I don't think designers are cutting corners on PA designs. There are limits
as to what can be obtained with a 12V radio design. Thus I do think, even
for a 100 watt radio, we need to get away from 12V radios. Now that brings
up another issue and that is the "internal power supply" would be a must. I
certainly do not have a problem with this and would think a 50 volt supply
would improve IMD values for a 100 watt radio by some 20 to 30 dB. In other
words, IMD in the order of -55 dBm. It makes for one box, fewer cables and
fewer ground loop issues and less space on the desk required. A good
switcher is self regulating, auto line voltage sensing, very efficient on
energy and electrically clean and is very light weight when compared to an
external linear supply or a storage battery.
The IMD crud on the bands today gives us false needs for better receivers
when indeed the true solution is radios that produce less noise and
distortion products. On another point, I've recently measured two current
production radios and observed that they are broadband noise generators.
With the mike gain turned down, no mike connected, key the radio and watch
the noise from 0.5 MHz to 30 MHz rise. In one I measured the level at -55
dBm which is equal to a S-9 +8 dB signal over the 0.5 MHz to 30 MHz range.
It makes a good broadband noise generator. Connect it to a multiband
antenna and it radiates on all bands equally well. There is simply no
technical reason this should take place.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kimberly Elmore" <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: [TenTec] Tx IMD and Purity
Rick, you make an excellent point! Are you speaking of only IMD
performance? If so, how good is good enough? Speaking only of 3rd order
(O3) IMD, my old TS-930S has O3 IMD of -35 dB while my Orion II has a
worse value of -28 dB. The best available may be the FT-2000D running
class A, with O3 IMD below -41 dB (the QST article noted that this was as
low as the ARRL could measure). At -30 dB, the transmitted power of the O3
IMD with 100 W PEP is 0.1 W PEP. If I add a (perfect) amp with ~12 dB of
gain, I'll see 1.5 W PEP of transmitted O3 IMD. If we were to set a target
for transmit IMD numbers, what do you think it should be? Is there
something the manufacturers can do to meet these goals aside from running
everything class A? Should everything run off of a 28 V or 56 V supply
or...?
I'm sincere in my question because I don't know enough about PA design to
know if the manufacturers are cutting corners that make otherwise
efficient transmitters dirtier than they need to be.
73,
Kim N5OP
________________________________
From: Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment' <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion II has ended production
But it affects all of us.
So it's our misery too.
BTW, though Ten-Tec doesn't produce any really bad ones, their signals are
far from being good.
The TX IMD of the Kenwood TS-590 is not particularly good . . . yet it is
better than my Eagle.
:-(
(so I work CW - hi).
73
Rick, DJ0IP
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of k6jek
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 5:46 PM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion II has ended production
Perhaps the lack of emphasis on transmit cleanliness is that it's somebody
else's misery
On Jul 1, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
Well if we are pointing out Rob Sherwood points, let's not forget that
ONE BIG POINT he makes is, there is no further need to continue work on
the receiver technology now, until we fix the dirty transmitters on the
band.
Why is it nobody ever wants to talk about this? Everyone talks receiver,
receivers, receivers....
A good receiver is one that does not crunch in the presence of a strong
station on a neighboring channel.
But if that station is a strong signal using many of today's rigs,
driving an amp, he's not just on the neighboring channel.
He's splattering across your frequency and there are no receiver features
for removing that.
73
Rick, DJ0IP
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ted
Bryant
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 5:12 PM
To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion II has ended production
Amen, Bob.
In addition to the audio issues in current radios, Sherwood has
demonstrated how AGC performance can seriously affect the ability to copy
stations in the presence of noise, especially pulse-type noise. AGC
performance is yet another factor rarely mentioned and certainly not
reflected in "the charts".
A couple more interesting (and often overlooked) points that Sherwood
makes:
1 - receiver requirements are more demanding for cw contesting/DXing
than ssb
2 - a receiver with about 80db dynamic range is entirely adequate for
most contesting/DXing situations
73, Ted W4NZ
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bob
McGraw - K4TAX
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:08 AM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion II has ended production
Rick brings forward a point which is one objection that I find with the
use of the Sherwood Engineering report, i.e. "the charts".
***** Let me make it clear, Rob's test data and tests are very
accurate, very useful and very valid. *****
The fallacy is hams seem to believe solely in the ranking position on the
report and they fail to acknowledge that radios are ranked according to
ONE
FACTOR only. They seem to neglect other factors which I find to equally
or in some cases more important.
To Ricks point, if a radio for example, is rated in the top 10 in the
"chart" and it has poor audio as some do, then does this make it a great
radio? My take, if it has a great receiver performance but has bad audio,
it is a lousy radio. I agree totally with Rob's assessment presented at
Dayton in that a radio must be easy to use and enjoyable to use. Failing
these two points, it is not a "good" radio regardless of the numbers or
the ranking position on the "charts".
I've found that the Sherwood Engineering report can be downloaded to an
EXCEL file where upon one can sort or parse the values based on 1 or 2 or
3 different values or parameters. Still even with this, it does nothing
to reveal the audio performance, TX performance or "use-ability" of a
brand or model. To evaluate a product without having one side by side
with another, the reports including the Sherwood Engineering report, the
product review by ARRL Lab and by RSGB serve as outstanding sources. I
suggest taking these reports and building ones own EXCEL spreadsheet to
attain model by model paper comparison. Yet this still does nothing for
the "usability" factor.
In looking at the current "chart" publication (22 June 2013) , I find
that 7 of the top 10 lines are USA made products. I think that
certainly speaks well of US designed and manufactured products. This
of course is based on ONE FACTOR only. :-)
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion II has ended production
Joe, don't just "take a look", use your ears and "listen" to the K3.
I did, and I compared it to an Eagle, side by side for about a month.
I sold the K3. Crappy audio.
And NO, the firmware update did not fix it. It just improved it.
It's still bad audio.
73
Rick, DJ0IP
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
W2KJ
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:23 AM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion II has ended production
Take a look at the Elecraft K3...it's receiver(s) are at the top of
the charts.
I have a K3 and really enjoy using it...best receiver I have used in
51 years of hamming...oh, and the QSK ain't bad either (grin).
I sold my Orion a while back after being disappointed that Ten Tec
didn't really follow up on firmware updates for many months after
bugs were discovered and reported.
With John Henry back in the company hopefully that won't be the case
anymore.
Interested in what Ten Tec will follow the Orion family with.
73, Joe W2KJ
That's my biggest concern that firmware development will cease...
I hope until Ten-Tec has a replacement for it’s flagship it will
continue to develop firmware releases for the Orion. I also hope
the sub receiver upgrade will continue to be available for a
while...been saving my pennies for that addition to my Orion II.
It’s ashamed really...there is not another product in the market
positioned where the Orion II sits. One has to spend a considerable
amount of money above the cost of the Orion II to purchase a desktop
transceiver (non-PC based) with the feature set the Orion II possesses.
With Icom it’s the 7800 at $13000.00 or with Yaesu it’s the 5000 at
I don’t know how much. (they dropped the 2000) Now Kenwood has the
990 but it’s too new to be fully sorted out and it’s a few K$ more than
the OII....
There are many radios out there...but few with dual receivers and
dual tuning knobs which has become a must have in a DX radio for
me.... Don’t do point and click radio’s either....
Just a personal thing...
Guess that makes the Elecraft K3 the winner....at lease one can
start basic and grow it to the level of the radios mentioned above....
Cecil Acuff
Gulfport MS
K5DL
From: Kim Elmore
Sent: June 29, 2013 4:06 PM
To: Bob Gibson; Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
CC: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion II has ended production
All radios cease production at some point, so this was inevitable.
It doesn't make our radios worthless or perform any worse.
What's not clear is how much additional firmware development there
will be in the future. I hope TenTec doesn't cease all development,
but their resources are limited and we can't expect firmware
development to continue indefinitely. Someday, firmware support will
have to end.
Kim N5OP
"People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long
as the music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith
On Jun 29, 2013, at 15:54, Bob Gibson <w5rg@yahoo.com> wrote:
I wish I had known this two weeks ago when I bought a new one!!
Bob Gibson W5RG
________________________________
From: PC Anderson <xtraham58@hotmail.com>
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion II has ended production
Looks like my comments were blocked.
Andy W3LI
Thanks for the heads up Ron.
Guess I'm shaking my head at why they couldn't "Eaglize" the Orion
RF design and update the controller/display/etc and end up with an
Orion III.
I love the Orion form factor.
73,
Barry N1EU
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Ron Castro <ronc@sonic.net> wrote:
I just got this in the TenTec newsletter:
"On a rather sad note, about the time you read this message, we
will have sold out of the last 566 Orion II transceiver.
Unfortunately, due to the availability of some very critical
parts plus skyrocketing prices for difficult components, the
staff at TEN-TEC decided to discontinue this product. This does
not mean we will not trade or sell used and demo Orion's and Orion
II models.
We will continue service and support this product as we have done
in the past with all TEN-TEC products. Is a new Orion III on the
horizon? There are plans for several new TEN-TEC products lined
up for the future but at this time no concise decision has been
made for another Orion transceiver."
All good things come to an end...
Ron Castro
N6IE
www.N6IE.com
Member:
ARRL
Redwood Empire DX Assn.
Northern California Contest Club
Northern California DX Foundation
_______________________________________________
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
|