Firmware 1.373b5 filters were done by Smith who came from Kachina.
Filters in 3.32 were done by Gary Barber.
Carl Moreschi N4PY
58 Hogwood Rd
Louisburg, NC 27549
www.n4py.com
On 12/11/2018 10:30 AM, pa5mw@home.nl wrote:
The russian navigation beacons are on 160m active and just appear in the noise
(1813.1)
I just compared my both ORIONs using that exact CW-like signal :
ORION serial ending 4 (inc RX366)Fw V3.32: weak and ringing sound at 100Hz
BW. Better at 200Hz BW where ringing is gone, but still just not as good as the
other ORION.
ORION serial ending 5 (fw 1.373b5): clearly readable and total absence of any
ringing.
I recall upgrading above 2nd ORION to V3.32 a few years ago, and found it was
just not as good in reading weak signals at the smallest BW. So I downgraded
it back to V1.373b5 for just that reason.
A/B comparing it to the other ORION now confirms the earlier found differences.
I had similar performance differences with an OII (fw V3.x) which behaved
exactly like above, which for me now is an indication it is fw related.
73
Mark PA5MW
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec<tentec-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Barry N1EU
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 13:52 PM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment<tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] list opinion(s) on Omni VII and/versus Orion
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
s9++ USA 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
_______________________________________________
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
|