"Does price buy performance or satisfaction in an HF transceiver?" - now on YouTube

Two concepts that are often disregarded are intended use and relative spend.

Most hams that I know on HF are what I call casual Dxers - they work a bit of dx here and there. I really question the value in these hams owning even mid tier priced transceivers as they do not chase super weak signals or their computer does the listening work for them via digital modes. As for TX - can you really tune the bands and identify by ear who is using a $10;000 radio and who is using a $400 unit (I certainly cannot).

I am an avid dxer and spend most of my time these days doing weak signal work on topband or 6 metres - even I do not use a top end radio for the simple reason that these big dollar transceivers do not in anyway enhance my ability to work weak signal dx. I have tried a number of top end radios in side by side comparison with my 7610 and never once has the more expensive radio enabled me to make a dx qso that the 7610 could not.

Of course, if you have an unlimited supply of money for ham radio then by all means buy a top end radio in the same way a wealthy person may buy a $150,000 car to do the run to the supermarket. But if you have a capped ham budget and dxing is truly your thing then my recommendation is that you buy a good used late model HF radio like say the Icom 7600 and invest the rest of your cash into a decent fully automatic HF amplifier like the SPE. Unlike a big dollar HF radio, a fully automatic HF amplifier will actually allow you to make dx qsos that you would not otherwise make. Of course, this is achieved via the extra power output but also the speed and flexibility to jump from band to band that is akin to owing a 1kw transceiver.

Of course better antennas provide enhancement on both TX and RX and this should always be number one priority but if we are simply talking about in the shack hardware then you are much better off spending less on your radio and more on your amplifier and running the two devices conservatively in tandem.

As a former radio retailer I can attest to many a disappointed ham - particularly from lower class license categories - who have purchased a top end radio in the belief that such a radio will enable them to work more and weaker DX only to find they have spent their hard earned on nothing more than a fancy status symbol that nobody but a ham buddy or two will ever see.

As for why I prefer Icom, it is a simple case of ergonomics and reliability - radio layout and connectivity with other shack devices is simple and consistent - but I concede that familiarity with Icom is a big factor as well. As other radios do not enhance ( or diminish) my working of weak signal dx I prefer to stick with what I know to be simple and reliable.

Cheers - Paul vk4ma - owner of 7610, 7300 both purchased used and two SPE 1.3k amplifiers

 

Thanks Karl.

Looks like my memory of CX-7 TX audio is not fantasized by age!

Again, if we WANTED better TX, the manu's would put it in the rigs. SOME of us know that the TX could be a LOT better--and HAS been better in rigs that are 50+ years old.

Music producers and engineers have similar gripes. They feel the sound quality of streamed audio is far worse than what we had with other recording media--and they are right. But the public, in general, doesn't want better quality audio. It's just not a deciding factor in their listening.

It's very strange, especially since pricing is not a major factor, if at all.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I believe that you have touched on something fundamental.

It has become a common practice in recruitment activities to show youngsters "DX-chasing" or contesting from well-equipped stations in low- noise locations.

The contrast to what they are going to experience when building their own station with a 1oo W radio and a G5RV at 5 m height with an ambient noise level of S9 is striking.

Very few "new amateurs" have the patience and skills required to do anything meaningful in such circumstances, in particular if they do not know Morse. I have reason to believe that this is one of the underlying causes for the current 90-95% drop-out rate.

Looking from the systems engineering perspective on the radio performance question, it boils down to the following, assuming two-way communications and reciprocal propagation:

• Is the other station able to read you, and
• Are you able to read the other station?

The first part is a function of own transmit antenna, own transmit power and noise/interference levels at the distant station together with operator skill, and the latter part becomes the inverse of the first.

We cannot do anything about the properties of the distant stations or their operator skills nor propagation, but only of our own.

What to prioritise would be, in no particular order:

• Antenna system - will improve both transmit and receive directions
• Transmit power - makes you "louder" at the distant station
• Interference and noise levels - need no explanation
• Operator skill
• Use of Morse

Operator skill and Morse use cost nothing but dedication, but higher power and better antennas are expensive. Co-channel or adjacent-channel interference from other stations cannot be influenced, and ambient noise suppression takes EMC engineering skills, good cooperation of neighbours and may become prohibitively expensive if massive efforts have to be made.

Only in very exceptional cases do the "Sherwood ratings" of the radio enter these deliberations, the #1 and the #30 ranked radio will deliver equal results for all practical purposes in the hands of the same operator.

As the spectrum occupancy of the HF bands is declining the large-signal properties of the receivers become less and less important, but instead their filtering and noise reduction properties.

Transmitters can definitely be improved in respect of adjacent channel suppression, which currently primarily come into play in "contesting" situations. The current state, where receivers are at least 30, sometimes 40 dB, better than the transmitters is quite counterproductive.

Just a "systems engineer's take" on the situation.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

I agree with that - to a certain extent. Sherwood does not "rate" or "rank" the radios on his website. According to the declaration at the top of the page, they are "Sorted by Third-Order Dynamic Range Narrow Spaced - or- ARRL RMDR (Reciprocal Mixing Dynamic Range) if Phase Noise Limited". Many of the rigs near the top of the list perform relatively poorly in the sensitivity and 100kHz blocking tests compared to some of the other models that have similar dynamic range numbers. The direct-sampling SDR rigs achieve high dynamic range at the expense of an increased noise floor, so he measures those parameters with dithering and randomization (IP+) switched on and off.

The better performing rigs make a difference when the station has a good location free of surrounding higher terrain or buildings, and it has a good antenna system that is located in an area that is free from RFI. It is under these circumstances that a good receiver will be able to copy a weak signal that is between 2 strong adjacent signals on a band that is full of very strong signals, possibly with a "ham neighbor" or two who are within a few kilometers/miles of the same location and are also operating on the same band as you. Another situation would be trying to copy that rare DX station, with the pile-up a few kilohertz away. Also, the better performing receivers will show their worth in a multi-rig setup, such as at a contest station, or a multi-transmitter field day location, etc. Again, this is true ONLY if you are trying to dig a very weak signal out from a crowded band. Even rigs with mediocre performance will be "good enough" to copy a station of moderate or strong signal strength. If you work only stations that are 5x9 or stronger, your SDR will always be "good enough", regardless of weather you're operating CW, phone, or digital modes.

It all comes down to how we intend to use our radios, and how much we are willing to spend for that moderate advantage under difficult conditions.

 

Yes. That.

No one said that 'the TX on modern radios is FINE'. What was said was ' we--as a whole-- don't care'. Big, BIG difference between those two statements.

Other posters would do well to read with greater care before casting stones.

Your explanation here makes a lot of sense for why that is: 'we' --as a whole-- don't care about better TX..

Obviously individuals care a lot--we want better TX. But the crowd doesn't see it that way. And the manu's play it safe by 'giving the people what they want.' Hard to blame them when the end-users drive the bus, even if it doesn't have air suspension, disk brakes, and an MP3 sounds system ...

73
Chip W1YW

 

How does a "better" receiver make a marked difference in the situation where the attainable dynamic range becomes limited by the adjacent channel emissions from other transmitters which mostly are beyond your influence?

From the lab measurements made by me and SM5HP for the HF19 conference paper, and the data presented by Rob Sherwood in his recent QST article, it is reasonable to assume that transmitter limited real-world dynamic ranges in crowded band conditions do not exceed about 75 or 80 dB.


Above, showing the aggregate spectrum of 8 professional grade
SSB exciters summed together which permits a first adjacent channel dynamic range of about 65 dB (from the HF19 presentation)


Above, here is spectrum of 2 amateur grade (but by no means the worst)
SSB transmitters with a vacant channel in between, 5 dB per vertical division.
A wanted signal is injected between the interferers and the C/N degradation measured
(from the HF19 presentation)



Above, here is spectrum of a high-priced amateur grade
SSB transmitter with an extremely good receiver, 5 dB per vertical division.
The first adjacent channel is only suppressed about 25 dB and the third about 55 dB
(from the HF19 presentation)


G3RZP has also studied the level distributions, published in RadCom and NCJ, and his findings were that in very quiet locations, it was possible to sometimes encounter a dynamic range of 90 dB.

SDR:s have the disadvantage that all their channel (or "near") selectivity is lumped behind the ADC, which makes them susceptible to overload from very strong out-of-band signals, which consume the available headroom.

Analogue or "hybrid" receivers have the advantage of gain and selectivity distribution, which in effect makes the wide-spacing blocking or two-signal
selectivity essentially limited only by the linearity or overload properties of the mixers and the first IF filter.

One of the better examples is the Telefunken/Deutsche Aerospace E1800A hybrid receiver which required over 7 volts EMF signal at 20 kHz spacing to show blocking tendencies. None of my tunable signal generators were good enough to verify this parameter.

Co-located transmitters under your own regime, such as field-days, represent a special case. By exploiting antenna patterns, narrow-band antennas and add-on filtering it is sometimes possible to co-exist, but at a considerable effort and expense. When the co-location is a "ham neighbour" it becomes even more difficult.

Radio amateurs are expected to apply systems engineering to solve problems.
This is admittedly a demanding scientific discipline, where you need to prioritise and weigh advantages/disadvantages together and finally make the most out of available resources.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

If you're satisfied, you won't buy another radio!

I'm satisfied with my radio.
I'm never satisfied with the shack/station.
Antennas and switching always need work/improvement/rearrangement

40-10
Ten-Tec 599 Eagle. Bought new. Modified a little. IF tap. HDSDR.
500 W QSK amp.
SDRPlay RSP-duo and working on the antennas.

160-40
Second Eagle. Bought used. Repaired it. IF tap. HDSDR
Hope to pick up this coming week. 1200 W QSK amp.
MFJ-1025 for phasing and working on antennas.

6-2 work in process
Third Eagle. Bought used. Repairing it.
Will have IF tap and HDSDR.
Ten-Tec 10-2 transverter
Working on home brew 6 m QSK amp
Quad turnstile. Considering stacking another.
AM-6154 2 m amp
Working on antennas

Shorter than 2 m.
Looking for fourth Eagle in need of repair so cheap!
have 70 cm transverter.
small 70 cm yagi.
Keeping eye out for stuff for these higher bands.

My shack is frequently dismantled, stacked in the hall way, then rearranged.

73, -bob ah7i

 

You are absolutely correct. I forgot to stipulate that my scenarios would be true ONLY if the "surrounding" signals were coming from relatively clean transmitters and amps. THANK YOU for pointing this out.

In my post #60 on this thread, I provided links to transmitter tests that were done several years ago, illustrating the few clean rigs and the majority dirty rigs. Hopefully some of the offending manufacturers have cleaned up their current products and we can move forward to a time when dirty transmitted signals aren't the limiting factor for our receivers.

 

For the Flex guys- I do like the rigs, but for each new Flex version, the company adds more tactile control knobs and buttons.. By 2022, the Flex radio will have the same number of tactile controls as a 1990's radio ..

 

Wait until the "FT-867" is available (hf/6/440/2, all mode,100w pa).. hi

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the "M" models, such as the Flex 6400M? Yes it has a front panel display and knobs but the regular 6400 is available which uses the PC. In fact the top model, the 6700, is still the low profile model with no option available for an attached front panel. Of course you can get the Maestro unit to go with it.

 

Thanks for the clarification.. Yes. What I saw was the M model (just looked it up). A friend has a Maestro as well. 73, Eric

 

Karl-Arne:

Some of this compilation work is underway...stay tuned!

Frank

 

Thanks for the link, Dennis! I’ll follow-up and read it.

Frank

 

Paul,

This sentiment is why I created the Performance-to-Price Ratio in this study...

Frank