This is a less than satisfactory picture. I used a DJ console with my
ANAN-100D/PowerSDR. It's just not that ergonomic/elegant.
Thinking aloud, ideal solution to me would be adoption of a universal API
by SDR (and non-SDR) manufacturers that defines codes and protocols for all
conceivable knob/switch functions over an ethernet or USB interface. Then
front panel designers would be free to implement whatever they imagine and
know it will be plug 'n play and that knob labelled "bandwidth" will
actually widen the bandwidth with cw rotation when the interface is plugged
in, etc etc
73, Barry N1EU
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Tom Mandera <tsm1@tmcom.com> wrote:
> We already have CI-V and a few other variations of the same thing.
>
> A single standard would be fantastic to opening up a new market..
>
> we have SDR. They require a computer. Computers no longer have knobs
> like some of us prefer, but we have a GUI with a picture of a knob or a
> slider and a mouse to turn it.
>
> Step 1) we need a USB "VFO" (hmm.. perhaps we embrace "gaming controllers"
> with analog inputs - or a steering wheel controller from a driving game -
> there's your big VFO knob!) and then some additional rotary encoder inputs
> for volume, RF-gain, and so forth.
>
> Plug multiple "USB knobs" together (gang them) to make a console.
>
> Lock each knob to an "input" to the SDR software so you can still use the
> mouse, or you can spin the knob.
>
> Set it up with the computer, then hide the computer behind the desk and
> pretend it isn't there.
>
> ..because once the inputs are solved, the next evolution is something that
> resembles a metal enclosure with a bunch of the "USB knobs" ganged
> together, with a Raspberry Pi tucked in the back.
>
> Now you can pretend there's no computer in the mix.
>
> If we had a single standard for rig control (CI-V and whatever the other
> options are) you have a single product that could be used on multiple
> radios.
>
> Need a remote VFO for your Orion? Here you go.
>
> Like that K3 but hate the small box and lack of knobs? Here you go.
>
> Want to try a Flex but can't stand the absence of knobs entirely? Here
> you go.
>
>
> What's the difference between a TenTec Pegasus and a TenTec Jupiter?
>
>
> You could try all of this with a micro-controller, but micro-computers are
> cheap enough and you can do it as an incremental solution to prove it out
> before you commit.
>
> -Tom
> KE7VUX
> TT Scout
> TT Paragon II 586
> TT Omni IV+
>
> > Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:02:17 -0500
> > From: TT fan <jrichards@k8jhr.com>
> > To: n4py3@earthlink.net, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> > <tentec@contesting.com>
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] New Radios in the Future
> > Message-ID: <5456B7F9.4070606@k8jhr.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> >
> > Exactly Carl.
> >
> > That was Rick's initial point and it still valid. Perhaps the take
> > away point from this thread is what he said first, that radios of
> > the future may be more computer based, but we may see more
> > and varied forms of knobs and controls added in various formats
> > and layouts. Based on his vision, I can imagine buying an SDR
> > from Company A, and a separate interface of some kind from
> > Company B or maybe from Company C to interface with the
> > computer. Perhaps a new business model is in store... SDRs
> > from one mfr and various interfaces from multiple mfrs.
> >
> > We see this in computer recording products. One purchases a
> > computer, and then selects two things: A) a preferred software
> > package, and B) a preferred hardware recording surface (console)
> > as a physical interface with knobs and buttons. Perhaps such
> > a business model would suit future radio sales. Under this scenario,
> > there would be multiple Woodbox T products... one with one knob
> > and X buttons, another with two knobs and Y buttons, and even
> > a third with a big knob, three or four smaller knobs, and XX buttons,
> > and it would compete with similar products from other companies.
> >
> > This is what I took from Rick's first point and I think it is
> > entirely consistent with your statements, below. And I think
> > it would work.
> >
> > Picture buying a remote rig like a K3 from Elecraft, but buying an
> > operating head from TT, or a black box Eagle from TT, and a
> > remote head designed and manufactured by YOU and JERRY H
> > with your programming, and his build design. I think TT was
> > thinking this very sort of thing when it came out with the Arduino
> > based kits. It makes a black box starter unit, and hams invent
> > all the rest.
> >
> > ================ K8JHR ================
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|