[TenTec] Orion VFO vs RX philosophy

[Martin Ewing <martin@aa6e.net>]

Mark has a great point.  Frequency step is clearly a "VFO" property, but 
it is assigned to the main/sub receiver.  You might (or might not) say 
the same for RIT and XIT.  Anything that sets or modifies the frequency 
is a VFO thing?

I think TT has admitted that their design philosophy is not "pure" -- 
and it has been changing as a result of all our various ad hoc 
complaints and suggestions.  So "VFOs are not receivers" is a nice 
theoretical statement, it is not completely true in practice. 

People can adapt to the controls as they are without too much trouble.  
This is not a flame, but it is interesting to think about how things 
could have been different.

The front panel layout adds to the confusion.  The main/sub RX buttons 
are placed between the VFO A/B tuning knobs.  If you're a purist and 
want the VFOs to be mentally separate from the receivers, the layout 
should reflect this.    Maybe the VFO A/B buttons at the left should 
have been grouped with the tuning knobs, too.

If you want to stress the "symmetry" of VFO A & B, the LCD display 
should be different.  The two frequencies might have the same font size, 
and there should be some graphic cue that shows main/sub RX/TX connected 
to VFO A or B.  The info is there now, but it is not organized according 
to this philosophy. 

If you had a more powerful LCD display, you could put up an RX/TX/VFO 
block diagram that shows signal flow, levels, filtering, etc. for tx and 
rx.  Not to mention AGC settings! I think that could be a lot friendlier 
for users.  The current bandpass graphics are a step in that direction, 
but they are crude.

The software defined radio, with all its flexibility, is fine for full 
software control, but breaks down if you want a classical control panel 
(like I do).  That is, unless you allow the buttons and switches to be 
dynamically reprogrammable.  Hard to do that with engraved labels!  Each 
button needs its own little title display... (Or, maybe we should have 
more black-on-black labelling!)

Fun to speculate on this stuff, but there's a limit to what we can 
expect from TT.  They can't make radical changes to the user interface 
without breaking compatibility (user expectations) in the installed 
base.  Maybe we can influence Orion II, however.

73 - Martin


> Subject:
> Re: [TenTec] An example of changing Orion firmware to meet 
> expectations of the operator.
> From:
> "Mark Erbaugh" <mark@microenh.com>
> Date:
> Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:57:40 -0400
>
> To:
> <tentec@contesting.com>
>
>
> Scott,
>
>  
>
> > > -- VFO's are not receivers --
> >    
>
> How does one define what is a property of the VFO and what is the property
> of the receiver?
>
> I would assume from the design that BW and PBT are functions of the receiver
> that the VFO should be limited to frequency setting. If that is the case,
> why does the tuning step size appear to be a function of the receiver?  In
> fact this can result in some confusion (which tuning step size to use) when
> both receivers are tied to the same VFO.
>
> 73,
> Mark
>
>
>  
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec