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

Sun Feb 13 23:42:37 EST 2005

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Duane - N9DG" <n9dg at yahoo.com>
To: <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 04:22
Subject: Re: Fw: [TenTec] TT (Orion) Future improvements!!!

> 
> 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

Why would you expect that ?  

 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
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 