Just to be clear on this; the ORION does not require lowering the filter taps
setting at all.
First its basic filtershape at 199 is already perfectly analog-like round
shaped (see my previous weblinks for measurement pictures) and
secondly it would only widen the filterwidth and especially its skirts.
73
Mark PA5MW
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec <tentec-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Martin Sole
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 3:10 AM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] list opinion(s) on Omni VII and/versus Orion
I still have an Orion and I still like it a lot, even though it's not without
its faults and could have used more development.
With regard to the filter taps it is unfortunate that when set to anything
other than the maximum length of 199 there is a problem as you vary the
bandwidth strange things can happen.
I like the taps set low, the shape at 32 suits me very well. I usually use a
wide roofing filter, 6kHz typically, that helps the noise blanker a bit though
it's hardly much use. There is very little need for narrow roofers here anyway,
the IF filtering is fine by itself.
Adjusting the IF bandwidth with the taps set at anything other than 199 it is
quite possible to get a deep notch right in the centre of the passband, one
step on the tap setting either way corrects it so I am guessing something is
not being dealt with properly in the bandwidth setting routine. This is
3.032x7b.
I will go back to trying 1.375b to see if I can live with that but I suspect
the loss of the APF will limit my happiness with that version.
All in all I think the Orion is an almost ideal radio in many respects.
Martin, HS0ZED
On 11/12/2018 03:08, Kim Elmore wrote:
> You noted some very interesting filter characteristics regarding the Orion
> transceivers, Mark. One thing you mention is that the DSP filters may have
> skirts that are too steep, leading to other artifacts. Have you tried
> reducing the number of “taps” used for the DSP? That will certainly change
> the characteristics of the filter.
>
> 73 & MX,
>
> Kim N5OP
>
> "People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long
> as the music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith
>
>> On Dec 10, 2018, at 13:37, <pa5mw@home.nl> <pa5mw@home.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Tnx,
>>
>> Still own 3 TT ORIONs here:
>>
>> - Old 2002 version, recently acquired(swapped for my OII), heavily
>> used (has at least different PCB circuit tracks around the DC power
>> input) using fw 1.375b
>>
>> - New bought 2004 version; this is my favorite one using fw 1.375b
>> (yes tried V2x and higher)
>>
>> - Occasion bought recently, RX366 included, new blue LCD. (fw 3.x) great
>> diversity with on the fly adjustable phase locking. Have not been able to
>> try in contesting yet due to no TX antenna(s) at home QTH. Cannot comment on
>> RX performance compared to anything yet.
>>
>>
>> To anyone considering buying an ORION:
>>
>> - verify that A9 (Power Distribution) board was upgraded on ALL el.
>> Caps to higher voltage/temp and low ESR types
>> - verify that memory battery was exchanged
>> - verify or do the simple LCD backlight upgrade (LCD Saturation fix;
>> adding series resistor only) this enhances the clarity bigtime and
>> extends lifetime
>> - verify or rework the DC input socket to something better (old 2002
>> version can be upgraded to Powerpole, 2004 can not)
>> - add the (optional) heatsink fan if you operate contests in a very
>> warm environment
>>
>> Check http://tentecwiki.eqth.net/doku.php?id=565 for more info
>>
>>
>> I see no reason to upgrade to any other transceiver without giving something
>> and/or loose the fun of operating the ORION.
>>
>> 73
>> Mark, PA5MW (not MM, that was a typo)
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TenTec <tentec-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Barry N1EU
>> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 14:14 PM
>> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] list opinion(s) on Omni VII and/versus Orion
>>
>> Great comments Mark!
>>
>> For many years I was very active on 160M cw and I found that the
>> Orion, Orion II and RX366 receivers differed somewhat in their
>> ability to handle
>> s9++ signals, which were encountered regularly in the northeast USA
>> s9++ on 160M
>> cw due to several very powerful stations in this region. I found the Orion
>> main rx to be the only one that seemed totally capable of handling the very
>> strongest signals. The Orion II seemed to introduce slight audible
>> distortion on the very strong signals. I tried several Orion II's and even
>> went so far as to re-align the Orion II front end per factory specs, which
>> made no difference. The RX366 seemed to introduce a strange audible
>> clicking (hard to describe) when there were many strong signals on the band
>> in a contest. Again, I tried multiple RX366's and they all had this issue.
>> Finally the stock subreceiver was by far the worst offender and would
>> produce phantom spurious signals spaced 2-3KHz away from the strong
>> fundamental signal. Several users reported this and this was a well known
>> issue.
>>
>> I have no theory for why the Orion differed from the Orion II - I assumed
>> the circuits were identical, but there must be some difference.
>>
>> All this is from memory, I no longer own the radios. YMMV
>>
>> 73, Barry N1EU
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:43 AM Mark <pa5mw@home.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Orion (565) was never ever tested with the optional INRAD 600Hz
>>> filter (designed by W4ZV) .
>>> This 4-pole crystal is the perfect roofing filter with minimal Group
>>> Delay. 6 or 8-pole filtering, used by the competition, can be good
>>> for dynamic range specs, but a bad choice on 160m trying to dig out
>>> that weak signal in the mud.
>>> Together with the, at the time, exceptional close-by low phase noise
>>> its receiver still is top-notch.
>>>
>>>
>>> The 2nd receiver is not contest-grade in specs but that is a
>>> challenge for the real operator using correct ATT +RF-Gain to
>>> maximise the use of its dynamic range.
>>> I have never found the theoretical limitation a problem. Not at our
>>> contest station PI4TUE, nor at home.
>>> For purists, there is the optional INRAD 45Mhz 4Khz roofing filter.
>>> that will bring another xx dB's dynamic range.
>>>
>>> For those lucky ones there is the TenTec optional RX366 2nd
>>> receiver, which should have even better specs than the ORION's main RX.
>>> It is phase locked (can be adjusted on the fly) to the main
>>> receiver, making it on par with todays competition.
>>>
>>>
>>> The internal sweep panaoramic screenfunction is total useless.
>>> Today's IC7851/TS890/IC7610 are the best, but still cannot show weak
>>> signals.
>>> Any separate SDR, connected or master-slaved(via microham keyer II)
>>> is a much better solution for the serious contester/DX'er.
>>>
>>> Last but certainly not least, making a QSO is about
>>> correctlydecoding the message from the other station.
>>> Rob Sherwood mentions this audio reproduction quality.
>>> This is a much underrated topic at reviewing receivers; can you hear
>>> the weak signal?
>>> it is not only about basic distortion at the IF &AF stages.
>>>
>>> Filtering in digital domain (like all do today) is hyped for
>>> "Brickwall filter response for better selectivity".
>>> People are misguided by these rectangular shaped filtercurves.
>>> In fact, these curves create massiveGroup delay distortion.
>>> That is why <200 Hz filterwidth most top-notch transceivers sound hollow.
>>> You cannot read a weak signal anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>> During my own listening tests I compared typical Icom vs Elecraft vs
>>> the ORION RX performance and found an 8dB difference between
>>> worse(Icom) and the best (K2) See my measurement results at:
>>> http://pa5mw.blogspot.com/2009/12/upgrade-current-vhf-station-iv-mds
>>> .h
>>> tml
>>>
>>> I found that the more round shaped digital filter curves (analog
>>> shape) performed much better than the sharp edged Icom/K3.
>>> At the TT ORION one can scout the band at BW=100Hz and not noting it
>>> is set such small. The reproduced audio is totally free from ringing.
>>> It is even better than the ORION II which according my measurements,
>>> seems slightly different tuned; 150Hz BW is the mininmal BW to use
>>> effectively at weak signal reading on Topband.
>>>
>>> For the Icoms there is a powerfull solution; switch to 600Hz and use
>>> both IF-shifts to dial total BW back to 50 or 100Hz. This makes all
>>> the difference on especially 50MHz waek signal performance for
>>> IC756-range/7400/7600
>>> See also Adam Farson's ICOM pages.
>>>
>>> I have not tested any rigs after 2009, but measured the TS590 IF
>>> shape after I noticed it performs very good. Its filter curve
>>> shape(rounded
>>> edges) show a well found optimum in terms of selectivity vs audio
>>> reproduction quality.
>>>
>>> I am sure the latest generation perform much better at all manufucturers.
>>>
>>> Cannot understand why Elecraft did not act here; I have had numerous
>>> A/B comparisons where the ORION, K2 and even a Drake R-4C can
>>> reproduce clear audio when the K3 showed ringing zilt.
>>> Same result can be heard at:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIWSMHkSAXg
>>>
>>> Anyone can do this weak signal comparison at home using an old
>>> analog receiver.
>>>
>>>
>>> YMMMV
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Mark PA5MM
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 05/12/2018 17:47, Byron Cordes via TenTec wrote:
>>>> Nothing wrong with the stock second rx for general rx in the Orion
>>>> but
>>> do you really want one in your contest quality Ham Radio ? I think
>>> Henry was trying to say you can’t cover all the frequency with one
>>> radio and not to expect a lack of performance somewhere. For the
>>> time it was made it was first rate and now it’s a fine radio compared to
>>> any.
>>>> Byron AC9PA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 5, 2018, at 1:25 AM, Rick@dj0ip.de wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost all of Rob Sherwood's test reviews are posted on my web
>>>>> site,
>>> here:
>>>>> http://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/sherwood-xcvr-tests/
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the OM7 and O2, but I don't have a test of the O1.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>> Rick, DJ0IP
>>>>> (Nr. Frankfurt, Germany)
>>>>> May the Sunspots be with us!
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: TenTec <tentec-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Rodney
>>>>> Sent: 05 December 2018 04:55
>>>>> To: w2iy@verizon.net; Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
>>>>> <tentec@contesting.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] list opinion(s) on Omni VII and/versus Orion
>>>>>
>>>>> I have had both check Sherwood testing, Orion test is better has 2
>>> reciever
>>>>> -----Original Message----.-
>>>>> From: Michael Tortorella
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 10:34 PM
>>>>> To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'
>>>>> Subject: [TenTec] list opinion(s) on Omni VII and/versus Orion
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks, may we have a brief discussion of the relative merits of
>>>>> the
>>> Omni VII
>>>>> and the Orion? Am thinking of one or the other and would like
>>>>> some
>>> input.
>>>>> Thanks and 73, Mike W2IY
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> TenTec mailing list
>>>>> TenTec@contesting.com
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>>> https://www.avg.com
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|