[TenTec] RF Speech Processor

Sat Jun 15 20:04:22 EDT 2013

Oh I agree on non-popular government mandated issues.  In general they
are never viewed as popular.   However until some authoritative branch
steps in, there is no incentive for any forward action.

Majority of hams are cheap and will buy the cheapest radio available,
then complain about the performance and lam blast the company for
producing such a product saying "hey I spent $1000 for a radio and it
doesn't have this or it doesn't do that".

None of the organizations mentioned has any regulatory authority.  I
agree in many cases a "boycott" demanding better performance might work,
but there will always be "scabs" that endeavor to break the back of those
working for betterment of the masses.

To that end, just as the FCC mandated with digital TV broadcasting in the
US, "on a certain date all analog transmissions must cease".  Although
there were some and still are some issues with the digital technology
both on the transmission and reception end, mostly within a few months
things quieted and are running mostly smooth.  As a result we have much
better TV picture and sound today.  I didn't like spending $2300 for a
new HD TV at the time but today I'm glad I did.  {As as side note, if
you've not seen HD TV off of the air but only experienced cable or
satellite service, then you've not seen good HD TV.}

I view once a significant number of new low IMD radios are on the bands
we would begin to notice in improvement in conditions.  Of course until
many of the old ones are retired, we wouldn't benefit from the total
advance of technology.

73
Bob, K4TAX

> Bob, I loved every inch of your post until you said the government should
> (must) change the rules to require improvements.
> What if ARRL, DARC, RSGB, JARL, etc. all began flogging the OEMs for not
> delivering state of the art cleanliness of signal..Let's just stop buying
> their radios, and send them a letter instead.  "I won't buy your radio
> until
> you fix xyz.   XYL is the most pressing antenna.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert
> Mcgraw
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:05 AM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor
>
> I fully agree, specially on the topic of transmitter performance.  Fact:
> we don't need radios that operate on 12 volts.  Most of today's radios
> are
> physically too large to be included in our auto's of today.  There are
> specific needs for mobile applications and there are solutions for these
> as
> well.
>
> This says, just like the audio companies realized 30 years or so ago, the
> low voltage output stage just won't deliver the CLEAN goods.  Even
> today's
> automotive radios have DC to DC converters incorporated thus
> allowing the output stage to operate at 30 to 50 volts.   Why can't ham
> radios employee this methodology for their PA stages?  Why can't we have
> internal power supplies that automatically select the proper mains
> voltage?
> We can.  Why can't we have radios with 100 watt PA's that have IMD values
> in
> the -45 to -55 dB range.  We can, the technology is there and at little
> to
> no more cost than we are paying today.
>
> You may say all of this costs more money and will make the radio more
> expensive.  Well yes, but take the radio you have and add the cost of the
> power supply on your desk and you have a better performance, self
> contained
> transceiver for about the same amount of money.
>
> Today we demand better and better receivers.  Why?  Because we have
> poorer
> and poorer signals being emitted on the bands from 40 year old
> technology.   The requirements for better receiver performance is largely
> due to splatter and IMD products.
>
> Yes, Rob Sherwood's presentation is very informative.  I say to the
> manufacturers,  "you build a better mouse trap and the public will buy
> it".
>
> I for one would love to see a 100 watt transceiver with built in power
> supply that produces IMD figures in the -45 dB to -55 dB range.  In order
> for this to happen, regulations will need to be changed to effect
> technology, much as the switch to digital TV and those would say "any
> radio
> manufactured and sold after a certain date must meet these new
> specifications".
>
> I hate government intervention on any front but this seems as the only
> effective direction to the objective.
>
>
> 73
> Bob, K4TAX
>
>
>
>
>
>> Well we can't blame it all on the hams, though they are indeed a big
>> piece of the problem.
>> Our radios have slowly but surely gotten worse over the years and they
>> too are part of the problem.
>> Most radios today, including all TEN-TEC radios have just marginal
>> transmitters.
>>
>> If you don't understand why, if you don't buy into this, then you have
>> not yet listened to Rob Sherwood's latest presentation (45 minutes)
>> where he explains a lot of this , and 'YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM'.
>>
>> Just so you don't have to ask the question, here is a link to Rob's
>> presentation (again):
>> See:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOf2OOGeGi8&feature=player_embedded
>>
>> 73
>> Rick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Reed
>> Krenn
>> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 2:36 PM
>> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor
>>
>> That man has a *stranglehold* on reality!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Reed WW3A
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX
>> <RMcGraw at blomand.net>wrote:
>>
>>> I recall a comment made to me recently by a very highlyl respected
>>> audio and recording engineer.  "In the 70's we had talent.  Today we
>>> seem
>> to have
>>> only technology".   Perhaps that better explains what we hear on the
>>> bands
>>> today.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Bob, K4TAX
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Rippey" <w3uls73 at gmail.com>
>>> To: <tentec at contesting.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:14 AM
>>> Subject: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Dave Hammond! I am so glad to see a posting by you on this thread!
>>> Long
>>>> time no see. I always have read with interest what you have had to
>>>> say.
>>>>
>>>> I will consider carefully what you, Bob and Gary have said. My sense
>>>> is there is a lot that can be done (without splatter) to make 100
>>>> watts work more effectively. NA1A 's video I mentioned is not
>>>> conclusive but it does support the idea.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>>
>>>> John, W3ULS
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> TenTec mailing list
>>>> TenTec at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/tentec<http://lists.c
>>>> o ntesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> TenTec mailing list
>>> TenTec at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/tentec<http://lists.co
>>> n
>>> testing.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Disclosure:
> I am a Tentec Ambassador and compensated according to the Tentec
> Ambassador
> plan. I serve as a volunteer beta test person for the Omni
> VII, Eagle and Argonaut VI products.   Otherwise, I hold no business or
> employment interest with Tentec.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Disclosure:
I am a Tentec Ambassador and compensated according to the Tentec
Ambassador plan. I serve as a volunteer beta test person for the Omni
VII, Eagle and Argonaut VI products.   Otherwise, I hold no business or
employment interest with Tentec.