[TenTec] Waiting for Transceiver Nirvana

[Ariel M. Elam]

Hi Keith-- 

I could easily copy your post, changing Jupiter to Omni VI+, sign it,
and be right at home on my outlook.

73, Ariel, k4aal

Keith Lodahl wrote:
> 
> Those of us who are content to be somewhat behind the curve are the
> benefactors of the rapid change in "state of the art."  I bought my Jupiter
> from a ham who decided to get an Orion.  He gave me a good price on a good
> rig.  I expect if I ever have an Orion it will be because I got a good price
> from a ham about to step up to the Orion's replacement.  As for the expense
> of the latest and greatest, there has always been a high price for the early
> adoptors of any new technology.  For some the price will be prohibitive, and
> for others it will seem inexpensive.  I tend to be in the former group.  I
> feel I am fiscally conservative.  My kids tell me I am cheap.
> 
> Keith Lodahl
> KB9NUM NNN0ACS NNN0GCE ONE
> President, Rock River Radio Club
> ARRL Official Emergency Station
> ARRL Public Information Officer
> ARRL Volunteer Examiner
> kb9num at charter.net
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of John Rippey
> > Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 7:18 AM
> > To: tentec at contesting.com
> > Subject: [TenTec] Waiting for Transceiver Nirvana
> >
> >
> > While waiting for zero hour of the CQ WW CW contest, these thoughts occur
> > on the recent postings re software-driven base station rigs.
> >
> > 1.  They are (with the odd exception of the IC-746PRO) damnably
> > expensive.
> > If it's not the chips that make them so, then it is the humungous
> > engineering effort needed to make them work well.
> >
> > 2.  If Moore's law still prevails, then any chip chosen for a
> > software-driven radio will be replaced in 18 months by one that
> > is half as
> > costly and that has twice the computing power. Ergo, much more so
> > than with
> > the analog rigs we know and love, rapid obsolescence of the latest and
> > greatest software-driven rig is a given.
> >
> > 3.  Because the ham market is downscale with regard to pricing, we do not
> > see the performance in ham market software-driven transceivers that is
> > available up-market. Compromises in ham gear necessarily are made: in
> > selection of chips, and in their engineering, to meet the ham
> > market price
> > point (ICOM obviously will be testing the upper limits of the ham market
> > with its IC-7800). There are all kinds of compromises in the ICOM
> > PROs, and
> > so also in the ORION, hence the discussions on this and other reflectors.
> >
> > 4. Therefore, while we may like to think we are seeing in the latest rigs
> > the absolute latest and greatest--we aren't, and we won't. After
> > all, we're
> > radio amateurs.
> >
> > 5.  The bad news is that as advances in this genre gradually trickle down
> > to hams, the resulting rigs will be expensive (by ham standards), their
> > performance will be markedly better than their predecessors, and we'll
> > repeatedly have to dig into our pocketbooks to pay for that
> > performance if
> > we just cannot live without the next new thing.
> >
> > In short, chasing after transceiver nirvana is going to be an expensive
> > fling. I may opt out.
> >
> > 73,
> > John, W3ULS
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec