--- Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> N8ME wrote:
> >It's unconceivable that purely software (firmware)
> upgrades will keep
> the Orion up to date against such new technology.
>
> The funny thing is, Orion's outstanding
> front-end performance (as
> is true
> for the K2) has absolutely NOTHING to do with
> computer technology. It has to
> do with superior analog design of the front-end that
> has been around for
> literally
> decades. The mistake some manufacturers have made
> has been to think that
> 128-bit CPU's at 50 GHz can overcome basic
> limitations in the analog front-end.
> Sadly, some of them still believe that (but that's
> good news for Ten-Tec).
>
> 73,
> Bill W4ZV
Yes the point about the Orion?s performance being
driven by superior analog design is completely true.
However the bigger mistake the manufacturers (and many
end users) are all making is insisting that knobs and
buttons are the *only* way to interact with our radios
for maneuvering around the bands. In reality there are
better ways, especially so if you are DX'er or chasing
weak VHF/UHF signals over a wide range of frequencies.
The spectrum scopes on the TT and Icom models are a
good start, but they don?t go nearly far enough. Also
today?s radios are all designed as stand alone, self
contained entities (boxes) and not so much to be just
a component of a larger system that our shacks really
are. Unfortunately when starting from that perspective
it drives some key design decisions for the radio that
will forever limit its RF hardware?s true potential,
the Orion is just another case in point (as are all JA
radios to date as well).
That effectively summarizes where my main reluctance
of pursuing an Orion lies. It didn't raise the bar far
enough for new thinking about how to interact with our
radios, or how to interconnect them with each others
or computers. I now have more functional ways for
keeping tabs on several bands simultaneously for a lot
less $ by using a small fleet of Pegasus radios than I
could with 1 or 2 Orions (or any of the JA models
either). That is not to say I don't want the excellent
RF performance of the Orion, because I most definitely
do, I just don't want the rather expensive to produce
knobs/buttons front panel that you must buy in order
to get it, or be hindered by its RS232 interfacing if
I don't use the panel. The K2 would also be a strong
contender for what I want to do but it too has
RS232/command set limitations as well. I'm now waiting
to see if there will be a Pegasus II with better
Orion-like RF specs, or the progress of the SDR-1000
development program to a higher, less experimental
level. Whichever occurs first will get my $'s for my
next station upgrade.
But the microprocessor designs (outside of IF DSP)
that all of the manufacturers done to date have only
been emulating (more or less) what has been done for
decades with simple pots and switches. In reality they
are a miss application of the CPU power that is
available today. So yes, I agree entirely with Mark's
assessment of where the future of ham radio designs
are headed, and I sincerely hope that the folks at TT
truly recognize it.
Duane
N9DG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|