eHam

eHam Forums => Station Building => Topic started by: KT0DD on October 25, 2014, 08:03:56 AM



Title: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: KT0DD on October 25, 2014, 08:03:56 AM
First, I hope the onboard TX Power meter on the new TS590SG has been upgraded to more accurately reflect SSB peak power so the issue of low SSB power output will be settled.

What I don't understand is the split down/up conversion design. Down Conversion on 160, 80-75, 40, 20 & 15 m, yet up converting on 17, 12 & 10m?

Would it really add that much more to the price to make it all down converting?

While I am not a contester and contesting isn't supposed to occur on 17 & 12m, these are small bands and with less operating room to begin with, I can see situations in DX chasing on small bands where close in signals on both sides of the DX spot frequency could occur making a contact more difficult. A better 2khz spacing DR would be beneficial here as well.

I currently own a Yaesu FT950, the first 950 that Jeff Blaine - AC0C installed the Network Sciences 3K roofing filter in. (It's my rig that he uses in his demonstration video.)

While the KNWD TS-590 sports better numbers in down conversion than My Yaesu FT-950 with the NS filter mod, I still get better 2k spaced DR numbers than the 590 in up-conversion mode. This is why I have hesitated in swapping my 950 to try a 590. (I really have to watch for number dyslexia here..Hi Hi)

Just Wondering if it's worth trying the 590. Thanks.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: M6GOM on October 26, 2014, 04:30:25 AM
I had to go to a Flexradio to get better performance on SSB than the TS590. SDR is the only real way to see any notable improvement on SSB from any "non-mobile" radio nowadays.

If SSB is your thing then you'll not notice much of a difference until there's more than 10dB difference between two radios at 2kHz DR. It is because of this that I never really noticed and detriment between the up conversion and down conversion on the TS590 even though I do a lot of contesting on phone. You really couldn't tell. I did have an Icom 7000 and you could tell the difference between that and the TS590 in side by side testing with nearby strong signal handling. It was massively obvious.

I did have a FT950 and swapped to a TS590. My reason for changing was entirely down to the ergonomics as I couldn't get on with the FT950, just too many things irritated me.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: KT0DD on October 26, 2014, 06:16:17 AM
Thanks for your info. I'm tech savvy just enough to be dangerous..Hi Hi.

I had a Ten Tec Orion II but had to downsize as I needed some cash so I sold it and bought the 950.
I really thought I was going to be taking a huge step down but found the 950 quite nice after the NS filter mod although I did miss the 2nd receiver.

I noticed a prior post on here about Transmitter Testing and see that Yaesu unfortunately has some of the dirtiest transmitters out there, and the Kenwood TS-590 actually rates pretty clean for its class. I'm now considering a change for that reason.

Thanks again.

Todd


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: W8JX on October 26, 2014, 09:34:57 AM
I had to go to a Flexradio to get better performance on SSB than the TS590. SDR is the only real way to see any notable improvement on SSB from any "non-mobile" radio nowadays.

If SSB is your thing then you'll not notice much of a difference until there's more than 10dB difference between two radios at 2kHz DR. It is because of this that I never really noticed and detriment between the up conversion and down conversion on the TS590 even though I do a lot of contesting on phone. You really couldn't tell. I did have an Icom 7000 and you could tell the difference between that and the TS590 in side by side testing with nearby strong signal handling. It was massively obvious.

I did have a FT950 and swapped to a TS590. My reason for changing was entirely down to the ergonomics as I couldn't get on with the FT950, just too many things irritated me.

The only thing a Flex has is HiFi audio and that is of no real value because it is harder to copy in less than perfect conditions. You do not need a computer to have a good rig. The very dependence on one weakens the chain


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: KT0DD on October 26, 2014, 11:13:59 AM
I don't have the "broadcasters" vocal tone to my voice, so hi fi SSB is a moot point for me. However I have heard that Hi-Fi SSB audio is an attention getter, so in good conditions, it may have some merit. However when trying to copy an S-3 or smaller signal, I'd rather have the Punchy Heil HC-4 style audio coming at me.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: W8JX on October 28, 2014, 05:31:42 AM
I don't have the "broadcasters" vocal tone to my voice, so hi fi SSB is a moot point for me. However I have heard that Hi-Fi SSB audio is an attention getter, so in good conditions, it may have some merit. However when trying to copy an S-3 or smaller signal, I'd rather have the Punchy Heil HC-4 style audio coming at me.

I do not like to copy SSB HiFi audio. It also wastes/uses more of spectrum than normal SSB audio adding to QRM potential and as stated earlier is tuffer to copy under less than idea conditions and pretty much impossible to copy in marginal to poor conditions.   


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: KG4NEL on October 28, 2014, 08:36:00 AM
I don't have the "broadcasters" vocal tone to my voice, so hi fi SSB is a moot point for me. However I have heard that Hi-Fi SSB audio is an attention getter, so in good conditions, it may have some merit. However when trying to copy an S-3 or smaller signal, I'd rather have the Punchy Heil HC-4 style audio coming at me.

I do not like to copy SSB HiFi audio. It also wastes/uses more of spectrum than normal SSB audio adding to QRM potential and as stated earlier is tuffer to copy under less than idea conditions and pretty much impossible to copy in marginal to poor conditions.   

I've never figured out the wide-bandwidth SSB thing either, personally. If you want to experiment with wider transmit B/Ws and broadcast gear, run ah-yem :)


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: ZENKI on November 01, 2014, 02:06:20 AM
Maybe Kenwood will release the a  upgraded TS590SG in the same style and package as the TS850S in a all down conversion  design. This radio would include some of the best design features of the TS870S and the TS850S.

 Make the radio a 200 watt design with a super clean 50 volt or greater FET PA, built in power supply, IF out, OCXO option with standby and TCXO, removable remote panel  like the TS480 and a calibrated S-meter. This radio design would be a huge hit if Kenwood followed this design route.

 There are not many mid size radios on the market  with knobs that  would fill in the gap nicely between the TS590SG and the TS990S. If Kenwood included multiple USB/Serial control ports along with the switching that would allow slaving a SDR radio to this radio with full RX protection,  it would be even a bigger hit. You would then have the choice of  a second receiver or panadapter.

 There must be thousands of Kenwood TS930S, TS940S, TS950S, TS850S,  TS870S owners who are wanting to upgrade to something bigger without having to mortgage the house for a TS990S. The success of this new design is almost guaranteed based on the numbers of hams who still use these radio models. It would certainly be a popular contest radio that could take the place of the aging TS850S and FT1000MP series of radios that are so popular with contesters despite their age.

The TS590SG despite all its imperfections and design contradictions is getting  close to being the ideal general purpose high performance transceiver for the masses. Its a shame that Kenwood did not invest more time into the PA design and produce a super clean PA. Kenwood does know how to design a clean PA. The TS930S. TS940S., TS950S and even the lowly   12 volt TS450S  had and excellent PA design that had IMD performance 10's of DB higher than their later offerings like the TS870S that had a filthy PA design.

If Kenwood wanted to design a perfect radio they could have done that easily with  the TS590SG design, we just needed  more hams whining to them about their unfortunate design choice decisions like investing so much effort on improving a receiver that did not need improving while ignoring the  transmitter PA section completely.

The success of the new TS590SG will determine  if Kenwood takes the risk on a new mid size radio. Looking at some of the design changes of the TS590SG makes me feel that Kenwood is toying with the idea of a new middle market radio that fits between the TS590SG and the TS990SG. If things were slow and sales were so bad they would not be bothering with such incremental changes on the TS590S design in the form of the new TS590SG that would make the perfect platform for a new mid range radio...... Who knows?






First, I hope the onboard TX Power meter on the new TS590SG has been upgraded to more accurately reflect SSB peak power so the issue of low SSB power output will be settled.

What I don't understand is the split down/up conversion design. Down Conversion on 160, 80-75, 40, 20 & 15 m, yet up converting on 17, 12 & 10m?

Would it really add that much more to the price to make it all down converting?

While I am not a contester and contesting isn't supposed to occur on 17 & 12m, these are small bands and with less operating room to begin with, I can see situations in DX chasing on small bands where close in signals on both sides of the DX spot frequency could occur making a contact more difficult. A better 2khz spacing DR would be beneficial here as well.

I currently own a Yaesu FT950, the first 950 that Jeff Blaine - AC0C installed the Network Sciences 3K roofing filter in. (It's my rig that he uses in his demonstration video.)

While the KNWD TS-590 sports better numbers in down conversion than My Yaesu FT-950 with the NS filter mod, I still get better 2k spaced DR numbers than the 590 in up-conversion mode. This is why I have hesitated in swapping my 950 to try a 590. (I really have to watch for number dyslexia here..Hi Hi)

Just Wondering if it's worth trying the 590. Thanks.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: N7LK on November 06, 2014, 04:15:42 PM
I know that the TS-990S has a TS-590S as the second receiver.

Now that the TS-590SG is out, I wonder if the TS-590 section in TS-990S will be upgrades too?


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: PA1ZP on November 09, 2014, 01:20:12 AM
Hi

Just a little remark about the "dirty" TX in the Yaesu.
The TX test that I have seen was done in CW, it might be that in SSB the TX test would have a total different outcome for all radios.

Listening at an SDR radio and seeing the produced signals in a bandscope, I have seen as many dirty sigs coming from an Icom as from a Yaesu as Kenwood.
Most of the realy bad sigs are produced in overdriven rigs.

For about up or down conversion, if you are running SSB most of the time I would not get to exited of down conversion.

I do have a FT857D and a TS590, 90% of the time they are a complete match.
What I hear on the TS590 I hear on the FT857D. 

Sometimes in great contests the FT857D gets overloaded in CW with big signals and is a pain in the but and gets beaten big time at these moments by the TS590.
Sometimes in strange QRM surroundings the TS590 IF DSP CW RX gets crazy and the FT857D is far far better.

Overall judgement is that I do need both radios, in extreme conditions.
Though the TX audio in SSB is far and far better in the TS590, also the CW TX is much better of the TS590 with the possibility to slope the edges of the CW signal.

The greatest problem in SSB today is not the quality of the RX but the bad TX that ruins the good RX in most radios.
In that I have to say to Zenki always talking about the bad TX'es he does have a good point in that.
i must hounostly say that some of his "solutions" would make the current HF radios on the market twice as heavy and twice as expencive, but he is right in his saying that after the big improvements of RX it is now time to improve the TX side.

Running lower compression levels and mike gain levels in SSB would be a good start.
Certainly for a lot of big gun contesters and DX-ers that produce an awfull wide signal running overdriven rigs and amplifiers and making terrible signals in SSB.

73 Jos

 


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: W8JX on November 09, 2014, 04:36:58 AM
Running lower compression levels and mike gain levels in SSB would be a good start.
Certainly for a lot of big gun contesters and DX-ers that produce an awfull wide signal running overdriven rigs and amplifiers and making terrible signals in SSB. 

Compression done properly is okay but I do agree that many try to squeak out that last watt by over driving amp and/or rig audio which degrades signal quality a lot.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: EA4TA on November 13, 2014, 06:32:32 AM
First, I hope the onboard TX Power meter on the new TS590SG has been upgraded to more accurately reflect SSB peak power so the issue of low SSB power output will be settled.

That's an easy fix. Just enter the advanced menu and change a value to max so the meter reads what you want.

However, you won't get the missing power on the air. The "issue" is real. And the TS590 won't be the 'average transmited power' champion of your shack.

BUT if it helps, I haven't EVER received usolicited audio compliments until I bought this radio. To the point that when i read about them, i thought they were a myth. And it now happens quite often with stock mic and very little menu tweaking, no less than once or twice a week, while only DXing. :/

Quote
What I don't understand is the split down/up conversion design. Down Conversion on 160, 80-75, 40, 20 & 15 m, yet up converting on 17, 12 & 10m?

Would it really add that much more to the price to make it all down converting?

Why should they?.
You want up conversion on 10 for sensitivity. Down on 80 for selectivity. And the bands in between have been cleverly chosen.
(But 15, maybe?).

What I'd rather prefer is an even narrower filter instead of the stock SSB one. I think it is 2.7, and i'd go 1.8/2.1 for contesting purposes. By the way, let me assure you that the 590 at the past WWDX has been a real pleasure to use. Not only for the clearly improved selectivity over older radios, but for it's non fatiguing audio for extended periods, and it's 3 simultaneous audio-inputs (Mic, USB, ACC2).

73, EA4TA


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: KS2G on November 13, 2014, 01:30:16 PM
I haven't EVER received unsolicited audio compliments until I bought this radio. To the point that when i read about them, I thought they were a myth.

Kenwood's reputation for high-quality HF transmit audio is well deserved.

I have used only Kenwood HF rigs for 35 years --TS-520S, TS-830S, TS-570D(G), TS-590S-- with a variety of microphones (stock hand-held, MC-50, Telex and Heil headsets) and received numerous unsolicited audio compliments on all of them.

And the numerous transmit-audio adjustments available in the '590 make it possible to match mic and voice characteristics to achieve EXACTLY the audio quality that's desired.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: W8JX on November 14, 2014, 02:43:45 AM
I haven't EVER received unsolicited audio compliments until I bought this radio. To the point that when i read about them, I thought they were a myth.

Kenwood's reputation for high-quality HF transmit audio is well deserved.

I have used only Kenwood HF rigs for 35 years --TS-520S, TS-830S, TS-570D(G), TS-590S-- with a variety of microphones (stock hand-held, MC-50, Telex and Heil headsets) and received numerous unsolicited audio compliments on all of them.

And the numerous transmit-audio adjustments available in the '590 make it possible to match mic and voice characteristics to achieve EXACTLY the audio quality that's desired.


Yes Kenwood has always been known for great transmit audio. If you get a bad report you have some operator error somewhere.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: N4CR on November 22, 2014, 11:19:35 PM
I don't have the "broadcasters" vocal tone to my voice, so hi fi SSB is a moot point for me. However I have heard that Hi-Fi SSB audio is an attention getter, so in good conditions, it may have some merit.

Almost nobody will hear it. Most front ends are less than 3khz wide. I keep my TS-590S set to 2.7 most of the time. Less as needed, never wider.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: K9MHZ on December 24, 2014, 06:15:17 PM
Just plunking around the web, and with no more credibility than just that.....it looks like the SG is sporting some very impressive transmit purity waveforms, and some nice receiver numbers given its price point.  I've got no axe to grind in any manufacturer's direction, but someone in the sub-$2K pricepoint market would do very, very well with a new SG.

 


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: KT0DD on January 01, 2015, 07:10:56 AM
Well, the Sherwood numbers are out for the 590SG and they're pretty impressive for it's class.

Dynamic Range: 104db @ 20K spacing and 92db @ 2K spacing.

This, along with a relatively clean transmitter for under $2K makes this quite a bang for buck rig.

Looks like the I & Y boys have some catching up to do.

I'm just waiting for a $2K rig to come out with a built in panadapter / scope feature that you can directly plug in an external monitor into the radio without having to perform any RTL/SDR type hacks. I'm not going to spend $5-10K just to get a radio with this feature.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: K9MHZ on January 08, 2015, 05:08:53 AM
Yeah, I'm just as guilty as the next guy in assuming (funny how that word is spelled) that big, expensive, and Icom automatically meant good stuff.  Of course, the SG wasn't out when the 7700 was released, but now that it is, the evidence is loud and clear that big dollars don't mean big numbers in performance.  At age 55 and almost 40 years in the hobby, I'm going to be open-minded about all gear (finally). Being a healthy sceptic is a good place....just hate that it took so long!



Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: ZENKI on January 09, 2015, 01:16:09 AM
Who established that the TS590SG  had a clean transmitter? I doubt that the TS590SG has   very good transmitter IMD  performance, its a 12 volt radio.

The TS590SG is a good radio for value for money considering the performance that it delivers. Icom, Yaesu  or for that matter nobody else has a transceiver with such good
performance for the  price. All of Yaesu and Icoms radios that price range really have poor receiver and transmitter performance.  They must think that hams like paying a lot of money for new radio models with crap performance both on TX and RX.

Maybe one of these days Kenwood will offer a radio with good TX  IMD performance.


Well, the Sherwood numbers are out for the 590SG and they're pretty impressive for it's class.

Dynamic Range: 104db @ 20K spacing and 92db @ 2K spacing.

This, along with a relatively clean transmitter for under $2K makes this quite a bang for buck rig.

Looks like the I & Y boys have some catching up to do.

I'm just waiting for a $2K rig to come out with a built in panadapter / scope feature that you can directly plug in an external monitor into the radio without having to perform any RTL/SDR type hacks. I'm not going to spend $5-10K just to get a radio with this feature.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: K9MHZ on January 09, 2015, 05:54:17 AM
Just curious what you're using for "good TX IMD performance" numbers?


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: W8JX on January 09, 2015, 11:30:48 AM
Just curious what you're using for "good TX IMD performance" numbers?

I think it is a issue that is greatly over played by those that are bored and trying to stir pot on something and look "knowledgeable" .  As I said before a bigger problem is over driven audio and over driven amps that make a far bigger "mess" of things and even a "clean" rig can go to crap when over driven. Also the "problem" with IMD rating is that they are not real world because we do not talk in continuous single tones of fixed amplitude and real world IMD is likely far less than lab tested results as average power is much lower. It would be interesting to see IMD tests for rigs at 50 watts vs 100 too as most use much less than 100 watts to PROPERLY drive a amp. About only amp that really needs 100 watts drive is one with a pair of 3-500's which will not be over driven with 100 watts.


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: K9MHZ on January 18, 2015, 08:56:10 PM
I'm just waiting for a $2K rig to come out with a built in panadapter / scope feature that you can directly plug in an external monitor into the radio without having to perform any RTL/SDR type hacks.

That's got to be next, with everything going to visuals and screens these days. I'm actually a little surprised that Kenwood didn't do that with the SG.  Maybe it's a little early yet, who knows?  Icom put a screen on their 9100/7410, but the scope feature is really crude, so for under $2K, it's still sparse.  Hopefully for not too much longer, though.   

I don't own any Elecraft gear, but just wondering what a K4 might look like?  My guess is including a screen.  They won't be able to keep up current K3-type configurations at their pricing.



Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: W9CW on January 19, 2015, 12:41:53 PM
As to Zenki's comment regarding Kenwood and decent 3rd Order IMD... Refer to Radcom's June 2013 review of the TS-990S.

The transmit 3rd Order IMD is not too bad (except for a few bands) at rated output power (200W).  Certainly could be better for a +50VDC solid-state final, but it's better than many other transceivers.  And, remember, this was a very early production sample, so the current numbers could be better.

1.8MHz -32dB
3.5MHz -40dB
7.0MHz -42dB
10MHz -50dB
14MHz -42dB
18MHz -46dB
21MHz -35dB
24MHz -31dB
28MHz -31dB
50MHz -33dB

As to the 590SG's split conversion design, it's the same design as used in the original TS-590S.  There are really few tangible receiver-chain design differences between the SG and the S.  The primary differences is the redesign of the 1st mixer, the DSP-controlled AGC, and the transmitter's ALC.  Yes, the SG has a different display board/CPU to support CW decoding, but who needs it?  I've never seen a decoding algorithm yet that truly works well with different fists and bug users.  When you're trying to hit a target price point, some compromises are reality, and designing the receiver for the best dynamic range for the most-often-used bands, especially the contest bands, actually makes some logical sense.

I have both the original 590S and the 990S.  The 990S uses down-conversion on all bands for its main receiver, and its sub-receiver uses the 590S receiver design.  I really can't see significant qualitative differences in performance when "push comes to shove" compared to the 590's up-conversion bands during contests.  I'm sure they are there, but I can't hear them.  But, then again, I don't have monster Yagis on a 100 ft. tower!

Over-driven audio is a serious problem.  I know of a few local hams who really need to monitor their output with a scope and seriously keep an eye on the Christmas tree to eliminate flat-topping.  Every ham running SSB should be monitoring their output with a scope to ensure flat-topping doesn't occur.   Our bands would be better off for it!


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: K9MHZ on January 20, 2015, 06:03:07 AM
As to the 590SG's split conversion design......When you're trying to hit a target price point, some compromises are reality, and designing the receiver for the best dynamic range for the most-often-used bands, especially the contest bands, actually makes some logical sense.

Don't have one, so asking probably way too many dumb questions...... Does that receiver down-converting section include those older, traditional 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc harmonic bands that would be more easily accommodated into a single string, rather than the "weird" WARC bands' operating freqs that would require a single, dedicated converting section for each of those bands?

Since you mentioned it, is overdriven audio something that's particularly chronic with the Kenwoods for some reason?

Thanks.



 


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: W9CW on January 20, 2015, 06:26:55 AM
The TS-590S and TS-590SG use down-conversion for the following bands: 160, 80, 40, 20, and 15M.  Up-conversion is used on the WARC bands and 10M.

I mentioned over-driven audio as it applies to ALL brands of transceivers on HF. It's not a fault of the rig, but the operator.  We are not talking about ALC Overshoot here, but setting the Mic gain too high.  Regularly, I hear a local op in this area who constantly over-drives his K3/KPA500 combo.  His signal is W I D E (measured on a Rigol spectrum analyzer), and you can hear buckshot up and down the band from his center frequency.   


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: PA1ZP on January 20, 2015, 10:23:44 AM
Hi

Actualy the Kenwood TS590S is 1 of the hardest rigs to get very wide in TX SSB.
The very agressive ALC attacks very fast.
If you do not play in the factory settings menu 23 / 24 this rig is not bad at all.
A simple FT857 or IC7410 are very easy to overdrive and get very wide.

Even now after the ALC mod was done in my TS 590 it is very hard to overdrive in SSB, ALC still attacks very fast.

It is so easy for me to overdrive the FT857D I have, it is even difficult not to overdrive this FT857D , the TS590 stays much more civilised hihi.

73 Jos


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: W9CW on January 20, 2015, 10:44:23 AM
Gentlemen,

I did not single out, imply, or state, the TS-590S is easily over-driven or wide in SSB.  Quite the contrary... I simply stated that there are a significant number of hams who over-drive their rigs on SSB.  This can apply to any, and all, rigs manufactured today, and yesteryear as well.  ALL rigs - regardless of manufacturer - can, and are, over-driven by operators daily who simply don't understand how to properly set their mic gain, or don't care.  In many cases unfortunately, the latter may be true.  All you have to do is listen, especially on 80, 40, and 20.

IMO... Every op who operates SSB should be using a monitor scope to monitor his or her transmit SSB signal.  Flat-topping and over-driving (and the resultant splattering and buckshot) are easily seen if you use a monitor scope in the RF loop, either between your exciter and linear, or observing the trapezoidal waveform output of the linear.  Depending on the rig, one can maintain voice peaks in the ALC range, and still be flat-topping on a monitor scope due to the ALC's design and response time.

It would be a real eye-opener if one of the online sites or QST did a survey on how many ops use a monitor scope on SSB.  I'll bet it's less than 20%, or even lower.   You can have an exciter with fantastic 3rd order IMD specs, but the op behind the mic can ruin it all, and make the bands a less happy place for all of us.

73
Don W9CW


Title: RE: Split Conversion design of the new Kenwood TS-590SG?
Post by: K9MHZ on January 20, 2015, 06:31:12 PM
Yep, we're down with all of that.  Just looked a little curious in your 990S/590S post above.  I just did the exact same thing in another thread about the IC-7700.....must be that digital translation.