Fw: [TenTec] TT (Orion) Future improvements!!!

[Duane - N9DG]

Comments (many - yet again! ;-)) in-line below:

--- Ron Notarius <wn3vaw at verizon.net> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Maxwell Moon" <maxmoon at earthlink.net>
> To: <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:00 PM
> Subject: [TenTec] TT (Orion) Future improvements!!!
> 
> 
> > Ron,

<snip>

> > 1. The idea of freeing up CPU power by dropping the scope
> and/or the
> sub-RX is interesting. Is that something that could be done
> via a download
> from RFSQUARED? It would be misunderstood in some
> quarters--others might
> wonder about my sanity if I "REDUCE" my rig's
> capabilities--but from what
> I'm reading here, I suspect many owners would give serious
> thought to the
> option of increased performance from 'turning off' the
> band-scope or sub-RX
> or both. If possible.

It would actually be more of a “shifting” of the available
control CPU's horsepower to different tasks. Truth of the
matter is we should be able to have it both ways. Have a
firmware defined menu option for a scope, and another with
out it. After all isn’t his one of the fundamental points of
SDR to begin with? That is to have a highly configurable
radio “your way”?

For what its worth I would not expect any dramatic
improvements in RX signal performance by just removing the
scope from the firmware, most of the great RF performance of
the Orion is clearly established by the pre-DSP/IF *analog*
hardware, firmware can't change that. At most I would expect
that you would see much better QSK and perhaps sharper skirts
and/or narrower DSP filters and perhaps even a greater range
of AGC adjustments.

> > 2. When discussing a color screen & the possibility that
> TT mis-read
> potential customers' desire I think we have to look back to
> the time of the
> Orion's introduction. This list, for example, despite being
> populated by TT
> fans & friends, did some venting over the 'deceptive' or
> 'misleading' price.
> Remember people angrily posting comments like, It's not a
> $3300 rig, it's
> really at least $3600 if you count the filters, or even
> $4000 with the ATU!! That's something I remember.

Most of them simply didn't understand the point and
performance ramifications of narrow roofing filters vs. DSP
IF filters. It didn't matter that the Orion comes standard
with more roofing filters than any of the competition,
including the IC-7800 and FT-9000 group if I’m not mistaken. 

> > 3. The Orion price-feature-market niche discussion has
> come up a good
> number of times. Would TT have been wiser to offer the
> Orion at $2999 but
> without a bandscope? Or $4999 with color scope and packed
> with filters?
> Interestingly, Yaesu is offering us a real-life experiment
> or laboratory.
> With their forthcoming and somewhat modular 9000's
> available in 3
> configurations, including no scope, lower power, etc., and
> color scope, more
> power, etc., we will be able to infer some answers to these
> otherwise purely speculative chats about the Orion.

Or better yet how about:

1. The Orion without a bandscope at $2999?

2. And $4999 with color scope and packed with filters?

3. And yet one more at $2100 with no front panel at all and
uses extensive PC integration? That's roughly the equivalent
of the price ratio between the Pegasus/Jupiter at $900/$1269
respectively being applied to the scope-less Orion option 2.

With option 3 then put the band scope on a PC where it really
belongs and where you can truly make good use of it. After
all many hams who don't like band scopes on their radios
don't often use PC control exclusively either. At least from
what I can tell.

Most of the analog RF and ADC/DSP parts can all be
essentially identical to each other implement this, just
would just need to have different control CPU’s (and/or PC
interfacing levels) for the 3 specific model. 

For what it’s worth Yaesu has been doing the "parts bin"
radio design approach for years. The entire FT-8x7's series
being a recent example of this, they share a lot in common.
To their credit it is a basically good idea, they just need
to apply some more imagination to what they do come up with,
something beyond the cubic foot space differentiation
exercises that they engage in.

> > PS--I'm not in ANY way endorsing the Yaesu, or for that
> matter any IcKY
> rig, just saying that their marketing strategy offers us an
> object lesson.
> Or, if you prefer, a sort of Monday-morning-quarterback's
> tool for assessing our friends in mgmt at TT.

The IKY's have always used more of a "mass consumer" product
design and marketing philosophy where things like compactness
and trinketry, (but not always useful bell's and whistles)
are supreme. This unfortunately has lead to an overall RF
performance mediocrity for most of those radios from them in
the $750-2000 market space for years now. Ten Tec has
generally avoided that in the past. With the current model
lineup arguably being the most mass-market targeted radios
from them in years. Some of that shift in philosophy at Ten
Tec is what drives the endless string of features vs.
performance design debates that appear here so frequently.
However with the *proper* digital hardware design
architecture they don’t need to be as mutually exclusive as
many here on this reflector might think.

Duane
N9DG



	
		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail