This is an extremely rare occasion where I do not fully agree with Bob.
Government did not mandate that our receivers' 2kHz dynamic range increase
from 65dB to 95dB but the OEMs have finally all given us radios with DR in
the 90's, except for Icom and Alinco.
"Rob Sherwood", not government regulation, was the major driving factor.
Rob and the thousands of guys who follow his receiver performance
measurements led the crusade.
We had lots of buzz around "close in dynamic range" for about 10 years, with
new names for old technology (i.e. Roofing Filter) dominating the media.
The OEMs responded with better receivers.
Guess what? Rob has also been measuring TX specs along with RX specs, on
all the rigs he has tested.
Some of them are absolutely pathetic, but NOBODY HAS BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.
It seems there are only 3 or 4 people on the planet following his TX specs.
Yes, it might take 10 years, but we're at the end of the rope now on RX
technology.
Better receivers won't help hear more until we get better transmitters on
the air.
With the receiver technology, the OEMs brought out expensive rigs with good
specs, then followed with lower cost radios with good specs. It trickles
down the food chain. The same can happen with transmitter technology IF WE
MAKE IT HAPPEN.
HERE IS HOW WE START: Let's read up on the specs of the various filthy rigs
that have come out in the past 3 years and let's start publically talking
about them and warn people not to buy them. Let's make it clear that these
specific rigs, driving a linear amplifier are producing significant
unnecessary QRM on our bands.
*** WE NEED A TX PERFORMANCE LIST. ***
The data is there, we just need to get it into a list and posted online.
Once the OEMs start seeing some of their poorer rigs at the bottom of the
list, I predict they will quickly do what they can to improve them. That
would be a good start.
BTW, there were two threads going on under this Subject line, so I added "TX
IMD" to this one, so that we can keep them separate.
73
Rick, DJ0IP
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Mcgraw
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:04 AM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor
Oh I agree on non-popular government mandated issues. In general they
are never viewed as popular. However until some authoritative branch
steps in, there is no incentive for any forward action.
Majority of hams are cheap and will buy the cheapest radio available, then
complain about the performance and lam blast the company for producing such
a product saying "hey I spent $1000 for a radio and it doesn't have this or
it doesn't do that".
None of the organizations mentioned has any regulatory authority. I agree
in many cases a "boycott" demanding better performance might work, but there
will always be "scabs" that endeavor to break the back of those working for
betterment of the masses.
To that end, just as the FCC mandated with digital TV broadcasting in the
US, "on a certain date all analog transmissions must cease". Although there
were some and still are some issues with the digital technology both on the
transmission and reception end, mostly within a few months things quieted
and are running mostly smooth. As a result we have much better TV picture
and sound today. I didn't like spending $2300 for a new HD TV at the time
but today I'm glad I did. {As as side note, if you've not seen HD TV off of
the air but only experienced cable or satellite service, then you've not
seen good HD TV.}
I view once a significant number of new low IMD radios are on the bands we
would begin to notice in improvement in conditions. Of course until many of
the old ones are retired, we wouldn't benefit from the total advance of
technology.
73
Bob, K4TAX
> 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.c
>>> o
>>> 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
>
--
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
|