I believe you're going to find the filter shapes about the same across the
firmware revisions. That was one thing that I don't think got touched as
the Orion evolved. fwiw, I was a beta tester from the beginning till the
end.
Barry N1EU
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:40 AM <pa5mw@home.nl> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|