, so i'm not sure about here in the States.

I also found that on the Kenwood download site for the US they now list 4 new programs for the 890 including it's new ARCP program for remote use.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: S58DX on September 02, 2018, 09:03:53 AM
Hi KA5DOB,

thanks for link..i looked at the site and could not find
the price you have mentioned.

Generally speaking, is that the price with VAT ( Sales tax ) added or
it is without tax ?
In Japan sales tax on consumer goods is 8% ..
In Slovenia it is 22%...
When your figure of 448.000 Yen taken, it is cca 3.480 Euro , looks
not that bad...but when you add tax ( 22 % ) it is different story...

Well, it is going to be entertaining  ;)

Nermin S58DX 8)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: OH6I on September 02, 2018, 09:47:56 AM
Some time ago I see price 4999 Euro (5800 USD) in WiMo site but now there is "...price and availability not yet know".
It also include 70Mhz band like Icom-7300.

Jari
OH6I

https://www.wimo.com/kenwood-ts-890s-transceiver-shortwave-70mhz_e.html (https://www.wimo.com/kenwood-ts-890s-transceiver-shortwave-70mhz_e.html)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on September 02, 2018, 11:02:16 AM
Some time ago I see price 4999 Euro (5800 USD) in WiMo site but now there is "...price and availability not yet know".
It also include 70Mhz band like Icom-7300.

Jari
OH6I

https://www.wimo.com/kenwood-ts-890s-transceiver-shortwave-70mhz_e.html (https://www.wimo.com/kenwood-ts-890s-transceiver-shortwave-70mhz_e.html)

I read today that they are expecting the price to be right around $4000.00 US which is not unreasonable for a high performance radio.  I also read that Kenwood plans to release the first production around the middle of this month but it is not known if that will be limited to Japan or if they will also include Europe and the United States.

There is just not a lot of information available for this radio.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on September 02, 2018, 11:16:34 AM
I just looked at the hamlife.jp site and their showing the TS-890 costing 448,000 Yen so that converts to $4034.60 in US dollars. So I would think Kenwood would lower the price to the hams in the US to better compete with the leading Icom company.

Leading? In what total ham radio sales? Kenwood has a big foot foot print in land mobile world and audio too, Ham radio is not a critical market for them in that they have steady sales there and other income sources and no need to lower price of a new rig.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KC4ZGP on September 02, 2018, 03:42:09 PM

$4,000.00 for a radio! Golly!

But that isn't as bad as ICOM's IC-7851, $13,000.00. Double golly!

Kraus



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: HAMFESTS on September 02, 2018, 06:39:27 PM
If anyone is interested, if you go to the Kenwood's site and do a search for downloads, the TS-890 user manual comes up in various languages.

Interested people will find the specs in the back of the manual, and that the TS-890 has some nice features for CW and RTTY (section 5 of the manual)

I hope this links works for you. Do a search for TS-890

http://manual.kenwood.com/en_contents/search/keyword

73


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: NY7Z on September 03, 2018, 01:02:20 AM
If history of previous radio releases is any guide (TS-590 for example), in a year or two the price will settle down to the long term market price of about 2/3 the initial msrp price.  So doing the math, that would mean in a couple of years, the street price of the 890 should be around $2,700 where it will stay for the rest of its production run.  After the initial buying frenzy is over is when I will jump in and finally upgrade from my trusty TS-850. 


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on September 03, 2018, 08:39:19 AM
If history of previous radio releases is any guide (TS-590 for example), in a year or two the price will settle down to the long term market price of about 2/3 the initial msrp price. 

Did it happen with 990? No. Do not look for it on 890. 590 is a old design and getting pretty long in tooth by DSP standards and so it is dropping in value/price.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on September 03, 2018, 08:53:15 AM

$4,000.00 for a radio! Golly!

But that isn't as bad as ICOM's IC-7851, $13,000.00. Double golly!

Kraus



That is over the top in my book.  I'm willing to pay four grand for the Kenwood, and only if it lives up to the published specs, but that is my limit. 

I could buy a brand new Ford 5.0 Aluminator crate motor for the cost of an IC-7851, with the ECU and wiring harness. :o 


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: OH6I on September 03, 2018, 10:05:41 AM
Sadly, Kenwood is expensive here in Europe.
TS-590 SG almost two grand in $USD.
Yaesu FTDX-3000 is lower price than Kenwood TS-590 SG here in Europe.

KA4DPO, maybe you are interested in this used amplifier:  ;)

https://www.radioworld.co.uk/used_ham_radio_equipment/amplifiers/second_hand_emtron_dx-2sp (https://www.radioworld.co.uk/used_ham_radio_equipment/amplifiers/second_hand_emtron_dx-2sp)

Jari
OH6I


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on September 03, 2018, 10:34:44 AM
Sadly, Kenwood is expensive here in Europe.
TS-590 SG almost two grand in $USD.
Yaesu FTDX-3000 is lower price than Kenwood TS-590 SG here in Europe.

KA4DPO, maybe you are interested in this used amplifier:  ;)

https://www.radioworld.co.uk/used_ham_radio_equipment/amplifiers/second_hand_emtron_dx-2sp (https://www.radioworld.co.uk/used_ham_radio_equipment/amplifiers/second_hand_emtron_dx-2sp)

Jari
OH6I

Thanks Jari but I don't think I want to pay that kind of money for a used amp, there are plenty of KW amps here for a lot less.  That model has not been FCC certified anyway so I'm not even sure if it is legal to bring it into the US. 

I can get 1500 watt amps for two thousand dollars, or less,  in great condition almost every day of the week.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KK4FGF on September 09, 2018, 08:10:59 AM
My trusty 590S has been a fav of mine all but for the lack of a band scope. So, to see what I was missing I purchased a 7300 a couple of months ago when with rebate I was able to get one for about $1000. As a software engineer, I'm much more comfortable with the user experience of the 7300, but I'm still getting used to it. I think my ears still prefer the 590S, but I could be wrong. One would think that the 890S would be a perfect rig for me and I am drooling like a kid thumbing through the pages of an old Sears Christmas catalog, but at $4000, I won't be biting soon.

73

JoAnn Peeler
JoAnn.Peeler@gmail.com


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: S58DX on September 09, 2018, 01:14:08 PM
Hi JoAnn Peelerr,

the setup i have is similar to yours, it is an TS590SG and SDRPlay1..

Addition of SDR1play is ok, and do not have a feeling that i am handicaped
having not the SDR for main radio...
I like direct access to most of the features in basic radio, and comparison
availability with external receiver...cool ;)
Never opted for Icom, let us say bad experiences from the past...

TS890S looks viable, it remains to be seen whether all the listed
features are real...

Kind regards,

Nermin S58DX


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KN4XX on September 18, 2018, 03:37:26 PM
FYI;
I perused the Martin & Lynch (uk) website today and they say they have TS-890's in house for sale.  Assuming this is legit, availability can't be too far off for the US.
73's    John  KN4XX


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on September 18, 2018, 04:40:06 PM
DX Engineering and HRO are showing $4499.95 price.

https://www.dxengineering.com/parts/kwd-ts-890s

https://www.hamradio.com/detail.cfm?pid=H0-016466


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on September 19, 2018, 06:55:28 AM
I have no idea what Kenwood was thinking about the 890, Eve if the price was around the selling price of the IC7610 it only has on RX not two and even if the lab number compete with a K3s who is going to fork out over $4K plus for this radio, even Elecraft has hit some resistance in selling there touted K3s these days. That radio should have been at around $2500 to start but who knows what there designing and marketing departments were doing and if there NB and NR circuits are similar to the 590SG then even Icom's 7300 will be better in this respect and the 7610 will eat the 890 for breakfast lunch and dinner.
If you take Sherwoods top tier 25 best radio's on his list you will not find in real life situations all that much differences between them, its more about user interface then actual performance cause you have to push those number 30db greater to hear any real differences and even then its close cause there are a whole lot of good radio's on the market and this blocking spec of 150db seems like a great number but anything above 120db is still excellent but that ultimate channel selectivity that only a few radios really achieve like 110db or greater over many radio's still stuck around 90db is something that shows up in normal every day operating when you need that brick wall selectivity when the qrm gets in. On that point you have the Flex, K3s and the two Icom's that are at the top on this figure.
When you look at radio's maybe 10 to 15 years ago to today you really start to see some differences.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on September 19, 2018, 08:25:28 AM
My first thought upon learning the price will be $4500, is that Kenwood must be kidding. I doubt they will sell even 100 of these radios at that price. The radio is priced at least $2000 too high. Too little too late guys.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: SP5QIP on September 19, 2018, 03:42:57 PM
My first thought upon learning the price will be $4500, is that Kenwood must be kidding. I doubt they will sell even 100 of these radios at that price. The radio is priced at least $2000 too high. Too little too late guys.
Agree. Too late, too expensive. Even for me, Kenwood fanboy :)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA5DOB on September 19, 2018, 09:51:22 PM
Hi Gerard,
if the qouted receiver specifications are veryfiable,
that would be one of the best receivers so far...
Let us wait and see  :)
Though, i could not recall any manufacturer ( amateur radio, please)
ever used H-mode mixer...

I am hardcore Kenwood fan, thus i am biased 8)

Nermin S58DX
The TS-990 used the H-mode mixer and full down conversion superhet receiver. The newer Elecraft K3S near tops the Sherwood list also uses the same H-mode mixer and superhet combo although it's a expensive radio.  The new TS-890 will be using the very latest version of the H-mode plus superhet and should top the Sherwood receiver list.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA5DOB on September 19, 2018, 10:10:09 PM
I read it's expensive to use the H-mode mixer superhet combo.  Kenwood has lowered the noise way down in the local oscillator so to be able to hear the weakest DX stations.  Kenwood is known for great audio in their car radios will no doubt have improved receive and transmit audio in their 890.
I found one dealer has it listed at $4399 and with the October 9th to 12th shipping date we may see some other dealers selling it at a lower price.  One receiver, but a excellent one at that. I will be using the RSP2 SDR as my second receiver and using the 24" color monitor to view it with. I will be looking forward to the Sherwood receiver test list once his test is complete.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on September 21, 2018, 08:32:17 AM
there must be a few hams in Kenwood that feel that a kick-a$$ performing low-frills radio will sell well.  A second receiver won't help you dig the weak ones out of the noise but a high-performance single receiver will, so it is likely geared toward DX-chasers more than contesters.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on September 21, 2018, 01:58:18 PM
there must be a few hams in Kenwood that feel that a kick-a$$ performing low-frills radio will sell well.  A second receiver won't help you dig the weak ones out of the noise but a high-performance single receiver will, so it is likely geared toward DX-chasers more than contesters.

73, Ed

It was advertised as a DXers dream radio and I think it probably is.  Even without a second receiver I don't see any reason why it could not be used as a contest rig.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on September 21, 2018, 08:02:44 PM
now it's also on the Kenwood USA web site.

Has a clean transmitter...  3rd order is down 40 dB from two tones

and -155 to -158 dBc LO phase noise...   pretty quiet compared to other high end rigs.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK6HP on September 21, 2018, 11:04:37 PM
It's actually -40 dB wrt PEP (the ARRL citation method), or -34 dB down relative to either tone (nearly everyone else's method).  Still, it's a very credible performance from a 13V radio and Kenwood are to be commended for actually publishing an exemplar spectrum (http://www.kenwood.com/usa/com/amateur/ts-890s/transmit/).  

I wouldn't make too much of the initial RRP, noting the fluidity of other manufacturers' introductory price points in recent times.  

From the perspective of someone looking for a new transceiver to use in conjunction with a KPA1500 amplifier, I'm seeing hard choices to be made.  The Anans have the transmit pre-distortion I'd like and Flexes may have it soon (?) but I prefer my radios largely self contained.  The IC-7610 direct sampling SDR has a raft of features and respectable transmit IMD, particularly at moderate drive levels. The very recent firmware update enabling the I/Q data output to HDSDR is also a game changer for me, given the preference for a self-contained SDR but also wanting connectivity and flexibility.  The TS-890 looks like it delivers a lot in both receive and transmit performance and is, I'm sure, a quality offering incorporating features addressing some of the convenience features lacking in the TS-590 (bandscope etc). Knowing how good the TS-590 and TS-990 are on 160m and below (which is important to me), and in general strong signal performance terms, I'll be looking hard at the TS-890.  If the raw performance is there, I'd reluctantly trade-off the Icom I/Q baseband connectivity and some of the other features.

No doubt everyone's trade-offs are different and it's worth keeping that in mind when looking to predict commercial or technical success.

73, Peter.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: S58DX on September 21, 2018, 11:29:34 PM
Hi Gerard,
if the qouted receiver specifications are veryfiable,
that would be one of the best receivers so far...
Let us wait and see  :)
Though, i could not recall any manufacturer ( amateur radio, please)
ever used H-mode mixer...

I am hardcore Kenwood fan, thus i am biased 8)

Nermin S58DX

Mea culpa :)

it is true, TS990S has H mixer, and i did now about Elecraft using this mixer
as well.
Let us see, how good the latest toy would perform..

regards,

Nermin S58DX
The TS-990 used the H-mode mixer and full down conversion superhet receiver. The newer Elecraft K3S near tops the Sherwood list also uses the same H-mode mixer and superhet combo although it's a expensive radio.  The new TS-890 will be using the very latest version of the H-mode plus superhet and should top the Sherwood receiver list.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: M6EES on September 22, 2018, 11:39:47 AM
You guys are complaining about the price.

Over here in the UK its GBP 4000.

That's 5250 USD.

And whether or not I can afford it, this means I will not be buying one, and will stick with my Yaesu FTDX3000 until one of us dies.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: OH6I on September 22, 2018, 10:28:49 PM
Do not know TS-890 price yet but here in Finland Icom IC-7610 cost like 4590 USD and Icom IC-9100 is 4000 USD so my U.S. friends have "cheap" radios... ;)

Jari
OH6I


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KG5Y on September 23, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
As for pricing does weight matter!

TS-990S 54 LBS
TS-890S 55 LBS

The brochures listing of the 890 must be wrong.

13 volt radio with no power supply. TS-590 16 lbs. I know the 890 is bigger but 40 lbs!
??

Regards
KG5Y


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on September 24, 2018, 08:06:02 AM
As for pricing does weight matter!

TS-990S 54 LBS
TS-890S 55 LBS

The brochures listing of the 890 must be wrong.

13 volt radio with no power supply. TS-590 16 lbs. I know the 890 is bigger but 40 lbs!
??

Regards
KG5Y


Yes, that is correct.  Both of those radios have an H mixer in the front end.  The H stands for Heavy. ;D ;D

Seriously the specs for the TS-890S do say that it weighs 37.5 LBS, which is pretty darn heavy for a modern solid state radio.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on September 27, 2018, 10:25:57 AM
I am really enamored with the TS-890S and it's high level H-mixer technology. While it is not direct digital sampling, so what? It is software defined in almost every other aspect of it's design.  If the specs are correct, and I bet they are, it should have the top spot on Sherwood's list. If that turns out to be the case, I will buy one immediately and outfit it with my RTL-SDR and a 65 inch 4K UHD display.

 I will spend hours on the air giving signal reports to owners of less capable, yet more expensive radios like the Flex 6700, especially audio reports using my Ultra High Def scope of course to tell them where all of the flaws are in their transmitted signal. Even the smallest, most insignificant issue will be brought to their attention to "help" them improve their stations performance, which will never equal my rig of course.

I will do all of this and more with a condescending attitude befitting of one who owns the top spot on the list of narrow spaced RMDR, and of course I will have to tell them how many slices my RTL can produce and how I can just point and click to go spot on frequency. Then there is the crush proof front end that just refuses to cave in to strong adjacent signals, unlike Direct Sampling systems that can overload under lesser conditions because lets face it, they just don't measure up.  And for the ultimate rub in, I just might mention the fact that it cost two thousand dollars less than the best Flex radio.

Never mind that other features like receiver sensitivity is better, or that there is no latency when operating CW, the superb Kenwood audio, and lastly the reliable operation without glitches or lockups and no need to re-boot it.  Yep it's going to be fun fun fun.  :) :D

I'm so glad I waited because for those who actually think their life is defined by what radio sits on their desk (there really are some out there) I will remind them of what weak units they are now that their rig is a boat anchor.  :P  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :P



Or I may just work some DX and be more than happy with that too. ;D


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on September 27, 2018, 02:26:03 PM
I am really enamored with the TS-890S and it's high level H-mixer technology. While it is not direct digital sampling, so what? It is software defined in almost every other aspect of it's design.  If the specs are correct, and I bet they are, it should have the top spot on Sherwood's list. If that turns out to be the case, I will buy one immediately and outfit it with my RTL-SDR and a 65 inch 4K UHD display.

 I will spend hours on the air giving signal reports to owners of less capable, yet more expensive radios like the Flex 6700, especially audio reports using my Ultra High Def scope of course to tell them where all of the flaws are in their transmitted signal. Even the smallest, most insignificant issue will be brought to their attention to "help" them improve their stations performance, which will never equal my rig of course.

I will do all of this and more with a condescending attitude befitting of one who owns the top spot on the list of narrow spaced RMDR, and of course I will have to tell them how many slices my RTL can produce and how I can just point and click to go spot on frequency. Then there is the crush proof front end that just refuses to cave in to strong adjacent signals, unlike Direct Sampling systems that can overload under lesser conditions because lets face it, they just don't measure up.  And for the ultimate rub in, I just might mention the fact that it cost two thousand dollars less than the best Flex radio.

Never mind that other features like receiver sensitivity is better, or that there is no latency when operating CW, the superb Kenwood audio, and lastly the reliable operation without glitches or lockups and no need to re-boot it.  Yep it's going to be fun fun fun.  :) :D

I'm so glad I waited because for those who actually think their life is defined by what radio sits on their desk (there really are some out there) I will remind them of what weak units they are now that their rig is a boat anchor.  :P  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :P



Or I may just work some DX and be more than happy with that too. ;D

Can't wait.  This is going to be one sweet rig but if for any reason it is not the best of the best of the best, I will buy the IC-7610 instead and still have a superior rig in many categories. ;D


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on September 27, 2018, 04:21:55 PM
Two days ago it was in stock in Canada.  Today it is out of stock.  I wonder how many they really had in stock?  $5850 Canadian Dollars.  https://radioworld.ca/kenwood-ts-890s



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W3DDF on September 28, 2018, 05:39:16 PM
Looks like several HRO stores in California has them in stock.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on October 02, 2018, 09:18:28 AM
Look at the E Ham used add's there is a TS890 up for grab's already, the fellow is looking to trade for one of the Hi End models from Anan, oh well I guess he didn't care for it that much, so much for the H bomb mixer.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on October 02, 2018, 02:18:38 PM
Look at the E Ham used add's there is a TS890 up for grab's already, the fellow is looking to trade for one of the Hi End models from Anan, oh well I guess he didn't care for it that much, so much for the H bomb mixer.

That is absolutely amazing since they are only available for Pre-order in Canada right now.  Maybe he changed his mind and likes the idea of having to have a computer in order to operate his radio.  There is a small segment of the population who do.

So what is your primary station rig?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on October 03, 2018, 10:13:29 AM
Itr used to be Yaesu but then I tried a 7300 Icom for a backup which became the most used radio, sold them both and bought the IC7610. BTW had owned the TS590S and the FTDX3000 both for a period of time just liked the Yaesu cause it had a quieter front end, I don't live in the countryside (I wish someday) but in a suburban developed area were healthy use of the NR and NB are almost key to the ability to copy weak signals without those digital artifacts thrown in so both the Icoms did a very good job plus without any pre amp engaged the Icoms are more than sensitive enough.
The 890 seemed to be for sale here in the states at least with HRO so maybe he bought it from them on a pre order sales, who knows but I find it strange on a brand new radio and since it is no longer Trio but JVC which is a huge conglomerate in Japan I am not sure there marketing department is in tune with the amateur market as well as Icom is today, $4500 for the 890 places it with the K3S with some options and even Elecraft sales have been going south.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on October 03, 2018, 05:46:02 PM
I am more than a little bit flummoxed at how somebody could drop that kind of coin on a new radio and try to get rid of it after just a few days. 

And then on top of that, potentially losing almost $2k if somebody takes him up on his offer to trade for an Anan 7000.  It would actually be worthwhile buying a 7000DLE for US$2795 from Anan just to trade for the TS-890.

Something doesn't add up.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on October 04, 2018, 10:25:04 AM
I am more than a little bit flummoxed at how somebody could drop that kind of coin on a new radio and try to get rid of it after just a few days. 

And then on top of that, potentially losing almost $2k if somebody takes him up on his offer to trade for an Anan 7000.  It would actually be worthwhile buying a 7000DLE for US$2795 from Anan just to trade for the TS-890.

Something doesn't add up.

73, Ed

I totally agree Ed, that ad doesn't pass the common sense test, not even close.  I have to wonder if it is even legit or just some made up nonsense.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: WA4DOU on October 15, 2018, 11:48:17 PM
TS890S specs are up on Rob Sherwood's site and look pretty good!


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on October 16, 2018, 09:53:04 AM
TS890S specs are up on Rob Sherwood's site and look pretty good!

Yeah, they do.  But they sure don't look $3000 better than an Icom 7300 which is another single receiver.  This will be a great rig, and a huge failure in marketing for Kenwood. This is what happens when you are behind the design curve playing catch up ball.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N2DTS on October 16, 2018, 10:24:01 AM
Best LO noise on the chart!


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: WA4DOU on October 16, 2018, 01:18:20 PM
TS890S specs are up on Rob Sherwood's site and look pretty good!

Yeah, they do.  But they sure don't look $3000 better than an Icom 7300 which is another single receiver.  This will be a great rig, and a huge failure in marketing for Kenwood. This is what happens when you are behind the design curve playing catch up ball.

That's a matter of opinion and I'll bet it will be well received, and popular. We'll see what the street price is next year. I love my 590SG and consider it plenty good enough for any endeavor I'm interested in, but could imagine it as a 2nd receiver in concert with an 890S, in the future.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on October 16, 2018, 07:26:59 PM
looks very solid.  best 100 kHz blocking on the whole list (good for adjacent contest stations).  best LO noise, so FT8 or JTxx will be very happy.  best ultimate filter rejection.

it's one of the very few in the top bunch that isn't measured with some modification, or hardware update, or some special measurement conditions.

A very good receiver.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on October 17, 2018, 01:01:26 PM
I just looked at the Sherwood site and I think Rob's results might be a little off.  Kenwood claims RMDR of 110 db at 2khz spacing, preamp off, and in 500 HZ CW mode, tested at 14.200 MHZ.  I am waiting to see what the ARRL lab tests show but it looks like Kenwood might do their testing a bit differently.  Still, the radio is top of the line in every other aspect so I might just have one in my shack pretty soon.  I'm still waiting for the FT-101D to show up before I make a decision, and by that time Kenwood's price may come down a little.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W9CW on October 18, 2018, 10:33:17 AM
The 2kHz dynamic range specified for the TS-890 on Rob's website is two-tone 3rd order DR.  As he states in the Receiver Test Data sub-head: "Sorted by Third-Order Dynamic Range Narrow Spaced - or- ARRL RMDR (Reciprocal Mixing Dynamic Range) if Phase Noise Limited".  In the TS-890's case, it is not phase noise limited at 2kHz spacing. What's posted on his website is only a snapshot of his complete testing data.  Email him for his Long Form report on the TS-890 - if he is ready to release it of course - and, you will likely find what you are looking for, as not only does he test for, and compile, many other parameters, including two-tone 3rd order DR and RMDR results at a number of frequency spacings.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on October 19, 2018, 01:22:13 PM
The 2kHz dynamic range specified for the TS-890 on Rob's website is two-tone 3rd order DR.  As he states in the Receiver Test Data sub-head: "Sorted by Third-Order Dynamic Range Narrow Spaced - or- ARRL RMDR (Reciprocal Mixing Dynamic Range) if Phase Noise Limited".  In the TS-890's case, it is not phase noise limited at 2kHz spacing. What's posted on his website is only a snapshot of his complete testing data.  Email him for his Long Form report on the TS-890 - if he is ready to release it of course - and, you will likely find what you are looking for, as not only does he test for, and compile, many other parameters, including two-tone 3rd order DR and RMDR results at a number of frequency spacings.

All I know is that Kenwood states a 3rd order RMDR of 110 db under the conditions in Robs test.  I still would like to see if ARRL gets a similar result and also if rob gets a second sample as he often does these days.  Still the TS-890's performance in every other category is extremely good so I wonder if third order intercept is even a realistic metric anymore.  Also waiting for the new Yaesu to pop out, and see what it can do.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on October 19, 2018, 05:01:23 PM
All I know is that Kenwood states a 3rd order RMDR of 110 db under the conditions in Robs test.  I still would like to see if ARRL gets a similar result and also if rob gets a second sample as he often does these days.  Still the TS-890's performance in every other category is extremely good so I wonder if third order intercept is even a realistic metric anymore.  Also waiting for the new Yaesu to pop out, and see what it can do.

You need to get the terminology correct. Saying "3rd order RMDR of 110 dB" is like saying "the torque horsepower of that engine is 600". It's two different measurements.

The Sherwood table is ranked by 3rd order intermodulation dynamic range. In this test, two tones at a specified frequency difference (20 or 2 kHz) are injected into a receiver. The amplitude of the two tones are increased until the 3rd order distortion products are equal to the MDS (minimum discernible signal) or noise floor. The 3rd order dynamic range is then equal to (two tone signal level - MDS).

The Sherwood table lists RMDR as LO noise (dBc/Hz). To convert to 500 Hz bandwidth RMDR, you have to add 10log(500) or 27 dB. So for the TS-890S, the 10 kHz LO noise is 155 dB which translates to 128 dB RMDR. Unfortunately, the table doesn't list the 5 kHz and 2 kHz results like the ARRL does (but they are in the extended reports that he publishes).

RMDR is measured by injecting a single signal into the receiver. The receiver is tuned to some offset from that signal and the signal level is increased until the receiver noise increases by 3 dB. The RMDR is then (signal level - MDS).

Blocking dynamic range is measured by injecting two signals into the receiver. A weak desired signal at -107 dBm and a blocking signal at some frequency offset. The receiver is tuned to the desired signal and the blocking signal is increased until the level of the desired signal drops by 1 dB. The blocking dynamic range is then (blocking signal level - MDS). For direct sampling receivers, the ADC always overloads before there's 1 dB of desensitization.

https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/Procedure%20Manual%202010%20with%20page%20breaks.pdf


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on October 19, 2018, 09:04:08 PM
All I know is that Kenwood states a 3rd order RMDR of 110 db under the conditions in Robs test.  I still would like to see if ARRL gets a similar result and also if rob gets a second sample as he often does these days.  Still the TS-890's performance in every other category is extremely good so I wonder if third order intercept is even a realistic metric anymore.  Also waiting for the new Yaesu to pop out, and see what it can do.

You need to get the terminology correct. Saying "3rd order RMDR of 110 dB" is like saying "the torque horsepower of that engine is 600". It's two different measurements.

The Sherwood table is ranked by 3rd order intermodulation dynamic range. In this test, two tones at a specified frequency difference (20 or 2 kHz) are injected into a receiver. The amplitude of the two tones are increased until the 3rd order distortion products are equal to the MDS (minimum discernible signal) or noise floor. The 3rd order dynamic range is then equal to (two tone signal level - MDS).

The Sherwood table lists RMDR as LO noise (dBc/Hz). To convert to 500 Hz bandwidth RMDR, you have to add 10log(500) or 27 dB. So for the TS-890S, the 10 kHz LO noise is 155 dB which translates to 128 dB RMDR. Unfortunately, the table doesn't list the 5 kHz and 2 kHz results like the ARRL does (but they are in the extended reports that he publishes).

RMDR is measured by injecting a single signal into the receiver. The receiver is tuned to some offset from that signal and the signal level is increased until the receiver noise increases by 3 dB. The RMDR is then (signal level - MDS).

Blocking dynamic range is measured by injecting two signals into the receiver. A weak desired signal at -107 dBm and a blocking signal at some frequency offset. The receiver is tuned to the desired signal and the blocking signal is increased until the level of the desired signal drops by 1 dB. The blocking dynamic range is then (blocking signal level - MDS). For direct sampling receivers, the ADC always overloads before there's 1 dB of desensitization.

https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/Procedure%20Manual%202010%20with%20page%20breaks.pdf


 Do you even know what the 3rd order intercept point in a radio front end is?  Look at kenwoods description.  That says it all.  I don't care about the overload characteristics of an ADC because in this case it's really apples and oranges, even Rob Sherwood and the ARRL admit this.  the third order intercept point is the blocking dynamic range of the radios front end.

(http://www.kenwood.com/usa/com/amateur/ts-890s/main/images/img_main.jpg)

[


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on October 20, 2018, 03:26:37 AM
TS890S specs are up on Rob Sherwood's site and look pretty good!

Yeah, they do.  But they sure don't look $3000 better than an Icom 7300 which is another single receiver.  This will be a great rig, and a huge failure in marketing for Kenwood. This is what happens when you are behind the design curve playing catch up ball.

Sherwood is not a gospel on radio performance as it does not begin to quantify how it sounds, "feels" using it or performs in the real world outside controlled lab conditions.  There is far more to a rig than Sherwood numbers.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on October 20, 2018, 04:22:41 AM
It looks like Kenwood has paid some attention to the transmitter IMD performance. If the data that is in their brochure holds across all the HF bands then Kenwood should be congratulated for taking the issue of transmitter performance seriously. Kenwood  in the past always had  good transmitter IMD performance but then abandoned  high performance transmitter design for IMD performance. The TS890S looks like its  going to be one of the best performing transmitters around for conventional HF PA design.

Finally a ham manufacture that has combined excellent receiver performance with high performance transmitter specifications. Even more interesting is the fact that they mention IMD performance and have measured data in the specifications, thats like a big WOW. Rather than the usual trend by ham manufacturers to hide the shame of their filthy transmitter designs. Again Kenwood should be congratulated for taking the issue seriously now lets see if the other ham companies like Yaesu and Icom follow with the same high standards or will they hide their specifications and filthy performance like they usually do.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE7DQ on October 20, 2018, 05:51:14 PM
The internet brochure I'm looking at for the TS-890 appears to show an IMD3 of about -34dB or so below the two tones.  Am I misreading the example?  Is that supposed to be good?   ???


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N2DTS on October 20, 2018, 07:42:39 PM
Worked a guy with one of these today (on AM).
Sounded great, 4 KHz audio, clean modulation.
He switched the an Anan 7000 and it did not sound much better, just a bit different, maybe because of the eq settings.
He said its the best RX he ever had, great audio out.
Seems like a winner.
Many radios do very poorly on AM, so its nice Kenwood paid attention to the quality.
You may not care about AM but it shows they paid attention to the details.

The rig really sounded great.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK6HP on October 20, 2018, 08:24:58 PM
It's not superb, but it's a lot better than many contemporary radios, bearing in mind that it's actually -40 dB with respect to PEP (the ARRL specification method).  The higher order behaviour is respectable, too.  As Zenki says, and as I pointed out earlier in thread, Kenwood deserve commendation for the implementation and for bring the transmit IMD spec to the fore.

73, Peter.

The internet brochure I'm looking at for the TS-890 appears to show an IMD3 of about -34dB or so below the two tones.  Am I misreading the example?  Is that supposed to be good?   ???


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: G4AON on October 23, 2018, 01:34:25 AM
Sherwood is not a gospel on radio performance as it does not begin to quantify how it sounds, "feels" using it or performs in the real world outside controlled lab conditions.  There is far more to a rig than Sherwood numbers.
I couldn't agree more. I would also take the ARRL reviews with a pinch of salt too, they are prone to missing important points like the ALC control of power when running less than full power.

73 Dave



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: NO9E on October 24, 2018, 11:51:00 AM
This radio seems to be a downgrade in size and dual-rx from TS-990 but perhaps maxing on performance.

Traditionally for Kenwood, the 4xx and 5xx series were basic rigs with single-filtering and audio speech processor. The 8xx series had double filtering with good RF speech processor. The 9xx series added dual RX, PS and extras.
 
However, TS-590 was very good on performance so no much could be improved except increasing numbers that were already high enough for most.
TS-890 maxes specs and the number of knobs.

I looked at the manual and found a few oddities for a top radio.
No IF out. There is ANT out for an external SDR.
Minimum DSP resolution is 5 KHz. I like 2 KHz in P3 to identify weak signals.
Maximum resolution of external monitor only 800x600.
The price of TS-890 is similar to K3 but no possibility to add a second RX and diversity reception.

In the end, it may be the best rig for those who do not need a second RX, enjoy many knobs and premium size, and like the feeling of having the top performance.

Ignacy, NO9E


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on October 24, 2018, 02:34:39 PM
This radio seems to be a downgrade in size and dual-rx from TS-990 but perhaps maxing on performance.

Traditionally for Kenwood, the 4xx and 5xx series were basic rigs with single-filtering and audio speech processor. The 8xx series had double filtering with good RF speech processor. The 9xx series added dual RX, PS and extras.
 
However, TS-590 was very good on performance so no much could be improved except increasing numbers that were already high enough for most.
TS-890 maxes specs and the number of knobs.

I looked at the manual and found a few oddities for a top radio.
No IF out. There is ANT out for an external SDR.
Minimum DSP resolution is 5 KHz. I like 2 KHz in P3 to identify weak signals.
Maximum resolution of external monitor only 800x600.
The price of TS-890 is similar to K3 but no possibility to add a second RX and diversity reception.

In the end, it may be the best rig for those who do not need a second RX, enjoy many knobs and premium size, and like the feeling of having the top performance.

Ignacy, NO9E

An external SDR will provide all of the eye candy, and at the 2KHZ or less, resolution you like.  I don't really see the need for diversity reception but it is not difficult to build a fast antenna switch that will provide that feature. 

I think the radio is really aimed at the DXer who doesn't really need or want a lot of whistles and bells but has good performance.  Lots of knobs is not really a problem since it provides much easier control than digging through menus.  Also, the knobs don't have to be used but are there when you need to make an adjustment quickly.

Personally I never use the pan adapter to find weak signals, I do that with my headphones, my ears are still better than any display.  I also don't care about an external monitor but again, an outboard SDR can take care of that.

You are correct that there is no IF out but I suppose with the DSP a data stream may be available from one of the USB ports. 

Anyway, I don't see any way to compare this radio to an Elecraft.  The Elecraft does not have the functionality that this radio does, and by the time you add an outboard display the price differential is a lot.  The TS-890S looks like a lot of radio at a decent price, it's feature loaded and aimed at the DXer more than the contester.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on October 27, 2018, 04:27:32 PM
interesting that the TS-890s rear panel has Braille numerical labels on the connectors.  how about that attention to detail?

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: SP5QIP on October 28, 2018, 12:43:54 PM
interesting that the TS-890s rear panel has Braille numerical labels on the connectors.  how about that attention to detail?

73, Ed
Useless without Braille on touchscreen, isn't it?
Mike


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: G3ZPF on November 04, 2018, 12:07:39 PM
"...Useless without Braille on touchscreen, isn't it?..."

You can use the rig without using the touch screen. You can even turn the 'touch' function off in the menus.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 04, 2018, 09:23:20 PM
You can use the rig without using the touch screen. You can even turn the 'touch' function off in the menus.

You would have to see menus to turn touch off though...


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K1HMS on November 05, 2018, 05:11:51 AM
I have a IC-7300, a Yaesu and my favorite, a TS-590SG which is my primary rig. So for disclosure I like Kenwood.

The TS-890 looks very good with what looks like the best numbers available, at least at 14.1 on 20m.  The TS-590 does very well on the few bands where it is a downconverting receiver, and fairly well for the rest of the bands where it is a high IF frequency up convertering architecture. So the jury is still out on the TS-890 until we see what it does on all of the bands. It may be optimized to operate well near 7,200. ;)  (new hams; search this site for 7200)

For me the Sherwood / ARRL tests are very important. Using the dynamic range and blocking stats to select a radio is a good start. Just know those good performance numbers can be achieved by having all sorts of clipping, ringing, and distortion. To JX's point, you can't pick a radio based on just Sherwood's numbers. It can have great numbers because it sounds like crap. It can also have great numbers while having features that conflict with each other or you don't use because they are buried in a cryptic set of menu steps.



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 05, 2018, 06:56:26 AM
Blocking, dynamic range and third order IMD are important numbers but the one thing that separates the men from the boys even with all these numbers being good is that dreaded phase noise, 10 to 15 years back only radio with the higher phase noise numbers were the ones top CW op's would go to but I do agree if the audio stages is not at least a match to the rest of the radio it will get tanked in my book. Whatever comes out of the AF amp threw either an external speaker or a good pair of headphones is the one point missed by many it seems, it may be that there is audio IMD products or higher THD numbers in this stage which to me harm the total effect even if the rest of the radio is excellent. One radio that comes to mind is the K3 I owned were I really could never warm up to it at all but radio's like the FTDX3000, IC7300 and TS590 were much better in this regard, the higher end radio's that I have seen going threw the ARRL lab actually have listed THD numbers at either rated output of the audio stage or at a normal level of audio output.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K1HMS on November 05, 2018, 07:40:39 AM
Reading the complete thread there is a lot of discussion about there being a mixer and it was even suggested that the TS-890 didn't belong in the SDR forum. 

The radio isn't direct conversion but it doesn't need to be, to be a SDR. The TS-890 starts with a mixer that is driven by a square wave from a reprogrammable DDS, all of the narrow detection bandwidth filters, noise reduction, notch filters, and the detectors themselves are defined by software in the DSP as is the audio processing.

In a direct conversion receiver in the receive path (i.e. not in the pan display path) the first step is the ADC output is decimated down to a lower frequency. There is no point in processing a 1.8 MHz signal when the information is contained in =<3 kHz BW and even less reason at 7, 14, or 54 MHz.

The digital sampling H mixer in a TS-890 and similar architectures does the same task as the decimation in a direct sampler, but with one large advantage, you can insert a "roofing filter" ahead of the ADC so the ADC doesn't see the entire band. This mixer and filter can have very high intercept points. The disadvantages are  the added cost of the filter, DDS, and H mixer and the need for a parallel wideband path for the pan adapter.

The 7300's architecture is a real cost saver with only minimal RF pre-selection filters. In the 7610 and Flex 6000 radios they spent some of the savings on robust pre-selector RF filters ahead of the ADC for each band.

Whether the decimation to the lower frequency is done before or after the ADC the remainder of the receiver's functions are defined in software (or more likely firmware). All of the advantages of programable brick wall digital IF and audio filters and DSP for demodulation and noise cancellation apply equally to both architectures.

The majority of military SDRs I've designed used the mixer approach due to hostile  jammer mitigation requirements.


(DSP applied at audio or a  very low IF freq is NOT an SDR, the radio is defined by multiple IF stages, filters, LOs, etc and is not reconfigurable via software. This is not a 890 or Elecraft radio)





Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 05, 2018, 09:36:26 AM
The radio might be just part of an SDR but in reality its still an advanced superhet design but this also goes for the K3 and many other superhets which start saying they are of an SDR design but are not. With the new Yaesu coming out it seems that they are trying something different yet again its a hybrid design and thats what the TS890 looks like to me, bottom line is that it works but the going price range is very high compared to a Flex 6400m or Icom IC7610 which both are true SDR radio's, there is no hybrid there. The one true advantage that appears to me with a true SDR design is lower phase noise numbers which even when you look at how well even a rather inexpensive radio like the 7300 has tested in this regard at 2.5Khz or 2Khz via the ARRL lab is much better than a bunch of very good superhet designs, these numbers in the 890 don't come cheap and to think a bunch of cheap ham's who are going to dump $4.5K on a single RX radio well I just have to wonder what Kenwood marketing department was thinking, maybe that the 890 would be the K3s killer, to be honest I don't know but from what I see in the marketplace now the all important $3k price range is the sweet spot and the 890 no matter how slightly better the numbers are is only going to be in someones lab. It will be I think more of a DX'ers radio than a contesters rig and a very narrow market at that cause most of these hams already own an IC7851 which has far more capability than the 890.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 05, 2018, 10:37:38 AM
The radio might be just part of an SDR but in reality its still an advanced superhet design but this also goes for the K3 and many other superhets which start saying they are of an SDR design but are not. With the new Yaesu coming out it seems that they are trying something different yet again its a hybrid design and thats what the TS890 looks like to me, bottom line is that it works but the going price range is very high compared to a Flex 6400m or Icom IC7610 which both are true SDR radio's, there is no hybrid there.

Your definition of SDR is more strict than most. I would call the TS890 a hybrid SDR rig just like I'd call the Toyota Prius a hybrid (e.g. not a pure IC engine car or a pure electric car, like a Tesla, but something in between). The ITU definition of SDR is even looser.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on November 05, 2018, 03:53:36 PM
(DSP applied at audio or a very low IF freq is NOT an SDR, the radio is defined by multiple IF stages, filters, LOs, etc and is not reconfigurable via software. This is not a 890 or Elecraft radio)

The final IF for the TS-890S is at 24 kHz. Do you still consider it to be an SDR?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on November 05, 2018, 04:44:37 PM
technically yes.

but in the eyes of the general public, probably not

it has an IF at 8.24 MHz.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K1HMS on November 05, 2018, 06:43:28 PM
My apologies, I got it wrong, I stepped in it and now need to clean my shoes..  

I found a more detailed schematic. It is a hardwired dual conversion superhet with a DSP. There is nothing SDR about it. The first IF is as VE3WGO writes at 8.24 MHz and the 2nd IF is as W6RZ writes at 24 kHz.  The ADC is a 216 kHz 24 bit stereo part. http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm4202.pdf (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm4202.pdf)

The top level schematic is at https://kenwoodcommunications.co.uk/amateur-radio/hf-all-mode/TS-890S/?view=support (https://kenwoodcommunications.co.uk/amateur-radio/hf-all-mode/TS-890S/?view=support) Even with a image reject mixer the bandpass filters at 8.24 MHz must be something unique with the image less than 50 kHz away given the 2nd IF at 24 kHz.

Based on the initial tests and its features I'm still interested in it, but it will be a harder sell. Its architecture is similar to a K3S which never got my attention. 

73
Hamilton K1HMS



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on November 05, 2018, 07:56:32 PM
Even with a image reject mixer the bandpass filters at 8.24 MHz must be something unique with the image less than 50 kHz away given the 2nd IF at 24 kHz.

The bandpass filters at 8.24 MHz are run of the mill crystal filters (called roofing filters these days).


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on November 05, 2018, 08:11:58 PM
but in the eyes of the general public, probably not

Yes, it seems that to many unless it's direct sampling, it's not an SDR. I'm in the more lenient camp. IMHO, if the signal is processed with DSP software at any point, it's an SDR.

However, I consider even the direct sampling radios like the IC-7300 and IC-7610 to be far from re-configurable. Aside from some niceties, they're as hardwired as a KWM-2.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K1HMS on November 05, 2018, 09:01:08 PM
but in the eyes of the general public, probably not

Yes, it seems that to many unless it's direct sampling, it's not an SDR. I'm in the more lenient camp. IMHO, if the signal is processed with DSP software at any point, it's an SDR.

However, I consider even the direct sampling radios like the IC-7300 and IC-7610 to be far from re-configurable. Aside from some niceties, they're as hardwired as a KWM-2.

The IC-7300 and IC-7610 are reconfigurable, certainly not by the user, but Icom can, and has, pushed out some updates that has improved performance a bit. They could probably do more but the incentive is likely not there.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 06, 2018, 07:01:55 AM
Having the last IF at 24Khz makes it a DSP IF radio with a more conventional Roofing filter IF centered around 9Mhz or soo, seems to me that for having that 9Mhz IF is more like the old single conversion design TS820 except the newer radio's have the really low DSP IF this at least to most of us does not make it a true SDR, true SDR radio's are direct sampling designs which may have a conventional RF front end, more selective band pass filtering network plus as in Icom's 7610 there digi select adjustable front end filtering and after all that going into a true SDR design. If the 890 was a true SDR they would not need roofing filters or mixers stages, a true SDR does this in the digital domain.
If you chose to believe Elecraft that will say in there add copy that they are a type of SDR design that is way far from the truth, its simply a more advanced designed superhet with the last IF being a DSP IF that doesn't constitute it as an SDR.
The 890 I feel was designed to crush the K3s but what they didn't look at is what has happened in the world wide market since the K3s came out, Elecraft sales have been effected by even the little IC7300 and today by the 7610, they are no longer the go to radio today no mater how many DX peditions they send there samples on, they have lost ground while a new technology marches forward. Even Yaesu who has yet brought to market there FTDX101 and here again why the 9Mhz IF yet they are at least calling it a Hybrid design were Kenwood is not calling there 890 a Hybrid but a superhet, maybe the term advanced superhet might be better.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 06, 2018, 09:36:45 AM
I would call the TS890 and the FTdx101 "superhet with IF DSP". Certainly not pure SDR.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N6YFM on November 06, 2018, 10:33:35 AM
I would call the TS890 and the FTdx101 "superhet with IF DSP". Certainly not pure SDR.

Correct, and the term you are looking for, with regard to "pure SDR" design, is a
direct conversion, direct sampling radio.   In these "full" SDR designs, the only analog
after the antenna jack is the attenuator and pre-amp, sometimes a bandpass or filter,
then direct into the analog-to-digital converter.   There are no local oscillators and mixers
and IF stages.   It directly "samples" the RF with the A-to-D (ADC) chip, and then uses firmware
in an FPGA chip to do most of the processing, digital filters, demodulating, etc.

If any radio still has a local oscillator and mixer and IF, it is an analog design, not "real" SDR.

Cheers,

Neal


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6RZ on November 06, 2018, 06:08:20 PM
Correct, and the term you are looking for, with regard to "pure SDR" design, is a
direct conversion, direct sampling radio.

Direct sampling and direct conversion are two different architectures. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Direct sampling advantages:

1) No DC offset or IQ imbalance.
2) Fewer spurious signals.
3) Good image rejection.

Direct sampling disadvantages:

1) Restricted RF frequency range (at least for now).
2) Requires FPGA.
3) High sample rate requires careful design and board layout.

Direct conversion advantages:

1) Wide frequency range. 50 MHz to 6 GHz in many professional products.
2) No FPGA required. All processing can be done with regular DSP's or even CPU's.
3) Easier design and layout.

Direct conversion disadvantages:

1) DC offset and IQ imbalance.
2) More spurious signals.
3) Poor image rejection.

(http://www.w6rz.net/ddc.png)

(http://www.w6rz.net/directconversion.png)

If any radio still has a local oscillator and mixer and IF, it is an analog design, not "real" SDR.

Almost all professional SDR's use direct conversion to get wide frequency coverage. Here's an example.

https://www.ettus.com/product/details/X310-KIT

Are they not "real" SDR's?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 06, 2018, 08:52:08 PM
Correct, and the term you are looking for, with regard to "pure SDR" design, is a
direct conversion, direct sampling radio.

Direct sampling and direct conversion are two different architectures. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Direct sampling advantages:

1) No DC offset or IQ imbalance.
2) Fewer spurious signals.
3) Good image rejection.

Direct sampling disadvantages:

1) Restricted RF frequency range (at least for now).
2) Requires FPGA.
3) High sample rate requires careful design and board layout.

Direct conversion advantages:

1) Wide frequency range. 50 MHz to 6 GHz in many professional products.
2) No FPGA required. All processing can be done with regular DSP's or even CPU's.
3) Easier design and layout.

Direct conversion disadvantages:

1) DC offset and IQ imbalance.
2) More spurious signals.
3) Poor image rejection.

(http://www.w6rz.net/ddc.png)

(http://www.w6rz.net/directconversion.png)

If any radio still has a local oscillator and mixer and IF, it is an analog design, not "real" SDR.

Almost all professional SDR's use direct conversion to get wide frequency coverage. Here's an example.

https://www.ettus.com/product/details/X310-KIT

Are they not "real" SDR's?

Thank you for posting that.  It seems a lot of hams really don't get it.  Aside from an oscillator and mixer, Or in the case of the TS-890S, a numerically controlled oscillator and digital switching frequency aliasing device, every single circuit past that is software defined.  That comprises about 98 percent of the radio.  All of the controls and the display system are also software defined.

My IC-7600 is a software defined radio.  The only thing that is not synthesized in software is the RF amp, mixer, and roofing filters.  Everything beyond that is DSP which is software defined.  Even the transmit chain is software defined right up to the pre driver, all of the modulation is defined in software.  All of the controls, functions and features, including the display, can be modified or enhanced by software changes, even new features and functions can be added via software.

Some hams are stuck on a knot that SDR must be direct digital conversion, that is just not the case. 


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 07, 2018, 07:14:37 AM
You can state all the different designs used within the communications industry yet the manufacture Kenwood does not state anything about there 890 being an sdr, the only statement in there literature is that it has a 32 bit floating point DSP which is for the last IF and also the band scope.
I would look closely on what Yaesu releases on there FTDX101 cause it might be more of the same but bottom line is Kenwood did a nice job on the 890 but for some it may be priced a little high for most ham pockets.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 07, 2018, 08:35:53 AM
You can state all the different designs used within the communications industry yet the manufacture Kenwood does not state anything about there 890 being an sdr, the only statement in there literature is that it has a 32 bit floating point DSP which is for the last IF and also the band scope.
I would look closely on what Yaesu releases on there FTDX101 cause it might be more of the same but bottom line is Kenwood did a nice job on the 890 but for some it may be priced a little high for most ham pockets.

It is primarily SD whether they say is or not.  The DSP is software and it replaces a multitude of circuits with software.  The display and all control are also software driven.  Like I said before, about 97 percent of the TS-890 can be classified as software defined.  I am seriously looking at one for my shack.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on November 07, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
The result of the design choices made in the TS-890 have given it the best 100 kHz blocking, best LO Noise, best ultimate FE filter stopband rejection, and just a smidgen away from the best wide or narrow dynamic range in Sherwood's entire list.

Seems like a pretty good set of design choices to me.

I'm expecting that the LO phase noise performance alone might drive perfectionist digital operators to it.  It's 25 dB better than Sherwood's target. (-155 versus -130 target at 10 KHz)

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 07, 2018, 02:35:52 PM
Like I said before, about 97 percent of the TS-890 can be classified as software defined.

Awful big heavy box for only being 3% hardware defined. Software may control hardware but it does not "define" how it works electronically, only how it processes the signal.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N6YFM on November 07, 2018, 03:25:22 PM
Correct, and the term you are looking for, with regard to "pure SDR" design, is a
direct conversion, direct sampling radio.

Direct sampling and direct conversion are two different architectures. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Direct sampling advantages:

1) No DC offset or IQ imbalance.
2) Fewer spurious signals.
3) Good image rejection.

Direct sampling disadvantages:

1) Restricted RF frequency range (at least for now).
2) Requires FPGA.
3) High sample rate requires careful design and board layout.

Direct conversion advantages:

1) Wide frequency range. 50 MHz to 6 GHz in many professional products.
2) No FPGA required. All processing can be done with regular DSP's or even CPU's.
3) Easier design and layout.

Direct conversion disadvantages:

1) DC offset and IQ imbalance.
2) More spurious signals.
3) Poor image rejection.

(http://www.w6rz.net/ddc.png)

(http://www.w6rz.net/directconversion.png)

If any radio still has a local oscillator and mixer and IF, it is an analog design, not "real" SDR.

Almost all professional SDR's use direct conversion to get wide frequency coverage. Here's an example.

https://www.ettus.com/product/details/X310-KIT

Are they not "real" SDR's?

Thanks.  Great info.

Neal


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N6YFM on November 07, 2018, 03:28:46 PM
You can state all the different designs used within the communications industry yet the manufacture Kenwood does not state anything about there 890 being an sdr, the only statement in there literature is that it has a 32 bit floating point DSP which is for the last IF and also the band scope.
I would look closely on what Yaesu releases on there FTDX101 cause it might be more of the same but bottom line is Kenwood did a nice job on the 890 but for some it may be priced a little high for most ham pockets.

Agreed, so far they are being vague.  But soon, there should end up being a glossy with a block diagram, if not
a full service manual once they are shipping in volume.   That should answer all the details more clearly?

Cheers


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 07, 2018, 04:37:56 PM
You can state all the different designs used within the communications industry yet the manufacture Kenwood does not state anything about there 890 being an sdr, the only statement in there literature is that it has a 32 bit floating point DSP which is for the last IF and also the band scope.
I would look closely on what Yaesu releases on there FTDX101 cause it might be more of the same but bottom line is Kenwood did a nice job on the 890 but for some it may be priced a little high for most ham pockets.

Agreed, so far they are being vague.  But soon, there should end up being a glossy with a block diagram, if not
a full service manual once they are shipping in volume.   That should answer all the details more clearly?

There's a block diagram in the second post in this thread: https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,122511.0.html


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 10, 2018, 08:03:42 PM
I got a chance to try the TS-890 at HRO this morning.

Overall, it’s a nice, solid rig with nicely laid out controls. The display is better than I expected, except I noticed that the spectrum scope/waterfall is “notchy” when tuning—it seems to jump rather than scroll smoothly and that’s very annoying.

I also picked up the glossy brouchure for the rig and it says right on the cover “For DX Enthusiasts”. What true DX enthusiast in their right mind would buy a rig with only one receiver? Given the price of this rig I can’t believe Kenwood didn’t include a second receiver. This is pure lunacy.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 11, 2018, 10:00:00 AM
I got a chance to try the TS-890 at HRO this morning.

Overall, it’s a nice, solid rig with nicely laid out controls. The display is better than I expected, except I noticed that the spectrum scope/waterfall is “notchy” when tuning—it seems to jump rather than scroll smoothly and that’s very annoying.


I suspect this is due to sample rate for display. With a low sample rate it would do this when tuning at anything other than a slow speed.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on November 12, 2018, 09:46:07 AM
Quote
I also picked up the glossy brouchure for the rig and it says right on the cover “For DX Enthusiasts”. What true DX enthusiast in their right mind would buy a rig with only one receiver? Given the price of this rig I can’t believe Kenwood didn’t include a second receiver. This is pure lunacy.

That was my first thought upon seeing this rig announced.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 12, 2018, 10:35:56 AM
Quote
I also picked up the glossy brochure for the rig and it says right on the cover “For DX Enthusiasts”. What true DX enthusiast in their right mind would buy a rig with only one receiver? Given the price of this rig I can’t believe Kenwood didn’t include a second receiver. This is pure lunacy.

That was my first thought upon seeing this rig announced.

There's a hokey scheme described in the TS-890 manual they call Split Transfer. It's intended to be used as a mechanism to send VFO settings to a second rig (either another TS-890 or a TS-590) acting as a sub-receiver.

IMO, this is a major fail on Kenwood's part. This is a $4400 rig and they expect you to pay another $1400 for a TS-590 in order to listen on two frequencies simultaneously. What were they thinking?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on November 12, 2018, 10:50:37 AM
Quote
This is a $4400 rig and they expect you to pay another $1400 for a TS-590 in order to listen on two frequencies simultaneously. What were they thinking?

They were thinking that brand loyalty would carry them through and this would be a marketing success.  And for some people this would be true. 

I have owned a lot of Kenwood rigs, and rigs I of the rigs I have kept the longest (TS-940) I should be a Kenwood Fanboy, but I know value when I see it, and this rig, while a good rig, does not offer the most value for the money in the marketplace today.

 Or to put it another way, it is at least $2000 too expensive. It was and is a true disappointment.  Much like the announcement of the Yaesu FT818nd.  Nothing more than an 817 with a few accessories. A TRUE disappointment as a new model. Just call it an 817C or something, and it would have been fine. But it is NOT a new model.

Without a doubt the 890 IS a new model, it is just too little rig for too much money.  Of course this is just an opinion.  :)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on November 12, 2018, 01:17:46 PM
it seems like Yaesu and Kenwood are significantly cutting their R&D spending on new ham radio gear.  No doubt the destruction of their VHF/UHF handheld and mobile businesses by cheap Chinese clones has hurt them badly.

The FT-818 not being a new rig should tell you something: ie, Yaesu has no money to spend on developing a newer version, and what money they do have is going into developing the FT-DX101d.

Kenwood seems to release a new HF rig every 5 years or so.  That probably means nothing else new from them until 2022-23, so if the TS-890 sales don't go well, then that's all they'll do.

The glory days of hams seeing a lot of new technology and feature-driven radios every year from all the manufacturers has dropped to a trickle in the past couple of years.  Now we are witnessing the harsh effects of cheap clones destroying yet another business.

73, Ed


ps. and since we buy those cheap clones, we have nobody else to blame but ourselves.....


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 12, 2018, 01:41:39 PM
I had just seen a brand new less than a month old TS890 go up for sale for $3100 and some change, wow that was a quick turn around for a radio that sells street wise for almost $4k, apparently they are not selling the way they thought no mater how good the RX section is. The Prices of the 7610 didn't erode till Icom may have let dealers drop the ball at this years Dayton just to be a PITA for Flex this year like Flex was the Year before to Icom, hey Flex Payback is a bitch!
Agreed the 890 lab numbers are very good but in most operating conditions the slightly better performance is mainly going to show up only in a lab test and not in real world operating besides the Digi Select filtering in the Icom works better than the 890 would in a contest station environment. I agree with the above statement that the 890 should have been priced right below the $2.5K price range and street price of $2K then it might be a K3S killer but to get a second RX you would have to add a TS590SG what were Kenwoods guys thinking but here again its not the old Kenwood TRio company, it JVC.
I have no idea what Yaesu is doing but they are way behind in bringing this 101D out, it has to do better in the lab then the 890 to be worth its hi price tag. In this market Icom re invests into there HF radio's big time and it has paid off well going into the SDR with knobs radio's but Kenwood slips in the 890 to top the K3S yet it is missing a whole lot of features other radio's already have but Yaesu in which I used to be a huge fan off I have no idea what they are doing cause they bring a rig out with a 9Mhz IF then in the back end a kind of SDR yet no real info in the market yet about it.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 12, 2018, 04:16:54 PM
Quote
This is a $4400 rig and they expect you to pay another $1400 for a TS-590 in order to listen on two frequencies simultaneously. What were they thinking?



For many the lack of dual receive is not a deal killer. For the "x" number of dollars spent on the designing of a receiver for a rig I would much rather it be spent on fine single receiver than it being split between two at same price point.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 12, 2018, 05:45:45 PM
Quote
This is a $4400 rig and they expect you to pay another $1400 for a TS-590 in order to listen on two frequencies simultaneously. What were they thinking?



For many the lack of dual receive is not a deal killer. For the "x" number of dollars spent on the designing of a receiver for a rig I would much rather it be spent on fine single receiver than it being split between two at same price point.

Fair enough, but if a company is going to design a rig like that, then please don't put “For DX Enthusiasts” right on the cover of your brochure!!


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 12, 2018, 05:59:36 PM
Fair enough, but if a company is going to design a rig like that, then please don't put “For DX Enthusiasts” right on the cover of your brochure!!

Still I do not think you need dual receive for DX, what you need is a very good receiver with good filtering to pick signals out of mud or QRM not two of them. (plus pretty much any rig built in last 30 years or so has dual VFO's so splits is easy)  Some how many worked DX for decades before there was dual receivers.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: WA4DOU on November 12, 2018, 09:31:38 PM
I had just seen a brand new less than a month old TS890 go up for sale for $3100 and some change, wow that was a quick turn around for a radio that sells street wise for almost $4k, apparently they are not selling the way they thought no mater how good the RX section is. The Prices of the 7610 didn't erode till Icom may have let dealers drop the ball at this years Dayton just to be a PITA for Flex this year like Flex was the Year before to Icom, hey Flex Payback is a bitch!
Agreed the 890 lab numbers are very good but in most operating conditions the slightly better performance is mainly going to show up only in a lab test and not in real world operating besides the Digi Select filtering in the Icom works better than the 890 would in a contest station environment. I agree with the above statement that the 890 should have been priced right below the $2.5K price range and street price of $2K then it might be a K3S killer but to get a second RX you would have to add a TS590SG what were Kenwoods guys thinking but here again its not the old Kenwood TRio company, it JVC.
I have no idea what Yaesu is doing but they are way behind in bringing this 101D out, it has to do better in the lab then the 890 to be worth its hi price tag. In this market Icom re invests into there HF radio's big time and it has paid off well going into the SDR with knobs radio's but Kenwood slips in the 890 to top the K3S yet it is missing a whole lot of features other radio's already have but Yaesu in which I used to be a huge fan off I have no idea what they are doing cause they bring a rig out with a 9Mhz IF then in the back end a kind of SDR yet no real info in the market yet about it.

Somehow, I doubt the person selling a used 890S, had to sell for $3100 at this point. Just a couple days ago, MTC was offering an 890S "demo" for $3629 and less than 24 hours ago, R&L began offering new, unopened for $3595, so who knows what's going on?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 13, 2018, 09:23:02 AM
Well open your eye's and I do believe that if someone is selling a 890S shipped for just under $3200 on two sites, sounds to me all this hype about the H bomb mixer may be nice but some may not see the benefit. I think the lab numbers are great on the 890 I just think it is way too over the top in cost and as far as having a second RX well the lab numbers on the 7610 are plenty good enough plus I have two of them to use while chasing a DXpedition on two bands at once, or listening to the pile up on one and the DX station on another or in contesting when your either listening for opening or mults on another band I make full use of the second RX with it's own band pass filter plus digi select front end filter.
Hey I get it some old timers just want one RX section but as we get older the pockets are not as deep as they used to be and in reality they are at least a dozen or two of very good radio's out there to chase DX with but I just don't see the value with the 890, lab numbers are trying to sit next to Icom's 7851 or the Flex 6700 but the price range compared too those two rigs is less but hear again its only one RX and there are allot of us out there that use two RX sections cause its not like 20 years ago were the second RX shared the same front end, those designs were tonka toys compared to today's radio's.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 13, 2018, 12:24:07 PM
there are allot of us out there that use two RX sections cause its not like 20 years ago were the second RX shared the same front end, those designs were tonka toys compared to today's radio's.

First, a LOT do not use dual receivers or miss them (more than those with them) and dual receiver does do well for brag factor and that is a must have for some. Also the "Tonka Truck" analogy is correct but not in the manor you think in that 20+ years ago they built rugged and reliable (like the Tonka's) high performance analog receivers and some of which can still hold their own even today. I have a 30 year old 830 that is still considered a solid receiver today.  When they have been building IF DSP rigs as long as they have analog rigs then they too should be at the top of their game.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 13, 2018, 01:36:19 PM
Still I do not think you need dual receive for DX, what you need is a very good receiver with good filtering to pick signals out of mud or QRM not two of them. (plus pretty much any rig built in last 30 years or so has dual VFO's so splits is easy)  Some how many worked DX for decades before there was dual receivers.

You don't need an electric starter for a car either; people got by for years with a hand crank.

To operate split, you only really need separate VFOs to you can set your receive and transmit frequencies independently. All modern rigs can do that, and companies sold external VFOs back in the day to accomplish the same thing.

I'm sure you know this already, but I'll expand on it a little for those who don't. When operating split with a rig that only one receiver, you typically set VFO A as the receiver and tune it to the DX station's transmit frequency and set VFO as the transmit frequency up a few kHz. The problem here is that you can't hear what's going on in the pileup. A crucial ability to quickly work DX operating split is to identify where they're listening. You do this by tuning your second receiver until you hear the station he's working and then either transmit right on that frequency or a little above or below it (depending on the tuning pattern of the DX operator). You can do this by temporarily swapping your transmit and receive VFOs on a single receiver rig, but by doing so you loose the ability to hear the DX station and won't know when he's transmitting. I suspect this is one of the reasons why many stations in a pileup call continuously even when the DX operator is transmitting.

With a dual receiver rig, you can put headphone audio of the DX station in one ear and the audio of the pileup in the other so you get both sides of the pileup simultaneously.

I'll state it again: a rig with a single receiver is okay for a casual DXer, but a serious DXer needs a rig with two independent receivers. Anything less puts them at a competitive disadvantage.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on November 13, 2018, 04:30:21 PM
there are allot of us out there that use two RX sections cause its not like 20 years ago were the second RX shared the same front end, those designs were tonka toys compared to today's radio's.

First, a LOT do not use dual receivers or miss them (more than those with them) and dual receiver does do well for brag factor and that is a must have for some. Also the "Tonka Truck" analogy is correct but not in the manor you think in that 20+ years ago they built rugged and reliable (like the Tonka's) high performance analog receivers and some of which can still hold their own even today. I have a 30 year old 830 that is still considered a solid receiver today.  When they have been building IF DSP rigs as long as they have analog rigs then they too should be at the top of their game.

Don't you have one?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on November 13, 2018, 08:13:54 PM
.... a rig with a single receiver is okay for a casual DXer, but a serious DXer needs a rig with two independent receivers. Anything less puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

Maybe Japanese hams have a different set of priorities.

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 13, 2018, 08:43:09 PM
Still I do not think you need dual receive for DX, what you need is a very good receiver with good filtering to pick signals out of mud or QRM not two of them. (plus pretty much any rig built in last 30 years or so has dual VFO's so splits is easy)  Some how many worked DX for decades before there was dual receivers.

You don't need an electric starter for a car either; people got by for years with a hand crank.

To operate split, you only really need separate VFOs to you can set your receive and transmit frequencies independently. All modern rigs can do that, and companies sold external VFOs back in the day to accomplish the same thing.

I'm sure you know this already, but I'll expand on it a little for those who don't. When operating split with a rig that only one receiver, you typically set VFO A as the receiver and tune it to the DX station's transmit frequency and set VFO as the transmit frequency up a few kHz. The problem here is that you can't hear what's going on in the pileup. A crucial ability to quickly work DX operating split is to identify where they're listening. You do this by tuning your second receiver until you hear the station he's working and then either transmit right on that frequency or a little above or below it (depending on the tuning pattern of the DX operator). You can do this by temporarily swapping your transmit and receive VFOs on a single receiver rig, but by doing so you loose the ability to hear the DX station and won't know when he's transmitting. I suspect this is one of the reasons why many stations in a pileup call continuously even when the DX operator is transmitting.

With a dual receiver rig, you can put headphone audio of the DX station in one ear and the audio of the pileup in the other so you get both sides of the pileup simultaneously.

I'll state it again: a rig with a single receiver is okay for a casual DXer, but a serious DXer needs a rig with two independent receivers. Anything less puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

So not being able to hear the pile up is a problem for you unless you have dual receivers?  Honestly, in 51 years of hamming I have never had that problem using a single receiver working split.  Don't forget that as novices we had to work split unless you had crystals for every KC of the novice bands.

I also think that dual receive is nothing more than bling and eye candy for noobs who simply don't know any better. The K3 only comes with one receiver as I recall and a lot of DX'ers seem to like them.

Do me a favor, count down about the top 20 or 30 radios on Sherwoods list and tell me how many of them are bad, and why.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 13, 2018, 08:47:35 PM
If your still running your TS830 all I can say is god bless that rig is still going strong but in a competitive DX contest that radio would have some serous issues basically noisy front end plus lots of phase noise and a wee bit more drift then modern day rigs but it look like someone who owns a 20 year old radio just doesn't like change or is an old Kenwood fan boy.
To K0UA yes I have the 7610, I was very close to buying another 7300 but ended up just down to one rig, I really don't do SO2R but for what the 7610 does under one roof I have no issues but another reason for Icom is they have always been ahead of the game in a digital programming of there DSP chip when it came to noise reduction or the noise blanker, these two circuits come in real handy in a suburban QTH and the NR does not make the signal sound like it is under water, very little of that digital sound like many of the Kenwoods and Yaesu's I have tried.
BTW 20 years ago radio's like the Yaesu's FT1000MP's buried that TS830 and at that time Kenwood brought out there 870 with was ok but fell short of leading lab number back then, both were before IF DSP rigs.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 14, 2018, 07:41:53 AM
I'll state it again: a rig with a single receiver is okay for a casual DXer, but a serious DXer needs a rig with two independent receivers. Anything less puts them at a competitive disadvantage.


Its amazing that anyone dig well in DX in past without them by this view. First and foremost, it is the skill of the operator and not the amount of receivers that determine any advantage or disadvantage here. All else is secondary.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 14, 2018, 09:27:38 AM
If your still running your TS830 all I can say is god bless that rig is still going strong but in a competitive DX contest that radio would have some serous issues basically noisy front end plus lots of phase noise and a wee bit more drift then modern day rigs but it look like someone who owns a 20 year old radio just doesn't like change or is an old Kenwood fan boy.
To K0UA yes I have the 7610, I was very close to buying another 7300 but ended up just down to one rig, I really don't do SO2R but for what the 7610 does under one roof I have no issues but another reason for Icom is they have always been ahead of the game in a digital programming of there DSP chip when it came to noise reduction or the noise blanker, these two circuits come in real handy in a suburban QTH and the NR does not make the signal sound like it is under water, very little of that digital sound like many of the Kenwoods and Yaesu's I have tried.
BTW 20 years ago radio's like the Yaesu's FT1000MP's buried that TS830 and at that time Kenwood brought out there 870 with was ok but fell short of leading lab number back then, both were before IF DSP rigs.

So yes, I still run my hybrid rig, and it actually has quite a good receiver, phase noise is actually pretty low.  My current primary station rig is an IC-7600 but all of my gear is mothballed at the moment pending a move.  I also have been spending more time on my latest FB mustang project car. 

I am not a contester so no longer care about that aspect.  Surely you can recall when we were rock bound and almost every QSO was split.  Fortunately everyone had separate transmitters and receivers back then but it took a good bit of skill to send CQ and then listen for your call while tuning plus an minus 15 or 20 KC.  I got pretty good at it and so operating split is easy.

The other point you made was listening to the pileup.  If the DX is transmitting 5 KHZ away from the pileup then that's where he is listening.  If the guy picks a station out of the pile and tells him to move up or down then that's where everyone else will go.  Timing, and a good signal has more to do with working DX than extra receivers.  Like I stated earlier, the K3 is a potent DX rig and it only has one receiver, you can get a panadapter for it but you can't hear a display.

Suffice to say, you have a bone to pick with anyone who doesn't run an Icom.  Too bad.  Frankly, the dual RX thing was more marketing than necessity.  I don't know how good the TS-890S is because I have not tried one yet.  I will say that the specs are outstanding and while some report that the display seems clunky, who really cares, I don't rely on a display to find and work stations, DX or domestic.  I rely on my ears and experience, they have not failed me yet.

I'm am sorry that you don't have a nice hybrid rig, they are a lot of fun and they work a lot better than you think if they have good filters and are set up properly.  They are also easy to repair and align, much more so than modern gear.  In fact I seriously doubt that I could repair my 7600 any more than you could repair your 7610.

Anyway, lest wait and see shall we.  When the IC-7610 hit the market the Flex and Elecraft fanboys came out in force to try and crap on it.  They failed, like the 7300, the 7610 outsells them all by a mile.  The same thing happened when the TS-590S came out and it is an exceptionally good little rig.  I am waiting to see what shakes out with this new Kenwood rig, it will likely turn out to be a good one.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 14, 2018, 10:55:56 AM
So not being able to hear the pile up is a problem for you unless you have dual receivers? 

Yes. You need two receivers if you want to listen on both the DX station's transmit frequency and listen to the pileup (which is typically 2-5 kHz higher on CW and 5-15 kHz higher on SSB). With a single receiver rig you can listen to one or the other, but not both simultaneously.

Quote
I also think that dual receive is nothing more than bling and eye candy for noobs who simply don't know any better. The K3 only comes with one receiver as I recall and a lot of DX'ers seem to like them.

I actually hope most DXers believe this, because it'll make it easier for me to work rare DX in big pileups. You can add a second receiver to the K3. In fact, the "K3S DX'er" package does come with the subreceiver installed.

Quote
Do me a favor, count down about the top 20 or 30 radios on Sherwoods list and tell me how many of them are bad, and why.

Depends on what use they're put to. For me, a rig without a subreceiver is a no-go even if it's at the very top of Sherwood's list, because in this case, ergonomics trumps performance.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 14, 2018, 11:00:17 AM
If the DX is transmitting 5 KHZ away from the pileup then that's where he is listening.

No! No! No! If the DX is transmitting 5 kHz away from the pileup, that's not where he's listening! He's listening UP from his transmit frequency and tuning around in an area 2-5 kHz wide on CW and 10-20 kHz wide on SSB looking for stations to work. He is most definitely not listening on his own transmit frequency.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on November 14, 2018, 12:39:20 PM
It seem rather obvious that several people here do not work DX, or at least do it rarely.  Can you work DX without a second reciever?  Sure you can.  Is there an advantage in having a second receiver? You bet there is.  Knowing where the DX station is listening and where he is going to be listening in the next few seconds is a definite advantage. Figuring out the DX station's "pattern" is critical.  Is he moving up or down or hanging at the last frequency he worked someone?  All of this data must be gathered quickly and a pattern, if there is one determined.  Of course you have idiots that just call and call and call even when the DX is transmitting. They are just making "noise" for no purpose.  They will never work the DX.

Then you have the idiots that transmit on the DX stations frequency.  What part of UP did you not understand?

I don't know why I am trying to help more people work DX. I just need to shut up and let people waste their time  :)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 14, 2018, 12:59:03 PM
If your still running your TS830 all I can say is god bless that rig is still going strong but in a competitive DX contest that radio would have some serous issues basically noisy front end plus lots of phase noise and a wee bit more drift then modern day rigs but it look like someone who owns a 20 year old radio just doesn't like change or is an old Kenwood fan boy.

It is not a primary radio but every time I think of selling it, I turn it on and use it and change my mind. Never had phase noise issues,a noisy front or with it of drift problems. It would drift a few hundred slowly warming up and then stay put with stock VFO and with external Digital VFO I have for it had zero drift from turning on. As far as not likely change, I am not against it but bottom line is how it sounds too. IF DSP rigs are starting to mature some but still have a way to go. I do understand that that using a bandswitch and have to tune the rig before xmit might be too much for some modern plug n play hams though in which case they would not like a 830 at all.

BTW, I am thinking of upgrading next year and 890 is one of rigs I want to look at along with a few others (non kenwoods)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 15, 2018, 07:52:05 AM
Hey I get it and its like that old 64 Mustang that you take out on weekends for us old folks to look at! But today's Mustang is far better an overall better car! The 830s was a great radio for it era but at the same time Yaesu brought out the FT910DM which had as much selectivity controls on it and a more stout mixer stage so as time marches on so does technology and BTW I didn't say anything about if you don't have an Icom your not with the program I just used there radio's as an example mainly cause of what it does in one box and at the current price range is an excellent value.
To buy a K3s plus all the trimmings to make it comparable to what the Icom has bone stock would buy you a 7610 and a 7300 for a backup so I just don't see anymore value in the Elecraft line anymore cause they have driven the price way beyond what it used to be when they first started the K3 line cause the base radio then was $2000 then they optioned you to death! Here again I am only stating one radio that is in competition with the K3s plus you have the not so new Yaesu FTDX5000 which is a 200w radio, 75w class A, has a second RX and you could get there scope which is kind of long in the tooth or a second RX from a moderately priced SDR receiver and that is also a very good value next to a K3s with all the trimmings.
There are other radio's I could bring up like the TT Orion but there you have an issue with there Dragon Ball processor which is almost un obtainable plus who will do the service while the companies future is in limbo.
For some of us who live in a very dense populated area with QRN up the ying yang and all kinds of RFI noises some of the older designs just will not do, when switching on your NB on your 830 and you have a strong station on 5 Khz or more away the IF sounds like your opening up the who band to IMD and that just not cut it with even allot of newer rigs. There could also be other noises which the NB doesn't work as well but the NR control makes copy soo much more pleasing. Other things like phase noise with if not high enough will make copy on that weak CW signal no good once you have a strong signal 2 to 3Khz away plus sometimes just the noise the the receiver itself so I fail thos say that sometimes its not just the op its the combo between the op and how good the radio is.
Sometimes knowing the theory behind receiver designs is nice to know but being able to experience it is another so you can look at all the lab numbers and think you know what differences may be but in another way going out and really trying these products either side by side or having them in your shack for some time to actually seeing the differences means allot more.
I think the 890 is an excellent radio, Kenwood set out to build a K3s killer which it very well may be or at least very close but there marketing as far as price and value is barking down the same road as the K3s but at least they don't option you to death like Elecraft does and the 890 is allot easier on the eye's and ears than the Elecraft ever was, yes I am calling your baby ugly Elecarft!


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 15, 2018, 08:00:08 AM
Hey I get it and its like that old 64 Mustang that you take out on weekends for us old folks to look at! But today's Mustang is far better an overall better car!

The old mustang was a heart attack on slick pavement. I had a good friend lose his daughter in one when she spun out on a straight wet road at 45, hit a tree sideways and is cut car in half. I was also in a wreck with one in high school as a passenger on a slick road and spun on a curve at about 30 and hit a t-pole. Those cars were a hazard.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N6YFM on November 15, 2018, 05:41:36 PM
Hey I get it and its like that old 64 Mustang that you take out on weekends for us old folks to look at! But today's Mustang is far better an overall better car!

The old mustang was a heart attack on slick pavement. I had a good friend lose his daughter in one when she spun out on a straight wet road at 45, hit a tree sideways and is cut car in half. I was also in a wreck with one in high school as a passenger on a slick road and spun on a curve at about 30 and hit a t-pole. Those cars were a hazard.

+1   -  fully agree
My first car in high school was a fast-back '67 mustang with the V-289.
Going slow on a turn, the back end went faster than the front end,  and when the spin
stopped, I was lined up perpendicular to the curb and a drop off a mountain.   For some
reason or someone's god, the car stopped before going over, and I am here.

Too many other of my friends lost their kids in 'stang accidents.
I am not a fan of that car...   Really, NOT.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: WX2CX on November 15, 2018, 05:56:35 PM
Specs look good but no second receiver. Ok lets move on... Next


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 15, 2018, 08:59:09 PM
Hey I get it and its like that old 64 Mustang that you take out on weekends for us old folks to look at! But today's Mustang is far better an overall better car!

Yes it is, in addition to my latest project I also own a brand new Mustang GT, well it's a year old but it only has 1900 miles on it so that's close to new anyway, and yet it still needed a couple of modifications. 

I have had a lot of Mustangs over the years beginning with a 67 390 fast back in high school.  It was cool at the time but now they are nostalgia pieces.  The Fox Body cars were a lot better in so many ways than their predecessors, the 88 and 89 models are my favorites.  Today there is a ton of high performance suspension and braking systems available for these cars that turn them into serious racing cars.  Engine upgrades that can make 500 Hp, or more are easy pizza too. Just depends on how much money you want to spend.

Same goes for some older radios.  Take a look at the Yaesu 902DM and see where it sits in Sherwoods pile.  Add to it an  MFJ-784B DSP filter and you would be amazed at the performance.  Just because something is old doesn't mean it can not be competitive.  Most of the whistles and bells on our modern radios are there to make up for a lack of operator experience.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 16, 2018, 12:07:45 PM
That 902DM had an excellent front end for its day plus a rugged mixer, it would eat any Kenwood radio for breakfast back in those days plus it was ham band only! But today the key word in RX designs is lowering Phase Noise along with everything else and once you get a taste of that you have a hard time going back to the ole boats.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 17, 2018, 09:19:19 AM
That 902DM had an excellent front end for its day plus a rugged mixer, it would eat any Kenwood radio for breakfast back in those days plus it was ham band only! But today the key word in RX designs is lowering Phase Noise along with everything else and once you get a taste of that you have a hard time going back to the ole boats.

I would say that the internal noise figure is about as good as anything you will find today.  The noise floor of the receiver is -135db, that means that the close in phase noise appearing at the IF is mighty low.  So weak signal reception of CW signals is probably as good as anything in the top 30 on Sherwoods list.  Add to it an outboard audio DSP filter and it is as good as anything in the top 15.  Ham band only?  So what?  I don't know about you but I don't operate outside the bands.

You seem to have this notion that older radios can't be successfully used for working DX, nothing could be farther from the truth.  The modern rigs are easier to operate if you are a contester but I don't really care about that.  

Boat anchors are fun but I really want a modern radio with the lowest phase noise possible.  Right now that is the TS-890S as far as I can tell.  It looks like a killer CW rig according to the specs at least.  And the lack of a second receiver being an issue is nonsense and anyone who is a real ham knows that.



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 17, 2018, 10:24:29 AM
You seem to have this notion that older radios can't be successfully used for working DX, nothing could be farther from the truth.
 

Agreed. The operator skill is more important which best rig secondary

And the lack of a second receiver being an issue is nonsense and anyone who is a real ham knows that.

I also agree. :)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 17, 2018, 09:54:18 PM
And the lack of a second receiver being an issue is nonsense and anyone who is a real ham knows that.

Nonsense. Come to Visalia next year and ask around if a second receiver is important. I know what answer you’ll get.

W8JX keeps mentioning that operator skill is paramount, and I agree 100%, but given two equally highly skilled operators, one with a rig with two receivers and the other without I’ll bet on the op with the dual RX rig every time.

In fact, by all means keep telling everyone that you don’t need a rig with two receivers to work DX—that’ll make it that much easier for me to work DX pileups quickly.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 18, 2018, 05:26:22 AM

W8JX keeps mentioning that operator skill is paramount, and I agree 100%, but given two equally highly skilled operators, one with a rig with two receivers and the other without I’ll bet on the op with the dual RX rig every time.
 

This may be true but I suspect that there are far more unskilled operators with dual receivers than ones with skill. Point is dual receivers do not make the DX rig by default, the operator does.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 18, 2018, 07:17:51 AM
There will always be a large majority of un skilled op's with dual receivers in there rigs cause the skilled DX op's are the ones telling them that is what they need once they acquirer those skills. The reality is timing and in a DX contest that comes down to being able to multi task as much as possible and a skilled op will make full use of that multiply that by six bands and being on two bands within microseconds places more contacts or multipliers in that stations logs which gives him more time to place more QSO totals into that log. So when you look at the big picture its not just how good the op is but how he can manipulate the radio's options to squeak more productivity out of that station.
On Adam's 7610 forum I had seen a post by Rob Sherwood who used the IC7610 and the TS890S in a recent contest and he stated that although the lab numbers were better in some regard on the 890 that having the two independent receivers in the 7610 made catching the split contacts far easier cause you were able to hear the pile up at the same time listen to the DX stations frequency so you could easily time your calling not like the rest of the lids that just keep calling and calling  that never really listen. Not only does two receivers give you this advantage and the more that have these features will be more competitive but when a DXpedition comes on and works maybe more than one band at a tine you will be able to listen to both bands at the same time, be able to toggle between those two bands to snag that new one in your log.
Bottom line is you don't need two RX sections to work DX but having two makes your life a little easier in when to call and when not to like the thousands of lids that keep calling in a pileup and just are not able to listen to when the split frequency dx station is calling, makes life easier plus the more the unskilled ops start to use these features the faster they obtain the better skills of operating plus become more efficient ops.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on November 18, 2018, 07:53:45 AM
I guess Kenwood wants you to keep your TS-590 and plug it into the TS-890's "Rx Out" connector for that second receive capability.

Or, maybe Kenwood will hear the ham community's feedback, and release an update "TS-892" with a second Rx included.  Unlikely, since they probably think the TS-990 is that radio already.

73, Ed



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 18, 2018, 03:41:48 PM
And the lack of a second receiver being an issue is nonsense and anyone who is a real ham knows that.

Nonsense. Come to Visalia next year and ask around if a second receiver is important. I know what answer you’ll get.

W8JX keeps mentioning that operator skill is paramount, and I agree 100%, but given two equally highly skilled operators, one with a rig with two receivers and the other without I’ll bet on the op with the dual RX rig every time.

In fact, by all means keep telling everyone that you don’t need a rig with two receivers to work DX—that’ll make it that much easier for me to work DX pileups quickly.

Your talking about contesting, I'm talking about been there, done it, got the tee shirt, casual DXing.  I can, and do,  snag DX with the best of them but I no longer do contesting.  The TS-890S is a very competent DX machine and I suspect that a really serious DX contester who felt the overwhelming need for dual receivers would just buy two of them.  Most of the high end multi-op and SO2R stations run multiple Elecraft rigs and separate amplifiers and antenna systems so the Kenwood rigs would be less expensive.

FWIW, operator skill is fundamentally important to any successful contest.  It is also extremely important in just casual DXing as well.  If you don't know that then you're just trolling the thread.



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 18, 2018, 03:50:25 PM
Your talking about contesting, I'm talking about been there, done it, got the tee shirt, casual DXing.  I can, and do,  snag DX with the best of them but I no longer do contesting.  The TS-890S is a very competent DX machine and I suspect that a really serious DX contester who felt the overwhelming need for dual receivers would just buy two of them.  Most of the high end multi-op and SO2R stations run multiple Elecraft rigs and separate amplifiers and antenna systems so the Kenwood rigs would be less expensive.

FWIW, operator skill is fundamentally important to any successful contest.  It is also extremely important in just casual DXing as well.  If you don't know that then you're just trolling the thread.

I am not talking about contesting. During DX contests the vast majority of the contacts are simplex contacts, which don't require a second receiver...

I'm talking about working DXpeditions to rare places like Bouvet, Heard Island, and other such places. All CW and phone operation during these DXpeditions is split. For this a second receiver is an immense help as it allows you to simultaneously listen to the DX station and the pileup. A rig like the TS-890S will be a disadvantage in a situation like this.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 18, 2018, 04:31:36 PM
Your talking about contesting, I'm talking about been there, done it, got the tee shirt, casual DXing.  I can, and do,  snag DX with the best of them but I no longer do contesting.  The TS-890S is a very competent DX machine and I suspect that a really serious DX contester who felt the overwhelming need for dual receivers would just buy two of them.  Most of the high end multi-op and SO2R stations run multiple Elecraft rigs and separate amplifiers and antenna systems so the Kenwood rigs would be less expensive.

FWIW, operator skill is fundamentally important to any successful contest.  It is also extremely important in just casual DXing as well.  If you don't know that then you're just trolling the thread.

I am not talking about contesting. During DX contests the vast majority of the contacts are simplex contacts, which don't require a second receiver...

I'm talking about working DXpeditions to rare places like Bouvet, Heard Island, and other such places. All CW and phone operation during these DXpeditions is split. For this a second receiver is an immense help as it allows you to simultaneously listen to the DX station and the pileup. A rig like the TS-890S will be a disadvantage in a situation like this.

Right, it is split, and finding the station is not too hard, I can hear them answering other stations so I know where they are transmitting. They will tell you where they are listening and I usually call on the frequency they say they are listening on, besides you can hear the pile.  If no joy there,  I will try a couple of KC up or down as long as it's within my allocation.  Patients and a good set of ears is a virtue, a good signal is an even better virtue. ;D

You can bet I don't need two radios to do that.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on November 18, 2018, 08:53:00 PM

[/quote]

Right, it is split, and finding the station is not too hard, I can hear them answering other stations so I know where they are transmitting. They will tell you where they are listening and I usually call on the frequency they say they are listening on, besides you can hear the pile.  If no joy there,  I will try a couple of KC up or down as long as it's within my allocation.  Patients and a good set of ears is a virtue, a good signal is an even better virtue. ;D

You can bet I don't need two radios to do that.
[/quote]

What did you just say?  "They tell you where they are listening?  And you call on the frequency they say they are listening on".  Are you kidding? Have you ever worked a pileup?  Yes, you know where they are transmitting, Sure that isn't the problem.  But knowing where they are listening, and what their pattern is can give you an advantage. 

Oh, you just transmit a couple of "KC" up or down.  yeah right.  Sheesh.  If you are going to make an argument for a position, at least make it credible.  At least say you are popping back and forth from VFO A to VFO B rapidly or using the XFC button to instantly check your transmit VFO freq. and trying to find the last station so you can tail end him.

Sure you can get by in working a pileup with the XFC button and going back and forth very rapidly and attempting to find where the DX is listening.  BUT don't tell us this BS of "they tell you where they are listening".  Yeah listening 5 to 15 up .  Just where are you going to place YOUR transmit VFO?  Without a doubt having a second receiver that you can listen on simultaneously so that you stay in sync with the rhythm of the DX AND be able to find within that "window" of where the DX is listening the last station that worked him IS an advantage.

The 890 doesn't have this feature, and while it may have a great receiver, it doesn't have a 2nd receiver AT ALL. You will have to provide one of your own if you want this advantage that would be agreed upon to be an advantage by everyone that has had more than cursory experience and success working pileups. Of course some people just call, and call, and call, and even call while the DX is transmitting.  ::)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on November 18, 2018, 11:21:59 PM
Right, it is split, and finding the station is not too hard, I can hear them answering other stations so I know where they are transmitting. They will tell you where they are listening and I usually call on the frequency they say they are listening on, besides you can hear the pile.  If no joy there,  I will try a couple of KC up or down as long as it's within my allocation.  Patients and a good set of ears is a virtue, a good signal is an even better virtue. ;D

You can bet I don't need two radios to do that.

Based on your latest comment above, it's glaringly obvious that you have little to no experience working DX in big pileups. I can assure you that the DX station will not tell you where he's listening beyond something like "UP 5-20" on phone and just plain "UP" on CW. That's very different, for example, than him saying "Listening 14202".

A typical DX operator working a phone pileup will announce a range ("UP 5-20") and then follow a set pattern of tuning this range. He'll usually work a station and then tune slightly higher or lower looking for other stations to work. Once he gets to the end of the range he'll either reverse directions and tune in the opposite direction, or jump back to the beginning of the range and start over. The key to working him quickly is to identify his pattern so you can predict where he's going to be listening next. You need to find the stations he's recently worked in order to do that. Sure, you can do that with a single RX rig if you can switch back and forth between his transmit frequency and the pileup quickly enough, but with a rig with two receivers you don't have to--you can listen to both at once.

So please don't make a further fool of yourself by claiming that a rig with two receivers isn't an advantage in a split pileup situation...

P.S. - Doctors have patients, DXers need patience.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 19, 2018, 12:49:24 AM


Right, it is split, and finding the station is not too hard, I can hear them answering other stations so I know where they are transmitting. They will tell you where they are listening and I usually call on the frequency they say they are listening on, besides you can hear the pile.  If no joy there,  I will try a couple of KC up or down as long as it's within my allocation.  Patients and a good set of ears is a virtue, a good signal is an even better virtue. ;D

You can bet I don't need two radios to do that.
[/quote]

What did you just say?  "They tell you where they are listening?  And you call on the frequency they say they are listening on".  Are you kidding? Have you ever worked a pileup?  Yes, you know where they are transmitting, Sure that isn't the problem.  But knowing where they are listening, and what their pattern is can give you an advantage. 

Oh, you just transmit a couple of "KC" up or down.  yeah right.  Sheesh.  If you are going to make an argument for a position, at least make it credible.  At least say you are popping back and forth from VFO A to VFO B rapidly or using the XFC button to instantly check your transmit VFO freq. and trying to find the last station so you can tail end him.

Sure you can get by in working a pileup with the XFC button and going back and forth very rapidly and attempting to find where the DX is listening.  BUT don't tell us this BS of "they tell you where they are listening".  Yeah listening 5 to 15 up .  Just where are you going to place YOUR transmit VFO?  Without a doubt having a second receiver that you can listen on simultaneously so that you stay in sync with the rhythm of the DX AND be able to find within that "window" of where the DX is listening the last station that worked him IS an advantage.

The 890 doesn't have this feature, and while it may have a great receiver, it doesn't have a 2nd receiver AT ALL. You will have to provide one of your own if you want this advantage that would be agreed upon to be an advantage by everyone that has had more than cursory experience and success working pileups. Of course some people just call, and call, and call, and even call while the DX is transmitting.  ::)
[/quote]

Try listening more and calling less.  Your argument is weak.  Most DX don't change their transmit frequency during a pileup.  And they often do say where they are listening, but even if they don't you will find everyone calling them.  Having a second receiver doesn't help with that since they, the DX station,  don't send out a signal on their listening frequency, everyone calling them is.  Just jump in the pile and hope you have a decent signal for starters.  But going back and fourth with VFO A/B is a one touch function that is almost instant and moving off the calling frequency a bit is an old trick that often works.  I don't know, it works for me, maybe you're not doing it right.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on November 19, 2018, 12:53:02 AM
Right, it is split, and finding the station is not too hard, I can hear them answering other stations so I know where they are transmitting. They will tell you where they are listening and I usually call on the frequency they say they are listening on, besides you can hear the pile.  If no joy there,  I will try a couple of KC up or down as long as it's within my allocation.  Patients and a good set of ears is a virtue, a good signal is an even better virtue. ;D

You can bet I don't need two radios to do that.

Based on your latest comment above, it's glaringly obvious that you have little to no experience working DX in big pileups.

That's a laugh, I have probably worked more DX than you have, I just don't get all up tight about it, busting a pileup is not too hard.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: S58DX on November 19, 2018, 04:19:45 AM
Hi Guys,

i am addicted "Kenwooder" since 1968 ;)
Well, then it called TRIO and my first rig ( in club please, ) was
Trio TS-510 in 1968/69
Fastforward ;)
Kenwood TS850S MSRP was in 1991 1.999,00 US$
Kenwood TS-870S MSRP was in 1996 2.399 US$
Kenwood TS-950SDX MSRP was in 1991/2 4.599,95 US$
If you apply, whatever inflatory scale and recalculated the values,
into today, dollars, euro,yen..The TS890S is cheaper then most of
the rigs in 90's

Oh, by the way, how much did you pay for car, house, watch, meal, beer
27 years ago ??
As i look into issue, of whether it is exspensive or not, if you need new rig,
it is not..if yo do not, then it is...

As with most things in the life...when you put things into perspective...it
appears more complex then we thought...

Second receiver, as someone suggested, an outboard TS590SG or SDR1play
is wonderfull addition...
Regarding operator skills, listen to DX pileups...this is, what we are..

If you want comfortable "drive", buy the best receiver that you could afford..

73's Nermin S58DX



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 19, 2018, 08:27:19 AM
The TS950SGX had a second RX built in the 890 does not, only the 990 has the second RX but it's performance is not the same as the 890's RX, plus if you add another $1350 to the 890's $4K street price you are over $5K. I think Kenwoods marketing department thought that hams who had a 590 in there shack already will just jump out and buy the 890  to add to there shack, good luck with that thought. I still say its price point is way to high but looking at how the Icom 7610 dwindled down around the $3k area I guess the 890 will end up doing the same down the road.
So far I have seen about 6 TS890s radio's for sale here in the US so far and have only heard one on the air.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 24, 2018, 03:14:37 PM
Bottom line is some of you may think the design is great and maybe with the Black Friday pricing it might get a few customers now that it could be had at around $3500 then add another $1300 for a 590sg for your second RX I just don't see that many placing the money were there mouth is and plunking down that kind of cash no mater how good those numbers are. The 890 would be selling like hot cakes if the MSRP was starting at $3K and street price of $2500 but who knows maybe by next year.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 24, 2018, 05:02:05 PM
The 890 would be selling like hot cakes if the MSRP was starting at $3K and street price of $2500 but who knows maybe by next year.

Doubt you will ever see 3000 MSRP even after a few years and never 2500 on street new. Want a cheaper radio? Do not buy a 890.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KS2G on November 25, 2018, 05:10:20 AM
The 890 would be selling like hot cakes if the MSRP was starting at $3K and street price of $2500 but who knows maybe by next year.

Doubt you will ever see 3000 MSRP even after a few years and never 2500 on street new. Want a cheaper radio? Do not buy a 890.

Yup!

My consistent prediction has been that the "street price" will settle to $3,500 -- probably by springtime.

The '890 is never going to be --and Kenwood probably never intended it to be-- a high volume seller.  ;)



Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 25, 2018, 08:47:26 AM

The '890 is never going to be --and Kenwood probably never intended it to be-- a high volume seller.  ;)


I agree. The 800 series was always Kenwood's top end single receiver rig and not a bargain priced mass market rig. (400 and 500 series were that) Cheapening the hardware to market it at a 2500 dollar street price would disservice the 800's series legacy. 


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on November 26, 2018, 07:03:55 AM
Between the 950/870 and 570 radio's allot has changed from Kenwood cause back then they were Trio Kenwood, today ever since the 590/890 and 990 they are owned by JVC so the legacy you are talking about is or has been changed, that's more creative add marketing. JVC is still getting there feet wet in this marketplace plus the 590S or SG is not built in Japan, its built in Malaysia, compared to Icom's 7300 which is still built in Japan. The 990 and I would think the 890 are built in the same factory in Japan.
Both Kenwood and Yaesu have both been threw some corporate changes, Kenwood Trio was purchased by JVC, Yaesu was purchased by Motorola to obtain the standard line then Yaesu was again purchased back by the original Japanese company. With Kenwood it cause a big gap between new products and with Yaesu it brought out a series of HF radio's that just were not cutting edge anymore, aka the 950/2000 and 9000 radio series were not stellar performers compared to the 1000/MP/MK5 series before them or the 3000/5000 series that were designed again by the original Japan based company, when Motorola got into the mix they just didn't compete anymore with top tier radio's.
At this time Icom is the clear winner in overall sales vs price vs performance plus all of there HF radio's are built in Japan and this legacy BS comes directly from Yaesu's add copy, I think the 890S was put out as a statement that they could produce a radio with like lab specs to the K3s so the 890S is a statement rig but the next radio I think from Icom which would be between the 7610 and there 12K 7851 very well may be there statement radio at a more affordable price.
I have said this before I think the 890s is a very good radio and if I desired that last 1 to 2% more performance maybe I would be into investing in one but clearly the 7610 does a more than sufficient job, if I wanted a knob less radio it would be the Anan cause I consider the Flex radio's half baked cause they are constantly changing there software to fix or add things yet still haven't fixed there NB circuit yet and at this stage of the game I don't care to drink kool aid and believe in broken promises besides next year may bring a whole new generation of SDR technologies.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 26, 2018, 10:43:23 AM
A bigger change was that the 570 and 2000 were last radios designed by Kenwoods amateur radio engineering group. (I actually met lead engineer for 570 many years ago) The were disbanded after that and Kenwood focused land mobile. The TS480 was first HF rig designed by Kenwoods land mobile division. The 590 was next and so on.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VR2AX on November 26, 2018, 02:12:52 PM
The 2000 was built by Kenwood in their Singapore shop until 2005. I was down there a lot that year and needed some parts for my 2000. The shop manager told me they were discontinuing the 2000. In fact they ceased production in Singapore and resumed production in Malaysia.

Does anyone know where in Malaysia production was moved to? I guessed Johor Bahru but Kenwood have been shy on giving details.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: WD4ELG on November 26, 2018, 07:20:06 PM
W8JX, that is very interesting.

 I owned the 570D from 2004 until this past summer, and I got a 480 back in 2006 and still have it. 

The 570 was my first modern rig...until 2004 I was still using my 1978-purchased TS520S.  So the 570 was a huge leap forward and I really enjoyed the features and DSP filtering.  It sure met my requirements in 2004.

The 480 is an excellent rig, I have the SAT model 100 watts with built-in antenna tuner.  The control head design is very good, and the receiver is superb, to my ears it's better than the 570.  After I bought it, I read through the in-depth manual and realized what a gem I had purchased.  I have used it for every digital mode available...meteor scatter to QRSS and WSPR, all bands.  It does excellent on SSB even with the stock mic, and the CW features including memory and clean break-in are what I like in a radio.  Every time I even think about parting with it, I decide it's still a keeper.  So I will say the Land Mobile division "done good" with that one.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W8JX on November 27, 2018, 04:38:56 AM
W8JX, that is very interesting.

 I owned the 570D from 2004 until this past summer, and I got a 480 back in 2006 and still have it. 

The 570 was my first modern rig...until 2004 I was still using my 1978-purchased TS520S.  So the 570 was a huge leap forward and I really enjoyed the features and DSP filtering.  It sure met my requirements in 2004.

The 480 is an excellent rig, I have the SAT model 100 watts with built-in antenna tuner.  The control head design is very good, and the receiver is superb, to my ears it's better than the 570.  After I bought it, I read through the in-depth manual and realized what a gem I had purchased.  I have used it for every digital mode available...meteor scatter to QRSS and WSPR, all bands.  It does excellent on SSB even with the stock mic, and the CW features including memory and clean break-in are what I like in a radio.  Every time I even think about parting with it, I decide it's still a keeper.  So I will say the Land Mobile division "done good" with that one.

I got my 570 in 99 as I recall. It was actually a off the shelve D that was sent back to be a free DG mod. I still own it. It was a nice rig in its day and still decent. I also have a 480SAT I bought in 09. It has both 1.8khz SSB and 500 hz CW filter installed and will hold its own with rigs costing a lot more with optional filters. Still have my 830 gold label (last year they were built) I bought it new/unused out of a estate sale in about 90.  In 99 I bought a 850 to replace 830 and ran it next to my 830 for a week and sold 850 instead and then got a 570 to replace my TS140.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on December 04, 2018, 09:48:55 AM
So far reviews of the TS-890S have been very positive.  Looks like all of the reviewers are seasoned hams and DXers.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on December 04, 2018, 04:39:16 PM
So far reviews of the TS-890S have been very positive.  Looks like all of the reviewers are seasoned hams and DXers.

Probably confirmation bias. I always find negative reviews to be more accurate than positive reviews.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on December 06, 2018, 08:29:28 AM
So far reviews of the TS-890S have been very positive.  Looks like all of the reviewers are seasoned hams and DXers.

Probably confirmation bias. I always find negative reviews to be more accurate than positive reviews.

There will always be some bias in either direction because few people are capable of being objective.  There are some who write excellent reviews but most are either happy glad or sour grapes based on minor issues, operator inexperience, or don't even own one and just want to say something negative.  We saw that in the IC-7300 reviews. 

But so far the reviews are not jubilant nor are they spiteful, they seem to be balanced, and like I said, the ones I have seen are from some very seasoned amateurs who would say so if there were really issues.

I have found that negative reviews can be helpful if they are backed up by real issues, but I prefer balanced reviews that state the pros and cons.  Either way, you and I both know that Eham reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt.  Best way to determine if a radio is worth it is to operate one and see for yourself.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K4EI on December 11, 2018, 05:07:08 PM
Agree about the confirmation bias in most reviews (or, simply, forum postings).  Human beings are compelled to have their choices affirmed by their fellows.

The flip side is exactly the same.  Those who don't buy something are inclined to be dismissive and negative.

Parsing the actual truth can be rather a challenge.  Which is one reason sites like Rob Sherwood's end up with such credibility. 

Speaking as a current TS-590SG owner, I'll just say that the TS-890S certainly has my attention.  Nah, it's not perfect.  And, yeah, it costs too much.  But it certainly brings some things to the table that I'd very much like to have.  And that obnoxious MSRP is already history.  HRO has it on sale right now for $3800.  That street price might come down another couple hundred bucks sometime over the next year, but I think we're already seeing what's likely to be the rough floor.

I expect I'll punch a ticket on one at some point.

73, Jeff K4YWZ


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N7WS on December 13, 2018, 02:55:48 PM

I'm talking about working DXpeditions to rare places like Bouvet, Heard Island, and other such places. All CW and phone operation during these DXpeditions is split. For this a second receiver is an immense help as it allows you to simultaneously listen to the DX station and the pileup. A rig like the TS-890S will be a disadvantage in a situation like this.

In my sixty years of operating, a lot of them chasing DX, I've never owned a transceiver with two receivers.  Currently I have two Elecraft K3s, one an original K3 for a spare and the other a K3S, both with single receivers.  I'm two away from top of the Honor Roll (and will probably finish there) and have 9-band DXCC confirmed.  I know how to work DX.

For reliability reasons I'm considering replacing the Elecrafts and the '890 and ICOM 7610 were candidates.  I say were because the '7610 is no longer on my list.  At this point the '890 is a maybe except for a couple of things; the price is too high and the reported noise blanking performance is iffy (I'm not too sure about the bandscope either).  The lack of a second RX isn't an issue for me.

Great importance seems to be placed on discovering the DX's "pattern" and knowing where the last guy worked is.  Not all DX stations have a pattern to discover.  Finding a hole, which I can do with a bandscope and listening are more important than calling on the same frequency were all of the guys with two receivers are calling.  I recall one expedition (don't remember which one but they presented at Visalia and mentioned this event) where the op said, "Listening 14200 to 14220....and 14190."  I worked him on one call on 14190 while everyone else bleated away up the band.

Wes  N7WS


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on December 13, 2018, 05:25:45 PM
The Kenwood TS2000 was there Swiss army knife radio, covered a whole lot of bands but sucked at anything on HF except for local rag chews, the DSP was a 20 year old design and the filtering was done by a bunch of monolithic ceramic filters, again HF it was a barn door. The 570 was a good for the price design but here again it was no were near there 590 series rigs. From what I have been hearing from op's who own both the 890 and the 590SG the NB and NR algorithms seem to be the same, no real surprise here but it is a shame that they spent soo much R&D on the mixer to obtain great blocking numbers and the phase noise is in the top tier rigs on the market yet they cannot improve these two circuit, even the add copy reads the same. On the other hand I have seen Icom make subtle but increased improvement in both NB and NR so for us hams who live in the suburbs these features count volume, even from going from a 7300 to the 7610 I could seethe differences and before that the Yaesu 3000 at least tried. Chart topping radio performance is good but lets face it there are a whole bunch of very good RX designs in the top 25 rigs that will allow any op to work DX  but its the features and how well they work for your environment which is just as important.  I don't live out in the country with no local QRN issues except for an electric fence so how well certain features work is a real plus.
BTW to N7WS you seemed to give the Icom the boot, is it cause it has two receivers or cause it has two SDR RX sections inside the box and maybe you think it takes something away but if you take a better look at there schematic block you will see that each receiver has its own band pass filtering network plus its own Digi Select front end filter so its not two 7300 RX sections plus the whole SDR portion is allot more advanced.   


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N7WS on December 14, 2018, 04:54:00 AM
KE2TR

I need no lectures from you about the IC-7610.  I am fully capable of downloading the available documentation and studying it and have done so.  I have also followed the IC-7610 groups.io forum and noted too many, IMHO, reliability problems.

Wes N7WS


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on December 14, 2018, 08:07:21 AM
While a radio with two receivers is a nice convenience when working a split DXpedition pileup, it certainly isn't a necessity, or a guarantee you'll work the DXpedition any faster. Any radio with two VFO's and a button (ex: Icom's XFC) to switch between the two can be used just as effectively to track where the last station was. Depends on how adept you are at using it. Thousands of Honor Roll'ers have used one receiver radios. And N7WS is correct with his thoughts on finding the DX's "pattern" of how he's listening...moving his VFO up or down within his stated frequency limits. A spectrum scope/waterfall can be useful in seeing the limits of the pileup, finding an empty hole, or seeing the last station worked if he's the strongest peak.

In my opinion, a two-receiver radio is more important to contesters wanting to run SO2V for that competitive edge, or to monitor other bands simultaneously to watch for openings (more multipliers).

But, despite all the operator's proficiency, the guy with the $975 Icom 7300, legal limit (or more ::)), and stacked arrays on a 200 foot tower will probably have a quicker and more chance of working that DXpedition's tumultuous pileup than the guy with a TS890, IC7610, K3s, etc at 100W and a dipole. Brute force...louder than the other guy is always a factor ;). Also 60 years in ham radio...contesting, DXing, etc. (if that means anything :)).

73 and Happy Holidays,

Bob K7JQ


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on December 14, 2018, 09:32:45 AM

I'm talking about working DXpeditions to rare places like Bouvet, Heard Island, and other such places. All CW and phone operation during these DXpeditions is split. For this a second receiver is an immense help as it allows you to simultaneously listen to the DX station and the pileup. A rig like the TS-890S will be a disadvantage in a situation like this.

In my sixty years of operating, a lot of them chasing DX, I've never owned a transceiver with two receivers.  Currently I have two Elecraft K3s, one an original K3 for a spare and the other a K3S, both with single receivers.  I'm two away from top of the Honor Roll (and will probably finish there) and have 9-band DXCC confirmed.  I know how to work DX.

For reliability reasons I'm considering replacing the Elecrafts and the '890 and ICOM 7610 were candidates.  I say were because the '7610 is no longer on my list.  At this point the '890 is a maybe except for a couple of things; the price is too high and the reported noise blanking performance is iffy (I'm not too sure about the bandscope either).  The lack of a second RX isn't an issue for me.

Great importance seems to be placed on discovering the DX's "pattern" and knowing where the last guy worked is.  Not all DX stations have a pattern to discover.  Finding a hole, which I can do with a bandscope and listening are more important than calling on the same frequency were all of the guys with two receivers are calling.  I recall one expedition (don't remember which one but they presented at Visalia and mentioned this event) where the op said, "Listening 14200 to 14220....and 14190."  I worked him on one call on 14190 while everyone else bleated away up the band.

Wes  N7WS

I have been on the air for 52 years Wes, I recently made some comments that dual receivers are unnecessary to work DX and got a lot of flak from the drugstore hams with vanity calls.  I am not a contester, I tried it in the 1980's but it just wasn't for me.  I am however, a casual DXer with enough experience to be able to work most of the stations I can hear.

It is really nice to hear from a long time ham who is a top notch contester, agree that dual receivers are not necessary to work DX.  I am still on the fence looking for a new rig but have been leaning toward the Kenwood.  We will be moving pretty soon so I'm holding off until I see what kind of antennas I will be able to have.  Not much sense in dropping a lot of money on a rig if I cant have decent antennas.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on December 14, 2018, 09:55:31 PM
Plenty of chest beating hear but following forums and reading most of the BS on these forums does not compare to actually trying the radio out and even then at some HRO store loaded with lots of noise to mask any real signals on the band. He I get it you have had your ticket since the year of the flood but the comments about many good radio's here is true BS, truth be told they are are dam good and thinking the 890 is going to be the end all radio you know that would not be for long. Hey I enjoy being able to track and work dx on two bands within seconds plus the RX section of radio's like the Flex and Icom rigs do that with ease so after your are still on 20m  to work that last rare one I already worked I'll be on 40 doing it again, you sir think that because one radio has two RX sections that its giving up some things yet in most operating environments its not. Please spare me the chest beating cause I have had my ticket not as long as you(1968) yet have been able to compare many of the radio's you speak harshly about but ask yourself this question why with the price range of the 890 there seems to be many that are only a few weeks old for sale.
Hey I have siad I thought its a great radio but I feel its lacking for the price of admission.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on December 15, 2018, 07:32:44 AM
I hope the 890 does not become known as Kenwood's last radio.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on December 15, 2018, 11:54:40 AM
I hope the 890 does not become known as Kenwood's last radio.

Same here.

  I have a mix of Kenwood and Icom gear, both are well built but the Kenwood gear has always been just a little better in build quality. 

I need to go to HRO and play around with the 890 a little bit more just to try things like the NB and DSP noise reduction compared to my 7600.  Unfortunately, noise blanking is about at the limit of design without impacting signal quality. 

There is also just so much that DSP can do in noisy environments before it impacts the received signal quality also.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on December 16, 2018, 06:11:47 AM
Yes the trick is with noise is to get the happy medium between noise removal and audio quality without that tell tale under water effect I had on the K3 and earlier TS590S, the Yaesu 3000 was a bit better but the IC7300 was an ear opener with the 7610 being slightly better without any loss of sensitivity.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3TEX on December 17, 2018, 03:23:40 PM
One way to get great noise removal is with a device like the MFJ 1260 noise canceller. They work wonders if used and adjusted properly. I have used one on the 990 when a particular nasty noise pops up and conventional noise blankers and noise reduction has little effect.

How i wish Icom, Kenwood and Yaesu would incorporate one of these circuits at least in their top end radios....


Les, VK3TEX.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on December 17, 2018, 06:25:02 PM
I use the MFJ 1025 with an external noise pick up antenna which the box allows you to place the station antenna and the noise antenna in or out of phase which takes the S8-9 noise on 75m down to an S3  but you might loss 10db in strength but you end up with better signal to noise. Its getting that S3 down to S1 which is the hard part. There is also a box out by Timewave but the thing about the MFJ is you have tons of room inside to modify it so I placed a 12V relay inside to disconnect the noise antenna when you go to transmit and it has built in adjustable delay. 


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KS2G on December 17, 2018, 06:26:24 PM
One way to get great noise removal is with a device like the MFJ 1260 noise canceller.

The MFJ-1260 is a microphone switch:
https://www.mfjenterprises.com/Product.php?productid=MFJ-1260

Do you mean MFJ-1025?
https://www.mfjenterprises.com/Product.php?productid=MFJ-1025

or

MFJ-1026?
https://www.mfjenterprises.com/Product.php?productid=MFJ-1026


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3TEX on December 17, 2018, 10:59:44 PM
Yes sorry I meant the MFJ 1026.

I also modded mine with clipper diodes to restrict the level on the input instead of the relay.

Works well.

Les , VK3TEX.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W6UV on December 18, 2018, 05:13:13 PM
I recently made some comments that dual receivers are unnecessary to work DX and got a lot of flak from the drugstore hams with vanity calls.

Don't misrepresent what others have said on this topic. We never said that it wasn't possible to work DX with a single receiver rig. What we did say is that having a second receiver makes working DX that is operating split more efficient and that hard-core DXers will almost invariably choose a rig with dual receivers.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K0UA on December 18, 2018, 05:31:51 PM
I recently made some comments that dual receivers are unnecessary to work DX and got a lot of flak from the drugstore hams with vanity calls.

Don't misrepresent what others have said on this topic. We never said that it wasn't possible to work DX with a single receiver rig. What we did say is that having a second receiver makes working DX that is operating split more efficient and that hard-core DXers will almost invariably choose a rig with dual receivers.

Exactly.  That is what I said as well.  I currently have two 7300's and neither one have a dual receiver.  I continue to work DX using the XFC button the try to find where the DX is listening.  BUT I did say it would be easier with two receivers in the same rig to monitor both the DX's freq and his listen freq at the same time. It IS without a doubt an advantage.  But it is not strictly necessary. Just like a tall tower is an advantage, a large beam an advantage, an amplifier an advantage.  I have NONE of these things and I have 200 confirmed. But I am NOT stupid enough to think they are not an advantage.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on December 19, 2018, 08:20:51 AM
I recently made some comments that dual receivers are unnecessary to work DX and got a lot of flak from the drugstore hams with vanity calls.

Don't misrepresent what others have said on this topic. We never said that it wasn't possible to work DX with a single receiver rig. What we did say is that having a second receiver makes working DX that is operating split more efficient and that hard-core DXers will almost invariably choose a rig with dual receivers.

Don't misinterpret what I have said either.  I said that I see absolutely no advantage in having two independent receivers for working DX, I stand by that.  What we have is a difference of opinion, but obviously, I am not alone in my thinking.  You did say that it enabled you to identify a DX stations "pattern of operation", in my experience, very few DX stations have any identifiable patter.

If having two receivers makes you feel as though you have some advantage then great.  I'll look for for you in the contest results.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N5PG on December 19, 2018, 09:54:29 PM
I recently made some comments that dual receivers are unnecessary to work DX and got a lot of flak from the drugstore hams with vanity calls.

Don't misrepresent what others have said on this topic. We never said that it wasn't possible to work DX with a single receiver rig. What we did say is that having a second receiver makes working DX that is operating split more efficient and that hard-core DXers will almost invariably choose a rig with dual receivers.

Don't misinterpret what I have said either.  I said that I see absolutely no advantage in having two independent receivers for working DX, I stand by that.  What we have is a difference of opinion, but obviously, I am not alone in my thinking.  You did say that it enabled you to identify a DX stations "pattern of operation", in my experience, very few DX stations have any identifiable patter.

If having two receivers makes you feel as though you have some advantage then great.  I'll look for for you in the contest results.

Then you make snarky comments about those that disagree.
We're talking DXing not contesting, big difference.
Get over yourself.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3TEX on December 20, 2018, 03:23:03 AM
I agree with W6UV that working DX is easier to accomplish at least at a more efficient rate with
Dual receive.
I used to have the ICOM 7700, which was a single receive DX radio and worked OK with the XFC
button being toggled. Worked DX but took a bit more time and patience.

Then I got the Kenwood TS 990 with two receivers, took a bit of getting used to but eventually once I was proficient in the technique of chasing the DX with twin receive, I DID notice it was easier to keep track of the pileup. Thus getting your timing right was just that bit easier...

Not trying to fan the flames, this is just my experience and opinion....

Everyone to their own I guess...

You could always get dual receive buy slaving the TS 590 to the TS 890. Now that would be a great combo...

And contesting and DX chasing are not really the same thing....
But I will leave that topic for others to have a troll fight over....Hi Hi....

Les, VK3TEX.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on December 20, 2018, 06:37:49 AM
I recently made some comments that dual receivers are unnecessary to work DX and got a lot of flak from the drugstore hams with vanity calls.

Don't misrepresent what others have said on this topic. We never said that it wasn't possible to work DX with a single receiver rig. What we did say is that having a second receiver makes working DX that is operating split more efficient and that hard-core DXers will almost invariably choose a rig with dual receivers.

Don't misinterpret what I have said either.  I said that I see absolutely no advantage in having two independent receivers for working DX, I stand by that.  What we have is a difference of opinion, but obviously, I am not alone in my thinking.  You did say that it enabled you to identify a DX stations "pattern of operation", in my experience, very few DX stations have any identifiable patter.

If having two receivers makes you feel as though you have some advantage then great.  I'll look for for you in the contest results.

Then you make snarky comments about those that disagree.
We're talking DXing not contesting, big difference.
Get over yourself.


True...big difference. Contesting equals rapid fire QSO's. You can't sit on trying to work a station or you'll be left in the dust...higher QSO rate/hour will generally get you a higher score. A two-receiver radio will let you work SO2V, or simultaneously check another band for multipliers. A logical advantage over a one-receiver radio.

DXing equals sitting in a DXpedition split-operation pileup, trying to figure out where the DX is listening...patience is required. A two-receiver radio is more convenient than pressing an XFC button to estimate where the DX is listening. It's just another "tool", like a panadapter/waterfall, to help out. Your personal opinion will determine if it's a "necessity".

But when it comes to busting that rare DXpedition pileup, no matter what radio (one or two receivers) you're using, legal limit power and towers/beams will generally beat out 100W and a dipole. It helps to cut down the frustration factor, and get out of the pileup quicker. I know, operator proficiency counts, but so does a little luck...hitting the right (open) frequency and timing your transmission.

Just have fun and enjoy this great hobby.

73 and Happy Holidays,

Bob K7JQ


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on December 20, 2018, 09:20:26 AM
I recently made some comments that dual receivers are unnecessary to work DX and got a lot of flak from the drugstore hams with vanity calls.

Don't misrepresent what others have said on this topic. We never said that it wasn't possible to work DX with a single receiver rig. What we did say is that having a second receiver makes working DX that is operating split more efficient and that hard-core DXers will almost invariably choose a rig with dual receivers.

Don't misinterpret what I have said either.  I said that I see absolutely no advantage in having two independent receivers for working DX, I stand by that.  What we have is a difference of opinion, but obviously, I am not alone in my thinking.  You did say that it enabled you to identify a DX stations "pattern of operation", in my experience, very few DX stations have any identifiable patter.

If having two receivers makes you feel as though you have some advantage then great.  I'll look for for you in the contest results.

Then you make snarky comments about those that disagree.
We're talking DXing not contesting, big difference.
Get over yourself.


True...big difference. Contesting equals rapid fire QSO's. You can't sit on trying to work a station or you'll be left in the dust...higher QSO rate/hour will generally get you a higher score. A two-receiver radio will let you work SO2V, or simultaneously check another band for multipliers. A logical advantage over a one-receiver radio.

DXing equals sitting in a DXpedition split-operation pileup, trying to figure out where the DX is listening...patience is required. A two-receiver radio is more convenient than pressing an XFC button to estimate where the DX is listening. It's just another "tool", like a panadapter/waterfall, to help out. Your personal opinion will determine if it's a "necessity".

But when it comes to busting that rare DXpedition pileup, no matter what radio (one or two receivers) you're using, legal limit power and towers/beams will generally beat out 100W and a dipole. It helps to cut down the frustration factor, and get out of the pileup quicker. I know, operator proficiency counts, but so does a little luck...hitting the right (open) frequency and timing your transmission.

Just have fun and enjoy this great hobby.

73 and Happy Holidays,

Bob K7JQ


Quote
But when it comes to busting that rare DXpedition pileup, no matter what radio (one or two receivers) you're using, legal limit power and towers/beams will generally beat out 100W and a dipole. It helps to cut down the frustration factor, and get out of the pileup quicker. I know, operator proficiency counts, but so does a little luck...hitting the right (open) frequency and timing your transmission.

Just have fun and enjoy this great hobby.

You captured the essence in that statement Bob.  73 and Happy Holidays to you as well.

John./


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N9AOP on December 25, 2018, 08:33:34 AM
Towers, beams and legal power?  I believe the beams and tower part but legal limit?  Why do you think Array Solutions is selling so many of the OM4000 amps?   That doesn't make it right but it is a fact of life.
Art


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K7JQ on December 25, 2018, 04:13:20 PM
Towers, beams and legal power?  I believe the beams and tower part but legal limit?  Why do you think Array Solutions is selling so many of the OM4000 amps?   That doesn't make it right but it is a fact of life.
Art

I was being politically correct. I'm not naive enough to think that everyone stops at legal limit ;).


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N5PG on December 29, 2018, 08:46:24 PM
Some impressions showing up in the Reviews: https://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/14060#154848 (https://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/14060#154848)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: K4AX on December 30, 2018, 02:09:32 PM
Duty cycle.

Towers, beams and legal power?  I believe the beams and tower part but legal limit?  Why do you think Array Solutions is selling so many of the OM4000 amps?   That doesn't make it right but it is a fact of life.
Art


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on January 12, 2019, 02:54:57 PM
It can be done  a lot better in DSP.  If some enterprising ham manufacturer designed a 2 or 3 channel interferometer into ham radio then you would start to get the ultimate performance. 1 degree resolution and 360 degree beam steering. It will make the MFJ look like a toy. All that it would take is a  3 or 4  slice receiver with appropriate software.

Yes sorry I meant the MFJ 1026.

I also modded mine with clipper diodes to restrict the level on the input instead of the relay.

Works well.

Les , VK3TEX.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on January 12, 2019, 02:58:37 PM
Thats why I wondered why Kenwood did not design the TS890 with  SO2R interface that would have made using a pair of TS890S  a dream to use. The TS850S as pairs were very popular contest radios for good reasons. As it is you can pair a TS590SG  as second receiver but it would just made more sense if this  interface was built into the TS890S to make it plug and play SO2R dual TS890S's Maybe that will come with the TS890SG!

I agree with W6UV that working DX is easier to accomplish at least at a more efficient rate with
Dual receive.
I used to have the ICOM 7700, which was a single receive DX radio and worked OK with the XFC
button being toggled. Worked DX but took a bit more time and patience.

Then I got the Kenwood TS 990 with two receivers, took a bit of getting used to but eventually once I was proficient in the technique of chasing the DX with twin receive, I DID notice it was easier to keep track of the pileup. Thus getting your timing right was just that bit easier...

Not trying to fan the flames, this is just my experience and opinion....

Everyone to their own I guess...

You could always get dual receive buy slaving the TS 590 to the TS 890. Now that would be a great combo...

And contesting and DX chasing are not really the same thing....
But I will leave that topic for others to have a troll fight over....Hi Hi....

Les, VK3TEX.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: OH2RM on February 18, 2019, 12:06:59 PM
ML&S just announced a new price for the 890. Don’t know is it due to brexit -uncertainty or just a setting the price to meet competion to come from Yeasu.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: OH2RM on February 19, 2019, 02:54:09 AM
ML&S just announced a new price for the 890. Don’t know is it due to brexit -uncertainty or just a setting the price to meet competion to come from Yeasu.

Seems that the starting price for FT DX 101D is just a bit less (GBP 300) than the TS-890, anticipating a price of less than 3k as the launching ceremonies are over. (?)


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: N5PG on March 11, 2019, 08:40:10 PM
Saw today the RSGB has a test of the TS-890 coming in the new issue of RADCOM.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on March 23, 2019, 11:05:07 PM
Looking at the specifications of both the TS890S and FTDX101MP, they both appear to have  beyond excellent receiver performance specifications. The blocking dynamic range numbers and phase noise figure are just absolutely amazing for both radios. Both these radios have  excessive receiver performance  that in reality are just spec-manship that cannot be utilized in the real world because of things like noise and bad transmitter pollution.

What will be interested to see is how good the TS890S transmitter IMD performance really is and likewise the  FTDX101MP. The only manufacturer that has hinted that it did something to improve the IMD performance is Kenwood. If the Yaesu FTDX101MP has very good IMD performance it will be very popular. It will be disaster if Yaesu  replicates its bad ALC, keyclicks and generally poor IMD of past models. Both these radios are going to be very popular, although I dont really understand why Kenwood did not just make it  a 200 watt radio.

The only company that has to worry about these new models is Elecraft because it has  held   the trophy for the best receiver performance for a while now. The K-lineup is going to look very noncompetitive  especially if you include the P3  into the price. I would suggest that the FTDX101MP  with its 200 watt transmitter is going to replace a lot of K3 shortly if the radio performs better in  both RX and TX than the K3S.



Saw today the RSGB has a test of the TS-890 coming in the new issue of RADCOM.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KX2T on March 25, 2019, 06:45:25 AM
As far as owning over legal limit amps that old expression about I wanted an amp with lots of headroom so legal limit would be easy is pure BS, evey one of thos amps that can run 3-4Kw out  believe me the owners do run them up at that level. Its like why soo many Alpha 77SX amp back in the day with a pair of 8877's, did they really need an amp
when fitted with the proper transformer that does 5Kw out and these ham's were trying to tell you they need that kind of headroom, they were soo FOS.
As far as IMD the IC7610 and the TS890 seem to be around the same spec but until the lab measurements are out this may change some cause in most past reviews most of the SDR radio's have been way cleaner than supehets. The Anan with the pure signal seems the best but the by products are that choppy sound in the audio.
I hope Yaesu is reading these forums cause between the ALC issues and unstable final bias circuits in radio's like FT2000,FTDX3000 and FTDX5000 unless you severely babied the output and ran half scale ALC those radio's would get wide real fast. Ever since I went with the newer Icoms like the 7300 and 7610 I have had zero issues with anyone saying I am wide even when 40 plus over. Just listen in any of the phone portion of the bands and you will see the widest signals coming from Yaesu rigs.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: ZENKI on March 28, 2019, 01:05:00 AM
RSGB  review " For a 12 volt operated amplifier, these are some of the best (IMD) results I have measured on any radio" G3SJX -32 db to something like -50 Db 3rd order without pre-distortion, this is marvelous  engineering from the Kenwood Engineers.

It seems Kenwood does listen and believes in RF Engineering rather than ignorance and stupidity. Good engineering  practice  rather than the endless rubbish transmitter IMD  designs that get forced onto  the ham bands. Now the question will be how crap is any new radio from any manufacturer compared to the excellent TS890S.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KF7DS on March 28, 2019, 11:27:08 AM
Does the 890 have either Dual Watch or an APF Filter?


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3TEX on March 28, 2019, 04:15:02 PM
No Dual receive, but it has APF i'm pretty sure.....

It's not even available for sale in VK land yet.... Kenwood must have left us off the world map, or maybe not large enough market?...


Les, VK3TEX.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VE3WGO on March 28, 2019, 04:41:23 PM
Has APF, IF Notch, Audio Auto Multi-Notches.

The second receiver is dedicated to the Bandscope, so if you want to monitor another freq, you'll need to do it with your eyes instead of your ears.

Hmm, not yet in VK-land?  Maybe Kenwood thought VKs were a little harsh on the IC-7610 when it came to you first, so they decided to make you wait....  ;)

73, Ed


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK3TEX on March 29, 2019, 02:20:46 AM
Nah.... We were just Beta Testers for the 7610


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: KA4DPO on March 29, 2019, 08:24:35 AM
No Dual receive, but it has APF i'm pretty sure.....

It's not even available for sale in VK land yet.... Kenwood must have left us off the world map, or maybe not large enough market?...


Les, VK3TEX.

That's not quite true.  They are available there but you have to promise Kenwood that you will bolt it to the desk so it doesn't fall up to the ceiling.  :D :D

Sorry I just couldn't help it.  ;D


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK6HP on March 29, 2019, 09:32:39 PM
It's worse than you may think.  JVC Kenwood Australia have apparently not yet decided to import the TS-890S. Consequently, the few local dealers are not stocking the radio, although there is vague talk by them of parallel importing.  Very unsatisfactory, and worth complaining to the Australian company and the Japanese parent.

I am considering just buying one from the US and living with the small risk of warranty returns to a reputable US dealer.  No different to the situation with US-made equipment, after all.

73, Peter.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W3RSW on March 30, 2019, 08:54:01 AM
“We want what we can’t have.”

Possibly a big driver for desiring something unobtainable, in this case obtainable with extra effort and chagrin.  But on the bright side if you do get one of the few there, it should be a good QSO topic.  ;D


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: VK6HP on March 31, 2019, 12:54:07 AM
Thanks for the baseless pop psychology but you're well off beam in this case.  Regardless, in the global era a regional supply issue is a essentially a non-event, with plenty of alternatives.


Title: RE: Kenwood TS-890
Post by: W3RSW on March 31, 2019, 06:15:50 AM
Your “It’s worse than you may think,” got me on that track.

Commiserating with ye mate. ;D again.
Not directed to specifically you but just a ‘pop’ for all of us who may not consciencelessly recognize all the drivers of desire.