Bob, I loved every inch of your post until you said the government should
(must) change the rules to require improvements.
What if ARRL, DARC, RSGB, JARL, etc. all began flogging the OEMs for not
delivering state of the art cleanliness of signal..Let's just stop buying
their radios, and send them a letter instead. "I won't buy your radio until
you fix xyz. XYL is the most pressing antenna.
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Mcgraw
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:05 AM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor
I fully agree, specially on the topic of transmitter performance. Fact:
we don't need radios that operate on 12 volts. Most of today's radios are
physically too large to be included in our auto's of today. There are
specific needs for mobile applications and there are solutions for these as
well.
This says, just like the audio companies realized 30 years or so ago, the
low voltage output stage just won't deliver the CLEAN goods. Even today's
automotive radios have DC to DC converters incorporated thus
allowing the output stage to operate at 30 to 50 volts. Why can't ham
radios employee this methodology for their PA stages? Why can't we have
internal power supplies that automatically select the proper mains voltage?
We can. Why can't we have radios with 100 watt PA's that have IMD values in
the -45 to -55 dB range. We can, the technology is there and at little to
no more cost than we are paying today.
You may say all of this costs more money and will make the radio more
expensive. Well yes, but take the radio you have and add the cost of the
power supply on your desk and you have a better performance, self contained
transceiver for about the same amount of money.
Today we demand better and better receivers. Why? Because we have poorer
and poorer signals being emitted on the bands from 40 year old
technology. The requirements for better receiver performance is largely
due to splatter and IMD products.
Yes, Rob Sherwood's presentation is very informative. I say to the
manufacturers, "you build a better mouse trap and the public will buy it".
I for one would love to see a 100 watt transceiver with built in power
supply that produces IMD figures in the -45 dB to -55 dB range. In order
for this to happen, regulations will need to be changed to effect
technology, much as the switch to digital TV and those would say "any radio
manufactured and sold after a certain date must meet these new
specifications".
I hate government intervention on any front but this seems as the only
effective direction to the objective.
73
Bob, K4TAX
> Well we can't blame it all on the hams, though they are indeed a big
> piece of the problem.
> Our radios have slowly but surely gotten worse over the years and they
> too are part of the problem.
> Most radios today, including all TEN-TEC radios have just marginal
> transmitters.
>
> If you don't understand why, if you don't buy into this, then you have
> not yet listened to Rob Sherwood's latest presentation (45 minutes)
> where he explains a lot of this , and 'YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM'.
>
> Just so you don't have to ask the question, here is a link to Rob's
> presentation (again):
> See:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOf2OOGeGi8&feature=player_embedded
>
> 73
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Reed
> Krenn
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 2:36 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor
>
> That man has a *stranglehold* on reality!
>
> Regards,
>
> Reed WW3A
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX
> <RMcGraw@blomand.net>wrote:
>
>> I recall a comment made to me recently by a very highlyl respected
>> audio and recording engineer. "In the 70's we had talent. Today we
>> seem
> to have
>> only technology". Perhaps that better explains what we hear on the
>> bands
>> today.
>>
>> 73
>> Bob, K4TAX
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Rippey" <w3uls73@gmail.com>
>> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:14 AM
>> Subject: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Hammond! I am so glad to see a posting by you on this thread!
>> Long
>>> time no see. I always have read with interest what you have had to
>>> say.
>>>
>>> I will consider carefully what you, Bob and Gary have said. My sense
>>> is there is a lot that can be done (without splatter) to make 100
>>> watts work more effectively. NA1A 's video I mentioned is not
>>> conclusive but it does support the idea.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> John, W3ULS
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> TenTec mailing list
>>> TenTec@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/tentec<http://lists.c
>>> o ntesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/tentec<http://lists.co
>> n
>> testing.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
>
--
Disclosure:
I am a Tentec Ambassador and compensated according to the Tentec Ambassador
plan. I serve as a volunteer beta test person for the Omni
VII, Eagle and Argonaut VI products. Otherwise, I hold no business or
employment interest with 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
|