----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Henderson" <bob@5b4agn.net>
To: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@arrl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
> As alluded to by Jerry K0CQ, I suspect the material factor distinguishing
> those who are troubled by the end of element click or smuck and those who
> are not, is likely to be headphone sensitivity.
>
> The unwanted artifact increases in volume with an increase in AF gain but
> is independent of sidetone level. It is inaudible here at AF gain
> settings indicating <40% on the AF gain indicator bar. Perhaps it is that
> those with headphones producing adequate RX output at AF gain settings
> <40% are not troubled by the unwanted artifacts, whereas those requiring
> settings >40% are likely to be.
>
> In my case with AF set at <40%, sidetone is comfortable even when set as
> high as 100. However, RX volume is inadequate. The problem arises through
> increasing AF gain beyond 40% and is then further emphasised through the
> reduction in sidetone level necessary to avoid being deafened. With my
> typical settings of AF gain at about 60% and sidetone at 35, the artifacts
> are troublesome.
>
> Bob, 5B4AGN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@arrl.net>
> To: "Bob Henderson" <bob@5b4agn.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
>
>
>> Yes, it was kind of a joke. But what I was trying to figure out was what
>> was different between your and mine setup. I do know that anything
>> plugged
>> into the line out or accessory jack can have a bad effect on lowering the
>> audio output. And if the output is lowered, then distortion happens when
>> it
>> shouldn't because you have to overdrive the audio to get sufficient
>> volume.
>> When oyu said your sidetone gets distorted when you turn it up, that is
>> what
>> makes me wonder what you are driving. My sidetone never distorts at high
>> volume.
>>
>> Carl Moreschi N4PY
>> 121 Little Bell Drive
>> Bell Mountain
>> Hays, NC 28635
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bob Henderson" <bob@5b4agn.net>
>> To: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@arrl.net>; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"
>> <tentec@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
>>
>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>>> I have nothing connected to any form of audio accessory socket, other
>>> than
>>> headphones.
>>>
>>> I am an habitual QSK operator and have been for almost 40 years. Any
>>> extraneous T/R noise heard in the headphones when I send using QSK
>> directly
>>> affects sidetone quality. Semantics? Possibly but in my view any sound
>>> generated by Orion which I have to listen to by virtue of sending in QSK
>> is
>>> de facto comprised within the sidetone, regardless of its cause.
>>>
>>> Your suggestion that I should disable QSK to avoid having to listen to
>>> the
>>> T/R click made me chuckle. It was a joke, wasn't it?
>>>
>>> Bob, 5B4AGN
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@arrl.net>
>>> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:26 PM
>>> 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
|