If the sidetone problem is similar to the Orion II sound with various
versions, then there is a correlation to the CW Rise/Fall settings. I found
that a low setting gives a better sounding sidetone, but causes on-air
key-clicks. Setting Rise/Fall higher (more than 8) causes a strange echo
sound in the sidetone. Has anyone else noticed this?
BTW, Carl: I assume you will be modifying your control software to allow
for 9 kHz bandwidth on AM? Also, I recall last night during testing of the
new firmware, when going split and hitting the A=B button, I think either
the BW or mode didn't transfer right. There were also some strange
artifacts that showed up on the sub receiver BW graphic when I did that.
Ron N6IE
www.N6IE.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@arrl.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] V2.060b Release Comments
>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@msn.com>
> To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@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@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@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|