Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Fodder for Zenki - Trashy Ham Transmitters Rated  (Read 81702 times)
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2970




Ignore
« on: September 08, 2014, 04:55:42 PM »


This link will make Zenki jump for joy.   http://k9yc.com/TXNoise.pdf

Ham Friends -Get rid of those Trashy Yaesu's, dump your Icom and get a  - - -    Wink Cheesy Cheesy
Wanna win a contest, get the Trashiest Transmitter on the list, guaranteed to increase your Contest total.
This link is one of the most interesting I have seen on rating modern transmitters and it is written so even Newbies can understand. The used price of TS-590's just went up...

Stan K9IUQ
Logged
K1DA
Member

Posts: 744




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2014, 09:17:02 AM »

IF a AF speech processor produces, compared to the input signal, a distorted  output signal in dynamic range, waveform and  frequency response and THAT signal in amplifed in the rest of the transmitter cleanly, how does that produce a "wide" signal, as opposed to a clean signal which sounds bad?
Logged
KF5YZ
Member

Posts: 12




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2014, 01:43:44 PM »

  I have read this reference on the topband webmail and read the other articles mentioned. My plan is to adjust my transmitter as best I can using power out, compression and alc settings. As of now I have no other choice except to use my xcvr for SWL.
  I am retired and cannot buy an better radio than my FT-920, which I bought new just before I retired. If there is a way to modify the transmitter to improve the signal, I might give it a try. I understand the problem, but I am unable due to age and lack of the deep knowledge to do anything about it on my own.
  I will do the best I can with what I have as I have done for 36 years in this hobby/service.

                                               73 es DX
                                               Patrick H. Armstrong KF5YZ

If Zenki has THE answer for the thousands of Hams in my position, let us know by all means.
Logged

Pat H. Armstrong  KF5YZ
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2970




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2014, 02:47:00 PM »

 My plan is to adjust my transmitter as best I can using power out, compression and alc settings.

  I will do the best I can with what I have as I have done for 36 years in this hobby/service.

                                               73 es DX
                                               Patrick H. Armstrong KF5YZ

If Zenki has THE answer for the thousands of Hams in my position, let us know by all means.

The answer is to punish those Companies that do not make clean transmitters by not purchasing their radios. And reward those like Kenwood and Elecraft who do try to produce clean radios. I own a Ts-590s and have been thinking about upgrading to a new and improved radio. Yaesu and Icom have been on my short list. After reading and studying my link  I may re-think and just suffer along with my old trusty and fairly clean (compared to everything but a K-3) Kenwood.

As far as the radios already on the market, you summed it up nicely. Do the best you can and adjust the radio you have for minimum trash..

Perhaps instead of put so much emphasis on Sherwoods Holy Grail list, Hams should pay more attention to (persistent) complainers like Zenki and information like the link I posted - thanks to K9YC and his efforts..

Stan K9IUQ
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 02:49:01 PM by K9IUQ » Logged
K5TED
Member

Posts: 229




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2014, 05:58:20 PM »

Another K3 ad. The Kenwood is not much better than the rest, and not as much better than the others as it is worse than the K3. Why should it get pass for barely coming in #2? Trash 'em all and buy a K3.

Better yet, the FCC should mandate that only Elecraft radios should be type certified. That'll take care of the alleged problem.

Maybe a better approach would be to ban amplifiers and transmit antennas over 9db gain, or any emissions over 100w ERP.

Or, ban commercially built or kitted radios altogether. That'll fix it...

The observation that radios other than Elecraft are in violation of FCC regs is the culmination of self aggrandizing hyperbole. If any Elecraft radio emits any spurious signal at all, zero tolerance, then it is also in violation.

Lame.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 06:23:56 PM by K5TED » Logged
N0PQK
Member

Posts: 112


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2014, 09:54:22 PM »

I was under the impression that the Yaesu FT-5000 running in Class A mode was as good, or better then the K3 with regard to spectral purity. Is this not the case?
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2970




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2014, 04:51:46 AM »

Another K3 ad.

Why should it get pass for barely coming in #2

Hard to spin Facts isn't it? The data presented came from ARRL testing. An Ad distorts reality. I just saw ARRL data presented so that even a non-technical Ham could understand.

This is the ARRL's own Data, could you ever imagine this presentation in QST? I think not, they would lose all the big $$ advertising. Which is yet another reason why hams get dirty transmitters.

I learned by participating in sports that 2nd place is always better than last place, no matter how the last placer losers try to spin with excuses.

Stan K9IUQ
Logged
W1BR
Member

Posts: 4179




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2014, 08:15:13 AM »

I was under the impression that the Yaesu FT-5000 running in Class A mode was as good, or better then the K3 with regard to spectral purity. Is this not the case?


That could be true for IMD products.  But, there are other considerations, including phase noise (broadband noise) that isn't directly related to the transmitter's linearity.

Pete
Logged
WD4ELG
Member

Posts: 360




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2014, 03:42:24 PM »

Stan, thanks for sharing the URL. 

Unfortunate regarding the $$$ spent on high end rigs and the audio results shown.  Yet I don't hear that kind of splatter very often on the bands.  When I do, I suspect it's because the ham is over-driving the audio and may not know it (assuming no malice intended by the transmitting ham).  If hams use only the maximum power needed to communicate, and use their rigs properly, then Part 97 compliance should not be an issue.

Regarding contests and contest behavior, that's a topic for another thread.  But transmitted RF hash is probably a lesser evil in contests compared to some of the duplicitous behavior of bad operators (intentional QRM, intentional duplication of QSO's, false callsign QSO's, intentionally false cluster spots, bootlegged calls, etc.).

Mark, WD4ELG
Logged
KX2T
Member

Posts: 1039




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2014, 05:27:59 PM »

Most of the radio's today are really all not that bad but depending on how you adjust your mic gain and how much compression you use. When I visit other stations the one thing that makes me LOL is the ALC is set to  almost full scale were the peaks are over the alc red line and the 10-15db of compression. If you look at this on a pep wattmeter its almost like CW. Now if you take the alc reading and bring the mic gain down were lets say your peaks are 2/3rds of the alc top line and maybe 5 db of compression you have the same peaks on a PEP meter but its no were near the way it was before and you look at this on a scope and its not  as full but doing the same job. Now you look at most radio's on a spectrum analizer and as you move off the center of your transmiter you will see that the signal will go down fast and the differences between a radio thats 100db down or 120  you will not hear. That post is a worm form the K3 lovers were everything else tested not as high and now some of you will buy a radio because of this or what Sherwoods list says, been there done that and I found the K3 not up to what I expected in a radio at all, the menu system was the worst I have ever seen, the front panel layout was clutered and I didnt find the RX any better than a TS590 I had or the FTDX3000 even during contest crunch times. Its really funny that these test make you think the radio is terible well back when I owned a few FT1000MP's we could use one radio on a run frek lets say 14.160 and have a mult radio above 14250 tunning to 14.350 and did not hear the run radio transmiting on the mult radio, we would only start to hear the run radio when we were less than 10-15kHz away and the antennas were only 50-75' apart and we were running 1500W pep. Back then we had smoked many an Icom/Kenwood front end but those mp's were battleships. That was REAL WORLD no test bench and we would do that on 15 and 10 meters as well, the transmiters were interlocked so there was never a time when two signla were on the same band at the same time but I will tell ya twards the end of the contest this would help claen up the band map on mults. I never tested the K3 when I had one but I should of. I did test the 590 and the 3000 they were both good but the edge was to the Yaesu, I clould get within 5-6Khz were the Kenwood was more like 8-10Khz but both were very good.
Logged
K5TED
Member

Posts: 229




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2014, 06:02:48 PM »

Another K3 ad.

Why should it get pass for barely coming in #2

Hard to spin Facts isn't it? The data presented came from ARRL testing. An Ad distorts reality. I just saw ARRL data presented so that even a non-technical Ham could understand.

This is the ARRL's own Data, could you ever imagine this presentation in QST? I think not, they would lose all the big $$ advertising. Which is yet another reason why hams get dirty transmitters.

I learned by participating in sports that 2nd place is always better than last place, no matter how the last placer losers try to spin with excuses.

Stan K9IUQ

Conversely, 2nd place is a loser spot that second placers try to spin as 'well, i was almost relevant...'

K3 ad promoted by losers. I could see a K3 owner getting all lathered up, but a loser owner?

The study called the Kenwood baby ugly. Case closed.
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2970




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2014, 03:24:07 AM »

K3 ad promoted by losers.

The ARRL Data and K9YC study appears to offend you. I assume you own an "atrocious " Flexradio or a Dirty Yaesu?

Instead of being a "Poor Loser" on eham, go dirty up the bands with your radios.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Stan K9IUQ
Logged
KH6AQ
Member

Posts: 7773




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2014, 03:27:24 AM »

There seems to be a disconnect between what the K9YC paper says and what some of the conclusions on this thread are. The K9YC test shows transmitter phase noise. The comments here are mostly about IMD. These two things have nothing to do with one another.
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2970




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2014, 03:57:23 AM »

The K9YC test shows transmitter phase noise.

I thought it was pretty clear - after all:   http://k9yc.com/TXNoise.pdf

The Key words seem to be TXNOISE......  Wink Wink Wink
Some hams just see what they want to see, kinda like politics.....

Stan K9IUQ
Logged
K5TED
Member

Posts: 229




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2014, 05:23:08 PM »

K3 ad promoted by losers.

The ARRL Data and K9YC study appears to offend you. I assume you own an "atrocious " Flexradio or a Dirty Yaesu?

Instead of being a "Poor Loser" on eham, go dirty up the bands with your radios.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Stan K9IUQ

I'll be using my nasty ol' FT847 and Flex 3k all weekend for the VHF contest. It'll be grand.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!