Duane:
So be it. I see your points, however I don't totally agree. Anything that
is put into a radio, mechanically or electrically, adds to the overall cost.
There's certain features that can be eliminated in some models, while added
things are required for others. For example, a mobile radio needs to be
structurally rugged. More so than one used on the desk. That translates
into dollars. Typically multiplied X5 to get to the retail price. At the
same time it is not logical to make a radio for every need. To many will
"dilute" the market. There has to be a reasonable balance. I'm sure you,
like me, are seeing the "ouch" to the suggested $3300 price here on the
list. That's what this forum is for.
To take things to an extreme, a contesting rig, has logging, multiple
receivers, multiple scans, lots of voice and CW memories and etc. I see
that one boils down to turning the radio on, setting a few parameters, going
off to the movies and when I return, I've worked 3 or 3 thousand contacts.
Of course I've sent them all a "599" report. Nah, don't think so! But I
think that's what some contesters would like. There there's the QRP
operator and another list of wants and needs. Quite the contrast.
And Duane, finally and somewhat slightly off the subject but related, I've
spent too many years in the professional audio business. Factually, the
best of today's digital audio does not and will not sound as good as "good
analog" audio. Now we're talking about slow speed processing compared to
what's required for IF/RF processing. To wit, the general public would be
surprised to learn that many of the digital records and recordings today,
while recorded digitally were actually passed through an analog channel to
change the sound to the desired "warmth" then re-recorded digitally so it
can be accurately said that the product is digitally recorded. I've worked
with DSP starting some 10 years ago. It's a wonderful tool but it is not a
total answer, even with thousands of lines of code.
I will agree that software defined systems are much less expensive to
produce, (the expensive part is writing the required code) and does allow
for more flexibility after the product is released and sold.
Just one fellows opinion. And you know about a fellow with an
opinion..........
73
Bob K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane Grotophorst" <n9dg@yahoo.com>
To: "Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.Net>;
<tentec@contesting.com>
Cc: <n7rr@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion -- Thinking Inside the Box
> Bob K4TAX:
> For what it's worth, I would like to see a rig that is
> mildly computer controlled. I don't want a computer
> than has a rig attached.
>
> Why constrict the computer control capabilities?
> There's really nothing to gained or saved cost-wise by
> making the radio anything less than 100% computer
> control capable. I believe that the Jupiter has made
> that case quite well. Imagine a radio that you could
> swap control heads, one with lots of controls for in
> the shack use, and another with bare essentials for
> mobile use. Imagine using those exact same two control
> heads on either a modest radio like the
> Pegasus/Jupiter or the Orion. Or use any of those same
> radios with no knobs at all, you could choose whatever
> configuration for whatever you want to do on any given
> day. With software defined AND controlled radios you
> can have it all.
>
>
> Bob K4TAX:
> That translates to a "performance" radio not a "bells
> & whistles" radio. Yes, operating system upgrade would
> be nice but that won't address the technological
> changes that will take place in hardware over the next
> 5 or so years.
>
> Realistically there will be relatively few new changes
> to the analog RF/AF technology in terms of what else
> can be done in order to have high dynamic range,
> intercept etc. The techniques and methods using solid
> sate components were well researched, built and
> documented way back in the late 70's. On the other
> hand there is much more that can be done once the
> signal has been extremely accurately digitized.
>
> Yes there will be big changes in the DSP processing
> power / capability, and it will continue to grow at
> rate that closely follows the now famous "Moores law"
> that applies to integrated circuit technology in
> general. There can be millions of lines of new
> software code written that will make new capabilities,
> not just features available, things that simply
> weren't possible before. The promise of software
> defined radios and its complimentary companion
> "software control" is to do new things that weren't
> being done before, not to just make another radio that
> looks, works, or feels the same as what we've using
> for years.
>
>
> Bob K4TAX:
> At this point, looks like some 5 or 6 clearly
> different rigs or "boxes" are needed. One won't do it
> all.
> Rig A---- Contesting rig
> Rig B---- Rag chewing rig
> Rig C---- Digital mode rig
> Rig D---- CW enhanced rig
> Rig E---- Weak signal rig
> Rig F ---- Software upgradeable rig for the operator
> that can't figure out what they want to do.
>
> One surely could, clearly the only answer is "Rig F",
> because it will allow all options A-E to be done with
> the exact same RF/AF/analog hardware. It is the one
> radio that can do it all. Imagine being able to give
> your radio completely different personalities
> depending on what you want to do? For example if you
> want work that single yagi, 150W 2M signal off the
> moon using your own 150W single yagi station. You
> could simply run a "mode" in the DSP that will let you
> extract the signal information over a set period of
> time, a signal you can't hear. By the way this exact
> thing has been already been done by some folks working
> with the DSP-10 radio project. The DSP-10 uses a DSP
> and ADC that is very similar to what's in the
> Pegasus/Jupiter. There could be a series of different
> filters with different shape factors, some real sharp,
> other "softer". How about filter shapes that you
> simply "draw" on your computer and then save to the
> radio, you could easily create custom filters to suit
> your tastes? How about a filtering system that
> mathematically subtracts QRM from the signal you are
> listening to. It could work by also demodulating
> signals above and below you and then applying some
> ballistics analysis to the QRM's waveform that extends
> into your desired filter passband and then remove it
> before you even get a chance to hear it. Perhaps it
> could also apply similar ballistics to the signal you
> want hear and fill in the holes would have been
> created by the QRM.
>
> So yes, I am convinced that Rig F is the only choice.
>
> Duane
> N9DG
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
> http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
|