Both ways. I hear the same type of sidetone in headphones as I do on the
speaker. I suspect the reason we are getting different results has to do
with the impedance of the headphones we are using. I am using 32 ohm
headphones. The key is do you have to run the volume higher for headphones
than speaker or lower or the same? My volume works fine with the same
volume setting for both headphones and speaker.
I agree the smuck is not great but at least we now have QSK again.
Carl Moreschi N4PY
121 Little Bell Drive
Bell Mountain
Hays, NC 28635
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Henderson" <bob@5b4agn.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
> I assumed so Don but I can't say I'm certain. I guess Carl can tell us.
>
> Bob, 5B4AGN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Binkley" <n4zz@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
>
>
> > Bob,
> >
> > Was Carl listening with headphones on cw?
> >>From what I am hearing it is horrible sounding with headphones on.
> >>However,
> > with the speaker very pleasant with full qsk.
> >
> > Don n4zz
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bob Henderson" <bob@5b4agn.net>
> > To: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@arrl.net>; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"
> > <tentec@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
> >
> >
> >> Carl
> >>
> >> I have nothing connected to any form of audio accessory socket, other
> >> than
> >> headphones.
> >>
> >> I am an habitual QSK operator and have been for almost 40 years. Any
> >> extraneous T/R noise heard in the headphones when I send using QSK
> >> directly
> >> affects sidetone quality. Semantics? Possibly but in my view any sound
> >> generated by Orion which I have to listen to by virtue of sending in
QSK
> >> is
> >> de facto comprised within the sidetone, regardless of its cause.
> >>
> >> Your suggestion that I should disable QSK to avoid having to listen to
> >> the
> >> T/R click made me chuckle. It was a joke, wasn't it?
> >>
> >> Bob, 5B4AGN
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@arrl.net>
> >> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:26 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
> >>
> >>
> >>>I agree that the click at the end of the CW note is much more on 2.060b
> >>>than
> >>> it was on 2.059d. But 2,059d had not QSK at all. With 2.060b, you
can
> >>> at
> >>> least get pretty good QSK. And if the click bothers you, turn the CW
> >>> delay
> >>> to 3%. You lose high speed QSK but that makes it clickless. I just
> >>> wouldn't call these things sidetone problems. The sidetone is clean,
> >>> it's
> >>> just the smuck at the end of a keyed element that is bothersome.
> >>>
> >>> Carl Moreschi N4PY
> >>> 121 Little Bell Drive
> >>> Bell Mountain
> >>> Hays, NC 28635
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Dick Green" <wc1m@msn.com>
> >>> To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:10 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I believe if you go back and forth between 2.059d and 2.060b, and
> >>>> listen
> >>>> very carefully, you will find that Bob is correct about the tail-end
> >>>> click
> >>>> in the sidetone. Try it with different sidetone levels. It really
> >>>> stands
> >>> out
> >>>> with low or no sidetone volume. It's certainly not the worst I've
heard
> >>>> in
> >>>> the various firmware releases, but it's there. I don't hear anything
> >>>> resembling the harmonics Bob describes.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have to say that 2.059d is rather remarkable for the almost
complete
> >>> lack
> >>>> of noise on QSK switching. Smooth as butter. However, it may be that
> >>>> this
> >>>> comes at the price of very poor QSK performance -- i.e., the complete
> >>>> lack
> >>>> of ability to hear between elements or characters in 2.059d. I'm
> >>>> wondering
> >>>> whether smoothing out the switching noise resulted in too long a
delay
> >>>> in
> >>>> switching back to full receive. We may be looking at a tradeoff here.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that QSK performance in 2.060b is improved. I won't know if
the
> >>>> switching clicks are bearable until I've listened to 40+ hours of
CQing
> >>>> in
> >>> a
> >>>> contest. I do know that I missed decent QSK the last time I did a
major
> >>>> contest with 2.059d. If Ten-Tec can remove the click without
affecting
> >>>> QSK
> >>>> performance, I'd certainly encourage them to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> One other point regarding QSK noise. I was known on the beta test
> >>> reflector
> >>>> as being very sensitive to QSK switching noise, especially a loud
click
> >>>> in
> >>>> the left headphone and somewhat softer matching click in the right
> >>>> headphone. This was known as the "WC1M Lament", and is present in all
> >>>> versions of the firmware, though the intensity tends to vary. It
turns
> >>>> out
> >>>> this noise is caused by a hardware problem: the main T/R traces on
the
> >>>> CPU/Logic board run directly beneath the audio op amps used for
> >>>> headphone
> >>>> audio. Jack Burchfield set me up with a technician at the factory to
> >>> explore
> >>>> a fix, and I was able to implement a mod that completely eliminated
the
> >>> WC1M
> >>>> Lament. However, it is not a mod for the faint-hearted. It involves
> >>>> soldering/desoldering tiny SMD components, cutting traces and
soldering
> >>>> jumper wires. But it works. I would hope Ten-Tec makes this available
> >>>> as
> >>>> a
> >>>> factory mod. If Bob's Orion has the WC1M Lament, then it doesn't
> >>>> surprise
> >>> me
> >>>> that he finds the louder QSK click in 2.060b annoying. Noise produced
> >>>> by
> >>> the
> >>>> hardware tends to interact with noise created by the firmware.
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven't had time to explore other aspects of 2.060b. On the
surface,
> >>>> it
> >>>> seems very good. The QSK performance is better, and I agree that the
> >>>> receiver may be a tad quieter than in 2.059d. I like the SPLIT and
Band
> >>>> register indicators, though I would rather have seen some work put
into
> >>>> a
> >>>> one-button "quick split" feature (good designs have been suggested.)
> >>>>
> >>>> I should also report one other item. For quite some time I was a
> >>>> devotee
> >>> of
> >>>> version 1.373b5, and felt that despite numerous shortcomings it was
> >>> superior
> >>>> to any of the version 2 releases. I had used 1.373b5 in every major
> >>> contest
> >>>> in which I participated since it was released, including a winning
> >>>> effort
> >>> in
> >>>> the 2006 CQ WPX CW effort from KT1V. But when this year's ARRL DX CW
> >>> contest
> >>>> rolled around, I happened to have 2.059d installed and began the
> >>>> contest
> >>>> with it. That version was certainly the best of the version 2
releases,
> >>> but
> >>>> had some well-known DSP artifacts in the presence of strong signals
(or
> >>>> maybe just loud volume.) These were even worse in QSK operation.
Also,
> >>>> 2.059d's QSK performance was abysmal -- no better than VOX operation.
> >>>>
> >>>> During the Saturday morning runs, when signals from Europe on 20m
were
> >>> quite
> >>>> loud and the band was very crowded, I decided that the DSP noise and
> >>>> lousy
> >>>> QSK performance were unacceptable and decided to download 1.373b5. I
> >>>> was
> >>>> shocked at how awful 1.373b5 sounded compared with 2.059d! There was
> >>>> considerably more receiver noise and the QSK switching noise was
> >>>> downright
> >>>> deafening, despite having fixed the WC1M Lament hardware problem.
Also,
> >>> the
> >>>> screen contrast was quite inferior in 1.373b5, something I had never
> >>> noticed
> >>>> before. It was much harder to work with 1.373b5 than I could ever
have
> >>>> imagined (yes, I did a battery reset and master reset.) Within a few
> >>> minutes
> >>>> I went back to 2.059d. This was a completely boneheaded thing to do
> >>>> during
> >>>> the peak hours of a contest and probably pushed me down at least one
> >>>> place
> >>>> in the standings. But I learned that comparing versions under contest
> >>> battle
> >>>> conditions can yield significantly different results than comparing
> >>> versions
> >>>> under normal band conditions.
> >>>>
> >>>> YMMV, but that's my story.
> >>>>
> >>>> I should also point out that for casual operation and chasing DX, I
> >>>> almost
> >>>> always turn on my FT-1000D first. The user interface is much more
> >>> intuitive,
> >>>> and getting in/out of split is really easy. It takes too much
thinking
> >>> with
> >>>> the Orion. However, when the DX is really weak, I switch over to the
> >>> Orion.
> >>>> The 1000D is no slouch, especially on the low bands, but in almost
> >>>> every
> >>>> case, the Orion can pull signals out that the 1000D cannot. I always
> >>>> use
> >>> the
> >>>> Orion for running on crowded bands in big contests because the IMD
> >>> immunity,
> >>>> selectivity and sensitivity are superior to the 1000D, even though I
> >>>> have
> >>>> the INRAD roofing filter mod installed in the latter. The bottom line
> >>>> is
> >>>> that, despite numerous firmware flaws, the Orion is still the best
> >>>> contest
> >>>> radio I've used.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm delighted that Ten-Tec is still improving the Orion firmware.
> >>>> There's
> >>>> still lots of room for improvement, but it appears that 2.060b is a
> >>>> step
> >>> in
> >>>> the right direction.
> >>>>
> >>>> 73, Dick WC1M
> >>>>
> >>>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>>> > From: Bob Henderson [mailto:bob@5b4agn.net]
> >>>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:16 AM
> >>>> > To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> >>>> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Impementation of band-stacking ID is a big plus. Many thanks Ten
Tec
> >>>> >
> >>>> > The benefit of adding the SPLIT designator is completely lost on
me.
> >>>> > Split
> >>>> > already being indicated by both VFO A/B switch lights and also TRS
> >>>> > designators above and below main frequency LSDigits.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > QSK speed improvement is much appreciated but the previously
> >>>> > acceptable
> >>>> > CW
> >>>> > sidetone is now AWFUL. High harmonic content with a loud tail-end
> >>>> > click. I
> >>>> > do hope Ten Tec implement a fix for this quickly !
> >>>> >
> >>>> > If the sidetone wasn't screwed this would be a very worthwhile
> >>>> > release
> >>>> > from
> >>>> > my POV.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Bob, 5B4AGN
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> TenTec mailing list
> >>>> TenTec@contesting.com
> >>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> TenTec mailing list
> >>> TenTec@contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> TenTec mailing list
> >> TenTec@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date:
4/25/2007
> >> 12:19 PM
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|