Mike:
Bypassing the entire microprocessor is easy on the 6+. I've been running it
that way for some time now. Keying up to 100 wpm with excellent QSK is the
result. The downside is that you loose your sidetone, internal keyer and
tune button. Now of course I don't run 100 wpm but it does prove the point
you made about the processor.
I do run 50 wpm and with ver. 1.03 the dits are almost non existent so that
makes the rig unusable in it's normal state. This is rather unusual for any
rig and certainly should not be considered a "nit picky" thing. The dits
start getting very short around 40 wpm and taper off to nil at 50.
Here's an interesting observation:
In addition to shifting the BFO oscillator from 9mhz to 9.000 mhz to 9.0004
mhz, it shifts the 38 mhz vco in the PLL by about 200hz. Listening to this
shifting 38mhz signal on another receiver reveals the problem. Here is where
the dits are lost at 50 wpm. The PLL simply cannot keep up. Keying at 60 wpm
totally confuses the PLL and all you get are some random, dits every 1/2
second or so.
Bypassing the keying around the logic board eliminates the VCO shifting
business but then your offset is incorrect by 200hz. To fix this, you must
readjust the BFO for 9.000 mhz and a key down freq. of 9.0006 mhz. With the
logic bypassed, keying goes right on up to 100 wpm and there are no more
chopped dits plus QSK is lightning fast but again, you have no sidetone,
keyer or tune button. The keyer is not missed no is the tune button a big
deal but the sidetone is missed. One could easily install a sidetone
oscillator and use the T voltage to activate it but it seems a shame since
the stock sidetone is so smooth.
The ideal setup would be to continue to key the logic board just to obtain
sidetone but bypass the actual key-line around it. The problem then is how
to keep the VCO from shifting frequency. That is a function of the firmware
and I have no way of stopping it unless I do not key the logic board. Thus I
am stuck. Either the firmware would need recoded to eliminate the VCO shift
or a separate sidetone would need installing.
Operating the rig in the other modes, LSB, USB etc. would require a rather
simple switching system to put things back to normal.
Note: All the above is with firmware ver. 1.03. I have no idea what 1.02
does but apparently it does key faster. One reference in the archives claims
1.03 was to eliminate the microchirp.
Here is an interesting quote from the Omni 6+ manual:
"The fast QSK setting will allow the CW operator to operate "full break-in"
up to about 25 words per minute"
Whoopie doo. I could operate 25 wpm with a knife switch!
Anyway, I guess this is just more nit picking as you call it. I enjoy it.
It's almost as good as operating. Pity the ham who never explores ways to
improve or modify things.
Steve N4LQ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hyder -N4NT-" <mike_n4nt@charter.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Omni VI+ firmware rev.
> Steve, there are apparently trade-off's that must be made to appease the
nit
> pickers who hang 'round here. They find some little thing "wrong" and
carp
> on it until it becomes a huge problem. Then Ten-Tec will make some
software
> / firmware "update" to appease them but the side effect of the update may
> well be to create other problems or to exacerbate something else to the
> extent it becomes a problem.
>
> The only complete solution to the problems of the day would seem to be for
> the rig to have no shared circuits in the signal paths. This means the
> transmitter and receiver can be contained within one box and can share
> frequency determining circuitry (except local oscillator frequencies which
> are explained below) but otherwise be independent signal paths. That will
> eliminate the time delays of the switching between receive state and
> transmit state.
>
> I have a vague feeling that the trickiest problem encountered is the
slight
> shift in the local oscillator when going from the transmit state to the
> receive state. In my Triton, for instance, the local oscillator shifts
from
> 9,000.000 to 9,000.750 MHz. The Triton can shift this local oscillator's
> frequency faster than a rig can shift a PLL synthesized local oscillator.
> In general, it would seem that there might be a couple of ways to handle
the
> needed shift in local oscillator frequency(ies):
> 1. use independent, continuously running local oscillators, shield them
> adequately, and switch their outputs on and off as needed.
> 2. use VHF frequencies for the PLL local oscillator so the lock times
would
> be quicker, then use a frequency divider to get down to the needed IF
> injection frequency.
>
> With the Omni VI+ there was a hue and cry about a "micro-chirp." I
surmise
> the issue was the rig's going into the transmit state before the local
> oscillator had stabilized. To correct this problem, I surmise that
Ten-Tec
> introduced a slight delay in the switching so the transmitter would not be
> enabled until the local oscillator had stabilized. I'm talking out of my
> hat but believe this may have had the negative effect on QSK that you note
> with version 1.03.
>
> There are lessons in all this.
> 1 The human ear is an extremely effective detector of micro-chirps, etc.
> 2 There are some really picky people in the world who demand perfection.
> 3 Ten-Tec is sensitive to customer's reporting and endeavors to please.
> 4 Perfection is not possible (even for Ten-Tec).
> 5 Sometimes the "cure" is worse than the "problem" was.
> 6 From a manufacturer's standpoint it makes sense to make a rig, fill it
> with epoxy and sell it. If people are not satisfied with it, they can buy
> your version II filled with epoxy. Likewise your version III... When
users
> report problems, smile nicely at them and make a note of their complaint.
> Use your accumulated notes in the advertising for the next version of your
> rig so that you can report all the "enhanced features."
>
> For every person on this reflector who seems so unhappy with the
performance
> of a rig, there are probably a thousand who are using the same rig and are
> just as happy as clams. We see what we look for... If we look for
> problems, we'll find them (see #4 above). If we look for on-the-air
> contacts, we'll find those, too. (Look in the archives for the story of
the
> medical school student's buying the stereo for his dad.)
>
> So for truly picky people, my suggestion for happy operating is to choose
> one of the following:
> A. Switch from CW to SSB, a much more forgiving mode.
> B. Instead of CW, consider use of AOL's Instant Messenger.
> C. If insistent on staying with CW, then either copy code with a computer
or
> a telegraph sounder and keep the receiver's speaker volume turned all the
> way down. The telegraph sounder is a truly capital idea ! ! You'd be
> amazed at how relaxing it is to operate using just a sounder and a cootie
> with no sidetone -- no tones, no static, no microchirp... pure pleasure !
>
> 73, Mike N4NT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
> To: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>
> Cc: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 10:19 PM
> Subject: [TenTec] Omni VI+ firmware rev.
>
>
> This is getting interesting. He checked and his 6+ has rev 1.02. Again,
mine
> is 1.03. Then I found this in the archives:
> http://lists.contesting.com/archives/html/TenTec/2001-09/msg00106.html
> So it appears that maybe they screwed up the keying inorder to reduce the
> chirp. I will find out for sure Sunday. I plan to exchange his chip for
mine
> and see what happens.
> If anyone else out there knows anything about this, please chime in!
>
> Steve N4LQ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: TT Re: TT RE: [TenTec] FQR and QRQ 6+ REV
>
>
> > I don't recall the rev numbers of both chips, but I did ask Ten Tec
about
> > it, and the numbers I quoted them, were the latest for the Plus. Still
> don't
> > have my Plus back yet.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
> > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:39 PM
> > Subject: TT Re: TT RE: [TenTec] FQR and QRQ 6+ REV
> >
> >
> > > Tom:
> > > A local here just picked up an older 564, 6+ . We are comparing notes.
> His
> > > has logic rev 1.0 and mine has 1.03. Wonder what the difference is?
> > > FURTHERMORE....We tested his at 75 WPM and it sounded fine AND he had
> full
> > > QSK working at that speed.
> > > This reminds me so much of the Orion's QSK and how it went away with
the
> > > later rev.
> > > Wonder which version your 6+ has?
> > >
> > > Steve N4LQ
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>
> > > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: TT RE: [TenTec] FQR and QRQ
> > >
> > >
> > > > That's certainly true Steve. You sure do have that Plus doing
> excellent.
> > > And
> > > > when you were sending to me at 100 wpm, I did break you with one
dot!!
> > > What
> > > > you had going last night was a heck of a lot better than my Omni 6!!
> > > >
> > > > Tom - W4BQF
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
> > > > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 1:21 PM
> > > > Subject: TT RE: [TenTec] FQR and QRQ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > There is another thing that I seldom see mentioned in all of this.
> > Sure,
> > > > > some rigs will send 80-100 wpm and yes they will do this in QSK
mode
> > BUT
> > > > > will you be able to hear a beaker while sending? The Orion I had
> would
> > > > > certainly send 42 WPM in QSK mode but was totally deaf to anyone
> > trying
> > > > > to break in. Not until you dropped down to about 15 wpm could you
> > > > > actually make use of it's so-called QSK.
> > > > > Last night, we ran test on the Triton IV, 544 digital. It sent
> > excellent
> > > > > cw at 100 wpm with full/working/real/live QSK and it does this
with
> no
> > > > > artifacts like clicking or thumping, just nice, smooth, wide-open
> QSK!
> > > > > Now that's what I call a real CW rig. So my point here is: It does
> not
> > > > > matter if a rig has QSK or not unless you can hear a breaking
> station
> > at
> > > > > whatever speed you are running. Not only does it not matter but a
> rig
> > > > > that is deaf while in QSK mode is a total FAKE QSK RIG. Yes, an
FQR.
> > > FQRs
> > > > > are everywhere these days.
> > > > > N4LQ
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: <al_lorona@agilent.com>
> > > > > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > > > > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:39:23 -0600
> > > > > Subject: RE: [TenTec] ORION QRQ Performance
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Orion can send CW over 42 wpm, but it starts changing
> > > > > > > character timing
> > > > > > > about 42 wpm and gets worse as you increase above 42 wpm.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay. That's what I thought you said. Thank you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't try to make 68 wpm a hard and fast rule...MY Omni 6
> > > > > > > will not send
> > > > > > > copyable CW above 68 wpm...others are +/- (I only get to
> > > > > > > operate mine, not
> > > > > > > yours!!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, I understood this correctly, too. Thanks for clarifying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Corsair 2 and the IC-781 will run full QSK at CW speeds
> > > > > > > over 100wpm.
> > > > > > > Others may, but I don't test them, I use them if they are
> > > > > > > on my desk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am a user, not a test department!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom - W4BQF
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wow. Tom, I am certainly not calling you a liar, but there are
> > things
> > > > > > in this statement that I simply cannot believe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hope this message has been clarifying for many folks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Al W6LX
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|