Hands off my old mitters! No phasing out, they are already out of phase.
I promise not to use the spark gap during sports events :>)
Kris KM2KM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
To: <floyd@k8ac.net>; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"
<tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Top receivers
> Floyd, I agree with you and with many of the other writers. The receiver
> performance has been pushed ahead and largely demanded by "users" in a
> competitive market while the transmitter performance is largely controlled
> by outdated Government regulations.
>
> Yes, it is time to clean up the bands and push for cleaner transmitters
> and
> power amps. However, how does one control the outdated transmitters in
> use
> today? Put a time limit on them saying they must meet the current specs
> or
> be trashed by a certain date? They have done that for other applications
> and equipment such as the switch from analog TV to digital TV. That was
> expensive for everyone, specially the broadcasters. But look how it
> forced
> the price of digital TV's down. The price dropped some 75% in just 2
> years.
> Imagine a top of the line ham transceiver for under $2K. Of course one
> has
> to look at things differently, i.e. a business vs. a hobby. Then there
> are
> countries which mandate when a vehicle gets X number of years old they are
> crushed thus can no longer be used. That was done to largely effect a
> reduction in air pollution and it worked. Maybe that would work for ham
> radio.
>
> I'm all up for cleaner bands and cleaner signals. I believe today we have
> to forgo the idea of 12 volt radios to attain that desired result.
> Technically there is no problem with that concern either. As one wrote,
> there's the 200 watt class radio that only outputs 75 watts when running
> in
> class A mode. Are we willing to accept that fact or are we a culture that
> is too number driven?
>
> I don't like Government intervention any more than anyone else, but some
> effort by manufactures, pushed by Government regulations and us buyers
> that
> pay our hard earned money for these boxes need to demand better
> transmitters. That's "better" in terms of cleaner, lower noise, and lower
> IMD products and operators that operate them correctly. It is a very
> large
> topic and will need to be addressed on an international basis.
>
>
> 73
> Bob, K4TAX
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Floyd Sense" <floyd@k8ac.net>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Cc: "John K3GHH" <k3ghh@arrl.net>
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Top receivers
>
>
>> Interesting article, and I know it addresses only the receivers, but
>> sometimes it's just hard to keep quiet. I guess that with the current
>> state of the art in these high-end transceivers, it would be reasonable
>> to assume that the transmitter sections must reflect the same high level
>> of performance. Sadly, that's not the case. Specifically, the CW
>> waveforms generated by the FTDX-5000 that I owned and tested were simply
>> terrible. The actual elements transmitted bore no relationship to what
>> was heard in the sidetone when operating QSK mode. While the QST
>> reviewer accepted the Yaesu claim that units after the second run had
>> the problem corrected, that turned out not to be true and units from the
>> fifth run and later still had the problems in spades. Yaesu offered a
>> "fix", but owners had to pay shipping both ways to the west coast and
>> the turnaround time was measured in weeks. One fellow who had the fix
>> installed reported that he could no longer hear anything from the
>> receiver when operating QSK above 20 WPM.
>>
>> My intent is not to complain about the 5000, but to point out that it's
>> not safe to make any assumptions about the quality of the transmitted
>> signal based on the ranking (or price) of the transceiver. I've
>> recorded the CW signal of both an FTDX-5000 and Orion II on a separate
>> receiver and analyzed the recordings with an editor. The Orion
>> waveforms are textbook and changing the CW rise/fall time in the menu
>> actually affects the resulting waveform as you'd hope. That was not the
>> case with the Yaesu. I am not a Tentec cultist and the Orion II is my
>> first Tentec transceiver. But, I've owned all three of the transceivers
>> mentioned in the article and to me there's no doubt about which is the
>> all-round best.
>>
>> 73, Floyd - K8AC
>>
>> On 5/13/2012 5:50 AM, John K3GHH wrote:
>>> Did list members notice the article recently mentioned in the ARRL
>>> Contest Update? I haven't pored over it thoroughly, and am not
>>> qualified really to understand it, but the FTDX5000D and K3 come out
>>> on top; the Orion 2 is then said also to have "extremely high
>>> performance," and the article's comparison table includes only these
>>> three radios. Finally, the Perseus SDR is mentioned.
>>>
>>> http://www.edn.com/article/521690-High_performance_HF_transceiver_design_A_ham_s_perspective.php
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|