Short Takes #32: Do I Really Need that New Radio?

This is the discussion forum for the "Trials and Errors: Short Takes" article about things to consider when considering the purchase of a new radio. Please post your comments or questions below. Thanks, Dave W7DGJ

 

Here's an interesting slide from one of Rob's presentations about radio performance. These are 25 of his favorite radios. Dave

 

Some hams just must have the latest and greatest. Others are more objective and buy only what they'll need and use. Much of their decisions are based on their disposable income (and maybe on SAF...Spousal Approval Factor).

I am not an "accumulator". When I have my eye on a new radio or amplifier, it's with the express intent of selling what it's going to replace. I've been a fan of Icom radios (seven different ones) for the last 25 years, as they have the features, ergonomics, and proven reliability...never had an issue with any of them. Currently, for the last seven years I've been operating two IC-7300's, and the only reason for having two is my desire to operate SO2R (Single Op, 2 Radios) in contests...one in each ear simultaneously on two different bands. For the last 15 years, after joining a local contest club here in AZ, 90% of my operation is contesting.

After having my eye on an IC-7610 for a number of years, I finally drank the Kool-Aid and purchased one last year to replace one, or both, of the 7300's. I A/B'd it extensively with one of the 7300's on all bands, CW and SSB modes (I don't operate digital modes), through all kinds of conditions including the QRM of major contests. My conclusions *by ear*: Performance-wise on receive capabilities, I found little or no difference between the two. Everything I heard on the 7610, I also clearly copied on the 7300! Transmit capabilities were identical. I'm kinda skeptical of whether the human ear can really tell the difference between the "dynamic ranges" of Sherwood's top 25 radios mentioned above.

Now, I'm not saying that the 7610 is two 7300's in one box. It clearly has more convenience and flexibility features over the 7300. But after carefully analyzing all the extra bells and whistles it offers, and whether I'd really use/need them, I made the decision to sell it and keep the two 7300's. I just feel more comfortable with their ergonomics and performance, without the (unneeded) bells and whistles of the 7610. And their size fit perfectly on my desk configuration.

I gloss over the classified ads pretty much every day, and find a bunch of ads whereby the seller claims they "have too many radios" , or their $3K+ one is "too much radio for me". It all boils down to personal preference, and what kind of operation one will be using it for. I'm just not one for overkill.

73, Bob K7JQ

 

Hi Bob, I'd agree with you on many of your comments. Thanks for being here for the discussion. One comment that I remember Rob making in the discussion was a frequent question he gets asked. "I am often asked if I would replace my three IC-7610s if a 7620 came out. The answer is no." I think that pretty much says what you are saying, that once you get used to a radio and don't need additional bells and whistles, the move to the next newer model is not necessary. Same with me on the IC-7300. There's just not that much practical difference in the next step up - yes lots of included extras, but the point is that I don't think I need them.

On the other hand, if someone like ICOM or Yaesu or Kenwood decides to kick some serious innovation up into a radio, they'd break that cycle and we'd ALL be replacing our radios with the "latest technology." Our article and discussion here two issues ago paints that picture fairly well. Dave, W7DGJ

 

I have studied this subject quite in depth, and my professional opinion is
that receiver performance today stops being significant at an IM3 dynamic range (DR) of about 75-80 dB. Passband/stopband shapes, AGC properties and lack of overshoot and group delay distortion in the received signal do make some differences in crowded band conditions.

However, the major influence on systems performance rests with factors that any receiver user has absolutely zero influence over;
the adjacent channel properties of other station's transmitters.

In 2019, SM5HP and I wrote a conference paper;

"Performance limitations in HF communication systems composed of practical realisable hardware", Proceedings of the Nordic HF Conference 2019

It contains both simulations and practical measurements on systems with quite dramatically differing receiver performance, and it was found that the differences between a "100 dB DR" and a "7o dB DR" receiver were not significant when operated in a signal environment composed of the best HF transmitters "money can buy". When the transmitters are "amateur grade", even 60-65 dB DR receivers would suffice.

For these reasons, the systems performance improvement obtained by buying a "better receiver" is quite an illusion, unless the majority of the users of the amateur spectrum also invests in better transmitters.

Investing in better suited IF filters and in better ergonomics or "user interfaces" gives a far better "Bang for Buck" than just improving the dynamic range with a few dB.

 

Hi Karl-Arne, thanks for your post. There's got to be something to hang your hat on with any radio, whether it's pure signal transmitting or great dynamic range on receive, so we need rankings and performance specs. Even after spending all the resources to develop some of these benchmarks on modern radios, I think that Rob would agree with you that investing in something else might have more impact (ie, for me, I need 240v in my shack, but I also want a new $4K radio. The 240v upgrade costs about the same with the long runs required to my shack, and I could then run my amps more efficiently.) For others, it might be investing that "radio money" in a new and better antenna system. Dave, W7DGJ

 

Better antennas, more power (to a reasonable limit) or a receiving site
with lower man-made noise will make more system performance difference than a, say, 10 dB "better" receiver.

We professionals in the HF field often say that "quality of a receiver is not judged so much in what you hear, but instead in what you do not have to listen to", and with today's RF environment with higher man-made noise but fewer really strong signals even a mediocre receiver will bring in all signals that are sufficiently above the noise floor to be useable.

In contrast to "yesteryear", the HF spectrum is no longer filled to the brim with ear-splitting propaganda broadcast transmitters and high-power commercial/military HF circuits. This has eased the demands on HF receivers considerably, especially in regions like Europe.

A "Sherwood list" of transmitters, grading them for both adjacent channel and wide-band sideband noise performance would be a very welcome addition, which "in the best of worlds" creates an incentive for also making the transmitters better.

However, it also requires an enlightened customer base which understands the problem and can interpret what the numbers actually mean in practice.

 

Hello Dave. I question the premise of the title "Do I Really Need that New Radio". Amateur radio is a hobby. We do it for enjoyment. It's not about "need". (Do I "need" to communicate with people half a world away in Morse Code?). Sometimes people buy new equipment for the simple joy of having new stuff. (I do.) I think the issue you're really trying to address is "Will that new radio make a material difference to my ability to do radio in the way I want to?" But again, even if the answer is no, I might want a new rig anyway, just for the heck of it. Just think of the s**t-storm that would rain down if I suggested that having a 1 K amp doesn't make much difference vs. a 100 W barefoot rig. (I tried that once on one of these forums. It was not appreciated!! But as most hams know, the difference between 100 W and 1000 W is about 1 S unit). The ham buys the 1 K amp because it makes him happy, not because he "needs" it, and that's OK even if objectively the performance difference is not much.

 

Thanks Mark. I understand where you are going there, but I wouldn't change my title as for me (personally) I still think in terms of "need" when I am buying for a hobby or for my enjoyment. I need to "get out there" but do I need bells and whistles? That's the key question. Dave

 

Some people do have GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome).

"If you already have too much, then one more won't make any difference!"
.

 

Manufacturers need us to "need" new radios. That is not illusory. Ham "need" of new radios is illusory/whimsical.

50 years ago, receiver dynamic range -- IMD and blocking/desensitization -- was lacking in commercial ham transceivers and receivers. ARRL, empowered by such technical contributors as Wes Hayward, W7ZOI, and Ulrich Rohde, now N1UL/DJ2LR, ultimately drove the manufacturer-design evolution that solved that particular problem for commercial gear to the point where nowadays it's moot for constructs from The Big Names. (And to the point where The Big Names keep improving receiver dynamic range, and selling gear on the basis of those improvements, when the DR "problem" was solved tens of dB ago for ham gear.)

@SM0AOM gets at the only significantly, and arguably necessarily, improvable transceiver technical-performance aspect that matters now, and that's transmitted-signal purity:

> A "Sherwood list" of transmitters, grading them for both adjacent channel and wide-band sideband noise performance
> would be a very welcome addition, which "in the best of worlds" creates an incentive for also making the transmitters better.

"Making the transmitters better" requires that consumers and manufacturers -- especially manufacturers -- be educated to understand that transmitted signal purity can and should be better. Merely publishing tables of measurements is a start toward that education, but only a foundation for that education.

 

The answer is: "It depends".

Trying to categorize one HF transceiver as "better" than another based on a single number is a gross oversimplification. There's much more to the question, let alone the answer.

IMHO, the way to think about an HF amateur station is "links in a chain". There's the antenna system, the general geographic location, the RF environment, the kind of operating, the radio, and the operator - and probably some more. The "weakest link" determines the overall performance.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Hi Dave,

Things to consider, well, I liken it to thinking of purchasing a new vehicle. I do not want to drive a computer. I want basic controls, not a touch screen for most or all functions, which is why I have a 2002 Wrangler. Same with a radio. It may have great specifications, yet I really do not want to be dependent upon a touch screen. I do not need a waterfall when I operate any mode other than digital, then my computer screen does what I need it to. My favourite SS radio I have is the 450D. It is simple, does what I want and no screen. And, of course, my HS Drake T-4XC does what I want, too. Those radios do not require a degree in computer engineering to operate or a 500-page user manual. I will not say they have the numbers that are listed in the chart above, yet I enjoy both. Is that not the point?

The latest is not always the greatest. Innovation can go backwards in a sense and actually make things worse in some cases. The more complicated anything gets, the easier it is to stop up the works. It literally baffles me on why anyone needs a panadapter/waterfall for AM/SSB/CW operation. That may not be a popular thought, yet I just don't clock it. By that logic, you would need one to tune a commercial FM/MW station, otherwise you would not be able to do so by listening. It seems to me that the "latest and greatest" is just a way to market a minimal, if any, sort of improvement with a huge screen that acts as a money magnet to the eyes. The improvement may just be cosmetic, I see little innovation that is truly revolutionary at this stage, though that does not mean it cannot happen. I don't need bells and whistles. I just need a friendly voice or signal coming into my rig. That, in the end, is the point of why I enjoy radio.

73 Dave
Tony AA7FR

 

It's been some years since I've fallen prey to the rig of the month club. As we grow older I think some of those "shiny objects" be they a new rig or a new vehicle just don't seem quite as shiny.

The last new high-end transceivers purchased would be the Ten-Tec Orion II and on the used side a Drake TR-7A. That's been more than a few years. I do have a collection of older rigs that have a serious need to be thinned out. That's a story for another time.

Obviously, most folks have other obligations that compete for funding and should not be ignored. My Dad had a saying when it came to taking the time to enjoy some of the pleasures of life: " You're dead a long time."

 

IMO, the best and most important innovation/feature in the current radios is the built-in panadapter/waterfall.

If you're a casual ragchewer, I can understand where you wouldn't consider it a necessary feature. But if you're a DXer or contester, it's a very valuable tool to efficiently "see" what's happening on a desired segment of the band.

A DXer in a pileup working split can actually see the "blip" where a station is answering the DX and tune to or near that frequency to have a better chance of working him. Otherwise, in a pileup that's 10+ kHZ wide, you're just flying blind of where he's listening.

In a major contest, you can see the segment/frequency range of participating stations, so you can snag a new op/ multiplier that's calling CQ at the higher edges of the action. You can also quickly find an open frequency to call CQ (of course, calling "QRL?" first). When thinking of changing bands, you can see at a glance whether or not it will be worth it if a band is just opening up propagation-wise. And if there's not many stations on a band, you can quickly tune directly to a "blip" on the screen to avoid wasting time tuning through dead space. Might be a new multiplier.

For me, I'd *never* consider buying a new radio without a scope/waterfall. In fact, I believe the only currently manufactured radios without one are the Kenwood TS-590SG and Icom IC-718.