Hi Martin,
Maybe it is different at fw 1.373b5 ??
Anyway; I can dig out weak signals on 160m best at 100Hz BW.
At 100Hz I can slowly tune the whole band without feeling restricted by any
artifacts or ringing/hollow/distorted sound or anything.
Heck, I sometimes forget the next day that BW is still at 100Hz when tuning the
band.
73
Mark PA5MW
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec <tentec-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Martin Sole
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 9:11 AM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] list opinion(s) on Omni VII and/versus Orion
Hi,
I just used Spectrogram 14 fed with line audio to the pC sound card.
I get the same shape you do at 300Hz and at 100Hz similar. In SSB at 2700Hz
bandwidth its a different story, very steep skirts and tiring audio after 3-4
hours. Reducing the taps to give a smoother roll off, and notwitstanding other
issues, seems to help a lot. I found around 100 is about ideal shape wise. I
mistakenly put 32 in the last email which is as low as it goes and is too low
for sure. I still hear ringing at 100Hz with 199 taps on weak cw. Once about
about s4-5 the ringing is much less noticeable.
Martin, HS0ZED
On 11/12/2018 14:12, pa5mw@home.nl wrote:
> 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-md
>>>> s
>>>> .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
_______________________________________________
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
|