Grant, as usual, we largely agree on this.
My notion is that the ORION should not be promoted as a software-defined
radio with all that implies without providing some indication of its
software-defined capabilities as opposed to those which are embedded in the
hardware.
When a product is advertised and promoted as "software-defined" that raises
expectations, especially among those with comparatively little experience
with the more esoteric radios.
The Icom PRO2 contains more control computers (at least six, each with it
own dedicated function set and firmware) and software than the ORION yet
Icom never presents it as a software-defined radio. Both radios *are*
substantially software-defined within their DSP processing sections, but
everything else depends upon dedicated hardware. Icom operators are of the
mindset that what they radio can do is what it can do and nothing will be
changed unless a new model is brought out. There are good and bad sides to
this situation, but rarely does the Icom owner complain and expect Icom to
provide a new capability to an existing radio. Thus, no expectations for the
future are raised for a particular model.
True, a balance has to be struck between what is reasonable and feasible to
allow the user to select and set up and what is cast in silicon as it were.
But, over-promotion does raise expectations and that in turn causes
confusion and disappointment when things are not as one would reasonably
expect them to be.
As to "appliance" - yes, the majority of users today could be termed
"appliance operators." I mean that with no disrespect, since not every ham
should be expected to have an engineering level of understanding of his
equipment. But, the nature of an appliance is that it has certain specified
features and capabilities. And in the layman's experience, most appliances
have relatively fixed capabilities with only a few operator inputs required.
When, instead, the "appliance" is marketed with the implied promise that
virtually any feature or capability can be provided by a firmware upgrade,
then the confusion mounts and disappointment results.
I have been exploring the nearest thing to a true software-defined radio
with the SDR-1000 developed by FlexRadio. The system was written up in four
installments in QEX and may be reviewed in QST shortly. In my mind, it is a
work in progress and not a finished operational radio, but 99% of what it
does and how it does it is specified and controlled by software.
The other 1% is almost transparent hardware required to get from r-f to
audio for subsequent soundcard digitization and computer processing and back
to r-f for transmitting. An exciting little radio and a giant concept for
simplicity and very high performance. Details at www.flex-radio.com if you
are interested.
Finally, "the support mess" is inevitable, I think, once a radio is given as
much configurability as the ORION or the PRO2. Novice users can quickly get
into trouble with inappropriate selections of operating parameters, etc.
This trend is likely to grow, I would expect, as our radios become even more
configurable with even more software control.
Thanks for the note, Grant - good to hear from you.
73/72, George
Amateur Radio W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13QE
"Starting the 58th year and it just keeps getting better!"
w5yr@att.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] audio
>
> > One would expect that, as a software-defined radio, the functions of
> > the ORION ACCY pins would be determined by the control program. In
> > that way, given the proper menu provisions, the operator could define
> > the pin functions as needed for a specific application.
>
> Maybe. But I'm not sure total user definition of everything is a
reasonable
> expectation at all. Interfacing in particular, is an area that it seems
to me
> should be standardized. I can't even begin to imagine the support mess
> that would occur if there were a thousand radios out there, with a
> thousand variations on control assignments, pin assignments, etc. -- and
> then something didn't work.
>
> I see the problem in a slightly different way. We have a radio with many
> new capabilities (and a lot of software defined stuff, a lot, but not
> everything). And we're constantly thinking of things it COULD do, but
> doesn't, and then grumble about how shortsighted the designers were for
> not anticipating our every "golly, wonder if it can do THIS?" epiphany.
>
> In the old days, we'd go off and build a simple control box to handle
> amplifier switching the way we'd like it to be (if it wasn't in the
appliance),
> or we'd build our own interface to manage differences between interface
> pin assignments (if they weren't to our liking in the appliance), or we'd
> interface the headphone output to a little external box that would let us
> plug in the phones AND route Main/Sub signals to different places (if the
> appliance didn't do it the way we wanted on the connector we preferred),
> etc.
>
> Perhaps we expect too much of the appliance. Or maybe it's the whole
> notion of "appliance" that's the problem ...
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|