Interesting comments. It always seems that there is nothing new that is totally perfect compared to existing equipment due to the tradeoffs that often occur. The SDR-1000 does look really interesting as a general purpose receiver that has some excellent IMD numbers and may be used (with the right programming) for reception of DRM, etc. My long term plan is to purchase the rig, although I never buy too early on the "bleeding edge."
The latency issue is a drawback that does not seem to be solved at this time. It is not going to compare with rigs that have superior QSK (e.g., Ten Tec). But most of us do not really find QSK all that compelling. Incidentally, even Ten Tec has had difficulty with QSK quality with their Orion series rigs which are heavily SDR designed. Is it fair to say that the carrier suppression is going to be lower than conventional rigs due to the DC (Direct Conversion) design? I might mention, that some time back, during an ARRL product review (can't remember the rig), the comment was made that, if anything, the DSP rigs tended to have unusual Dynamic Range characteristics that may perform better in actual use than in just looking at the test numbers. I am not sure if I accept that fully, but it makes one wonder. Although the ICOM IC-7000 has some of the worst IMD DR of any recent rigs, many users really like the rig and find it performs fairly well. Because the SDR is truly open source software, it is exciting that this will not be a closed proprietary design that we have seen from pretty much everyone else. And that includes the potential of digital mode operation. While there is nothing yet that is so compelling you just have to have one, that may eventually come about depending upon your interests. The one thing that I really like about this kind of community supported design is that it does not become rapidly obsolete in terms of upgrades and improvements. I purchased a Ten Tec Pegasus around 2000 or so and in only a couple of years, Ten Tec abandoned any further updates to the rigs software, including the mediocre interface. While you could buy several third party programs, the cost made it ridiculous and contrary to the promotions of how this rig would be able to be updated for a long time. So having learned my lesson, I am very cautious about future claims by any manufacturer. It has to be something that it has operating now and is relatively bug free. We saw this with other digital products in the past, such as the ultra expensive AEA DSP 2232 interface. Lots of promises, but it never really delivered for the kind of money being asked. Partially, because they could never cross license other digital modes, but they also did not try and develop their own either. 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: >I'll try to keep this short. > >First, the review I quoted was the first one the ARRL, I went back and >read the second one. Some comments: > >I agree the numbers that came out of the test are impressive. Very >impressive. Your SDR-1000 receiver is better than the Icom 7800. >Good luck, with a receiver like this you should be making millions of >dollars selling it in the commercial market. > >Now a little of my engineering scepticism. The numbers are sooo good >for some of the things like the third order intercept SDR-1000 +15 dB >vs Icom 7800 of +0.5 dB that I have to wonder if the measurement >techniques are applicable between the two totally different types of >radios. It wouldn't be the first time I have seen this. The Icom is >a commercially accepted high performance receiver. Now yours may be >vastly superior to the 7800, but please forgive my scepticism. Again, >if it is, you are in line to make a fortune! > >I understand your promotion of your products. But again, if I >understand what your promoting, forgive me if I have doubts that an >$85,000 system is comparable to what you say may cost less than $300. > In my soon to be 56 years on this earth, I have learned that you get >what you pay for and seldom, if ever, get a deal like this. If you >can offer one at that price, again, congratulation, you are going to >be the next Bill Gates! > >You might also be up front and tell the folks on an HF Digital forum, >that as of the last ARRL review the turn around times of your system >makes it usable for ARQ modes at the least. Like 170 ms versus 24 ms >for the Icom ProIII. Likewise that the group delay of the software >filters requires reducing the number of taps from around 2000 to 200+, >thereby reducing their effectivness for digital communications. You >might mentionthe ARRL tests showed the SSB carrier suppression and >opposite SSB suppression on TX is only 53 dB vs the ProIII's at >70 >dB. Again, over my lifetime, I have learned that not everything comes >up roses. Products require compromises and you need to be up front >with the pimples. > >Lastly, you said "...it is frustrating to me personally that what is >happening right under amateur radio's nose is so badly misunderstood >and insufficiently appreciate. I believe as strongly as I believe I >am typing this note that most of you have purchased your last >conventional HF transceiver because of this work. What vehicle should >I use to scream these roof tops so educated interested people like Jim >can understand how much things are changing?" > >I do understand how things are changing, but I also understand how >they are not changing. A little background. I am a BSEE, and when I >started work at Southwestern Bell Tele. (now AT&T) I was like you and >couldn't believe how backward folks were. How computers should be >changing the world RIGHT NOW. However, I learned there were budgets, >for hardware, software, and most importantly, hiring and training >people. These budgets were limited and controlled how fast things >changed. > >Now some marketing/product advice. Ham radio isn't much different >from what I learned in business. Most hams are doctors, lawyers, >truck drivers, farmers, etc. They are not computer hardware/software >engineers and want these things to work out of the box with simple >cables to hook up. They want the red connectors on the cable to hook >up to the red connectors on the computer/external box. Same wiht the >blue and green ones. Drivers to worry about, forget it! To upgrade >software, hit a button and the process is automated - entirely, start >to finish. > >The biggest impediment you have is ergonomics. I suspect a lot of >hams are like me. I want to take my Icom 745 to the RV, hook it up 12 >volts and the antenna and use it. Very little space and a simple >handle to carry it with. Remember this is a hobby, I am lucky I have >two radios, a lot of folks don't nor can they afford it. That means >your radio would be the only one they have. How portable is it? Not >very! > >You want to multiply sales. Integrate it all, screen included. Make >it absolutely as small as possible, i.e. portable with a handle. Make >it run entirely off of 12 volts. Forget hard drives, find as small as >OS as possible and use a flash drive that can be exchanged for >upgrades. Make every file read only. Let the experimenters/devlopers >that know how use a regular computer and make the files writable. > >You have a decent product but so was the Edsel, betamax vcr, etc. You >have to find out how to make people want it, not bemoan the fact that >you built it but they won't come! > >Jim >WA0LYK > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
