With 1.373b5 I found the clickiness of the sidetone directly related to CW
rise/fall setting. With 2.060b I find it independent of this.
Bob, 5B4AGN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Castro" <ronc@sonic.net>
To: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@arrl.net>; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"
<tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
> If the sidetone problem is similar to the Orion II sound with various
> versions, then there is a correlation to the CW Rise/Fall settings. I
> found
> that a low setting gives a better sounding sidetone, but causes on-air
> key-clicks. Setting Rise/Fall higher (more than 8) causes a strange echo
> sound in the sidetone. Has anyone else noticed this?
>
> BTW, Carl: I assume you will be modifying your control software to allow
> for 9 kHz bandwidth on AM? Also, I recall last night during testing of
> the
> new firmware, when going split and hitting the A=B button, I think either
> the BW or mode didn't transfer right. There were also some strange
> artifacts that showed up on the sub receiver BW graphic when I did that.
>
> Ron N6IE
> www.N6IE.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@arrl.net>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:26 AM
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|