[TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments

Wed Apr 25 13:26:53 EDT 2007

I agree that the click at the end of the CW note is much more on 2.060b than
it was on 2.059d.  But 2,059d had not QSK at all.  With 2.060b, you can at
least get pretty good QSK.  And if the click bothers you, turn the CW delay
to 3%.  You lose high speed QSK but that makes it clickless.  I just
wouldn't call these things sidetone problems.  The sidetone is clean, it's
just the smuck at the end of a keyed element that is bothersome.

Carl Moreschi N4PY
121 Little Bell Drive
Bell Mountain
Hays, NC 28635
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dick Green" <wc1m at msn.com>
To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments

> I believe if you go back and forth between 2.059d and 2.060b, and listen
> very carefully, you will find that Bob is correct about the tail-end click
> in the sidetone. Try it with different sidetone levels. It really stands
out
> with low or no sidetone volume. It's certainly not the worst I've heard in
> the various firmware releases, but it's there. I don't hear anything
> resembling the harmonics Bob describes.
>
> I have to say that 2.059d is rather remarkable for the almost complete
lack
> of noise on QSK switching. Smooth as butter. However, it may be that this
> comes at the price of very poor QSK performance -- i.e., the complete lack
> of ability to hear between elements or characters in 2.059d. I'm wondering
> whether smoothing out the switching noise resulted in too long a delay in
> switching back to full receive. We may be looking at a tradeoff here.
>
> I agree that QSK performance in 2.060b is improved. I won't know if the
> switching clicks are bearable until I've listened to 40+ hours of CQing in
a
> contest. I do know that I missed decent QSK the last time I did a major
> contest with 2.059d. If Ten-Tec can remove the click without affecting QSK
> performance, I'd certainly encourage them to do so.
>
> One other point regarding QSK noise. I was known on the beta test
reflector
> as being very sensitive to QSK switching noise, especially a loud click in
> the left headphone and somewhat softer matching click in the right
> headphone. This was known as the "WC1M Lament", and is present in all
> versions of the firmware, though the intensity tends to vary. It turns out
> this noise is caused by a hardware problem: the main T/R traces on the
> CPU/Logic board run directly beneath the audio op amps used for headphone
> audio. Jack Burchfield set me up with a technician at the factory to
explore
> a fix, and I was able to implement a mod that completely eliminated the
WC1M
> Lament. However, it is not a mod for the faint-hearted. It involves
> soldering/desoldering tiny SMD components, cutting traces and soldering
> jumper wires. But it works. I would hope Ten-Tec makes this available as a
> factory mod. If Bob's Orion has the WC1M Lament, then it doesn't surprise
me
> that he finds the louder QSK click in 2.060b annoying. Noise produced by
the
> hardware tends to interact with noise created by the firmware.
>
> I haven't had time to explore other aspects of 2.060b. On the surface, it
> seems very good. The QSK performance is better, and I agree that the
> receiver may be a tad quieter than in 2.059d. I like the SPLIT and Band
> register indicators, though I would rather have seen some work put into a
> one-button "quick split" feature (good designs have been suggested.)
>
> I should also report one other item. For quite some time I was a devotee
of
> version 1.373b5, and felt that despite numerous shortcomings it was
superior
> to any of the version 2 releases. I had used 1.373b5 in every major
contest
> in which I participated since it was released, including a winning effort
in
> the 2006 CQ WPX CW effort from KT1V. But when this year's ARRL DX CW
contest
> rolled around, I happened to have 2.059d installed and began the contest
> with it. That version was certainly the best of the version 2 releases,
but
> had some well-known DSP artifacts in the presence of strong signals (or
> maybe just loud volume.) These were even worse in QSK operation. Also,
> 2.059d's QSK performance was abysmal -- no better than VOX operation.
>
> During the Saturday morning runs, when signals from Europe on 20m were
quite
> loud and the band was very crowded, I decided that the DSP noise and lousy
> QSK performance were unacceptable and decided to download 1.373b5. I was
> shocked at how awful 1.373b5 sounded compared with 2.059d! There was
> considerably more receiver noise and the QSK switching noise was downright
> deafening, despite having fixed the WC1M Lament hardware problem. Also,
the
> screen contrast was quite inferior in 1.373b5, something I had never
noticed
> before. It was much harder to work with 1.373b5 than I could ever have
> imagined (yes, I did a battery reset and master reset.) Within a few
minutes
> I went back to 2.059d. This was a completely boneheaded thing to do during
> the peak hours of a contest and probably pushed me down at least one place
> in the standings. But I learned that comparing versions under contest
battle
> conditions can yield significantly different results than comparing
versions
> under normal band conditions.
>
> YMMV, but that's my story.
>
> I should also point out that for casual operation and chasing DX, I almost
> always turn on my FT-1000D first. The user interface is much more
intuitive,
> and getting in/out of split is really easy. It takes too much thinking
with
> the Orion. However, when the DX is really weak, I switch over to the
Orion.
> The 1000D is no slouch, especially on the low bands, but in almost every
> case, the Orion can pull signals out that the 1000D cannot. I always use
the
> Orion for running on crowded bands in big contests because the IMD
immunity,
> selectivity and sensitivity are superior to the 1000D, even though I have
> the INRAD roofing filter mod installed in the latter. The bottom line is
> that, despite numerous firmware flaws, the Orion is still the best contest
> radio I've used.
>
> I'm delighted that Ten-Tec is still improving the Orion firmware. There's
> still lots of room for improvement, but it appears that 2.060b is a step
in
> the right direction.
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Henderson [mailto:bob at 5b4agn.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:16 AM
> > To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
> >
> > Impementation of band-stacking ID is a big plus.  Many thanks Ten Tec
> >
> > The benefit of adding the SPLIT designator is completely lost on me.
> > Split
> > already being indicated by both VFO A/B switch lights and also TRS
> > designators above and below main frequency LSDigits.
> >
> > QSK speed improvement is much appreciated but the previously acceptable
> > CW
> > sidetone is now AWFUL.  High harmonic content with a loud tail-end
> > click.  I
> > do hope Ten Tec implement a fix for this quickly !
> >
> > If the sidetone wasn't screwed this would be a very worthwhile release
> > from
> > my POV.
> >
> > Bob, 5B4AGN
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec