To: | "Petr Ourednik" <indians@xsmail.com>, <Topband@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m |
From: | "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com> |
Date: | Sun, 1 Jul 2007 09:29:12 -0700 |
List-post: | <mailto:topband@contesting.com> |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Petr Ourednik" <indians@xsmail.com> I was very surprised with the ARRL Lab tests which showing the close-in Ip3 (5kHz) +10/+6.5dBm (preamp off/on) only. Well somebody (like TT sales) saying "its great results far ahead from most of radios in the same price category"...but let me see my current Elecraft K2 (simple design) has Ip3 (5kHz) +21/+8.5dBm (preamp off/on) and the radio cost $600 instead of $3.5k for Omni VII. IP3 doesn't neccesarily tell the whole story, Peter. You can make any receiver have arbitrarily high IP3 by putting attenuation in the front-end of the receiver. The more important metric is the closed spaced (2KHz ) two-tone 3rd order IMD dynamic range and the blocking dynamic range. The Omni-7 looks to have good numbers in these two categories (good enough to put it into the top-ten box in Sherwood's list which is sorted by 2KHz dynamic range), but admittedly the 3IMD DR numbers are no better than the Elecraft K2 at 2KHz and slightly worse at 5 and 20 KHz. Also, if you look at the way ARRL measures 3IP, they can, depending on results use two different methods to calculate 3IP (see page 51 - 54 of the ARRL Test Procedures Manual http://www.arrl.org/members-only/prodrev/testproc.pdf). As indicated by the procedure, the two methods don't always agree. In fact, if you use the MDS method, the numbers you get for both the K2 and the Omni 7 differ significantly from the published numbers indicating that they use the "S5" method (the fact that they use the "S5" method to determine IP3 is stated explicitly in the Omni 7 review in July QST). The fact that they are using an s-meter reading as a benchmark level for 3IP is troublesome. This almost guarantees that the level at which 3IP is measured will be different for every rig. Based on the numbers (I haven't used either rig), I would say that the compromise in performance in going from the K2 to an Omni 7 would be very small making it a worthwhile trade if you really wanted the remote control capability of the Omni 7. Dynamic range numbers aren't everything, however, so if it were me, I would probably wait until the Omni 7 was out in the field for a while before I bought one. As far as the "Distributed Roofing Filter Architecture" goes, I think this is just a catch phrase dreamed up by Ten-Tec to put a positive spin on the fact that the Omni 7 uses the standard KenYaesuCom triple conversion architecture with a very wide 1st IF filter roofing filter (they are probably trying to distance themselves from the historical negative connotations of this standard architecture). That's not to say that this standard architecture is bad. If the intercept point of 2nd mixer is high enough, you can still get good performance with a wide 70 MHz 1st IF. I think what Ten-Tec has done with the Omni 7 is to try to do a very good job implementing an old architecture. Based on the numbers, it looks like they may have pulled it off. 73, Mike W4EF................................................ _______________________________________________ Topband mailing list Topband@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Next by Date: | Re: Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m, Tom Rauch |
---|---|
Next by Thread: | Re: Topband: Omni VII performance on 160m, Tom Rauch |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |