Trials and Errors #64: The New Hams -- Shot Across the Bow for ICOM, Yaesu and Others!

As a rule I try to limit specific company names in my posts as a way to encourage people to do some digging for themselves. And to lessen a perception of "brand loyalty" from my part. With that said:

The one mainstream manufacturer is Flex Radio with their 6K, 8K, and soon Aurora series radios. Once you have an understanding of their core hardware architecture, it will be apparent how almost all of the user functionality of those radios is "software defined" - and open-ended.

Some other projects that come to mind:
The OpenHPSDR project - which formed the basis of the Anan series radios more than a decade ago already.
The Hermes Lite 2 project that gets mentioned regularly here on QRZ..

And there are certainly other projects and commercial offerings, especially receivers.

But you will notice none of those above were designed from a close-ended perception that a radio "must be a box with knobs and buttons", and that it only allow one, maybe two RX signals at a time, and maybe a modest spectrum scope. All of those 3 examples above are not restricted in that way, while all of the Big 3 models are.

To circle back to the OP, I like to think of it all as being a "RF-technology-focus" approach to radio, and yes that now includes digital processing power, and networking. The technology itself is just the enabler of making a better, more capable radio. And despite what some will perceive about newer tech insulating the operator from the radio experience itself, however when done appropriately, it actually allows you to experience radio even more, not less.

 

Thanks Rick. I've seen some of that as well. Some can be convinced to give the Technician Class a try, and fall off. Others get that Tech class at a meeting like DEFCON and are further intrigued by other aspects of the hobby (satellites, etc) and continue going further in ham radio. Maybe they'll never overtake the RF-Focused new hams, but they're out there and a part of the community that could surprise us if we really had a handle on their size. Dave, W7DGJ

 

Love this comment - thanks! Dave, W7DGJ

 

Many of these new Techs get frustrated with the equipment they buy. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the SOB stories.

Many don't listen see the more experienced amateurs and club members, they just do their internet research, and then go buy whatever.

 

(tr)uSDX, + others



I have one; an SDR on an 8 bit Atmel microcontroller
5 bands (80-20m), ssb, cw @5w - $123 on amazon
not a super high dynamic range thing, for sure, but works to an adequate level for portable fun.

 

Hello Dave,

"Shot across the bow", an interesting and relevant title. It is rather funny, actually. I have read about format wars or conflicts in the past. SSB/AM war, Beta/VHS war, colour tv standards war (NTSC/PAL/SECAM), PC/MAC war, my god, the list is endless, and the biggest loser is the end user in most cases. D-Star/YSF/DMR is no different. Do manufacturers never learn? Or perhaps they just do not care, I really don't know. And adding more buttons/features does not always make a radio better. Maybe it looks better. Kind of like cars now. It is like driving a tablet rather than a car and has it really improved? I would say not. Same with radios, methinks.

Absolutely, some new features can and do enhance the radio experience. Unfortunately, manufacturers seem to push what they think is the next big thing instead of actually asking people like us what we would really like to see. I mean, why on HF can you use various digital modes that many programmes can support and all radios can work with (even my 1961 Drake can do RTTY), but on FM there has to be all these proprietary digital standards? It makes no sense. We lose in the end. This is why reading about M17 in your article caught my attention. What a novel concept, making an actual FM digital standard.

The big manufacturers might find themselves in the dust if they do not adapt. And since they seem to be stuck in a rut, it is the innovators that you mentioned in your article that are pushing forward and making it happen. I have a lot of respect for them. You wanted to define the spirit of AR, well, there it is.

73's Dave
Tony AA7FR

 

Thanks Tony. I am an ICOM user, and enjoy my IC-7300. It was, at the time, a nice introduction of some new technologies. But now that they've sold more than 100,000 units, they want to keep the momentum. So they've made a few very mild improvements (yes, I would like to plug in a monitor to my radio) and left it at that with their new IC-7300 MKII. OK, I get it. So much easier to do that than to actually build something wild and innovative. In my opinion, ICOM and Yaesu and Kenwood etc need to launch a "Skunkworks" company (that's a term meant to describe a small independent team not tied to corporate missions and where the focus is on revolution and innovation). They can each dip in with a third of the investment required, hire a few great thinkers and go to the open source vets out there to build something that can be used by each member of the consortium in new radios. Dave, W7DGJ

 

I don't think there are enough "new tech" hams that are interested in HF to keep any manufacturer in business. The great majority of new and younger hams think having an HT is what ham radio is all about. Many don't see the appeal of HF communications.

I have been around a number of people lately of all ages. I ask them if they know what ham radio is and 99% of them have no idea what it is and have never even heard of it.

I think the ARRL has committed suicide with its efforts to recruit new hams using emcomm as the pitch. These people that buy an ht or two cannot keep the hobby alive.

Perhaps all we need is advertising to the general public. Just tell them about ham radio - all of its various aspects - with an emphasis on the "magic" and "mystery" of action at a distance and using what nature provides - rather than infrastructure - in order to establish long distance communications. When I do that, many people experience some level of interest. It we simply describe ham radio to a lot of people we can let the self-select and I suspect the result would be better than what has been going on for the last 30 years or so.

Knobs are fine. All the esoteric stuff appeals to us engineers, but not so much to less technical types. Knobs and dials are interesting and appealing.

 

Hi Mike -- there are some things that I would agree with in your post. Specifically, that the ARRL is committing suicide and that their efforts at getting these new hams turned on is weak at best and misdirected, for sure. But I think that HF would have appeal to at least a good percentage of the NewTechHams to make a difference, IF THEY CAN GET TO THE FIRST STAGE OF INTEREST. It's that initial "hook" that's missing. Dave, W7DGJ

 

You may not be seeing the many younger hams involved in SOTA hikes and activations. I hear more HF than HT SOTA activity.

The kids never use knobs and dials. That's old hat. Anything interesting involves mobile, touchscreens, and maybe voice activated stuff.

Cool new RF and HF radio tech and implementations appear, not from the big 3 (5), but on GitHub and Thingverse (et.al.) years earlier. PiTx (polar modulation of a Raspberry Pi GPIO pin, capable of generating HF SSB) appeared on Github roughly 10 years before Flex's productized and amplified implementation. rnnoise AI/ML noise reduction was published as open source 7 years ago.

 

DMR and cellphone apps share a lot of comminalities. I use Zello and Echolink quite often, and I like both.
The question is, are they radio?
I don't believe so, but I also see how chatting on Echolink is about as 'ham' as buying a 2 meter hand held and accessing a repeater. Neither require any serious technical bent, but both see me happily rag chewing with Yorkshire hams whilst I'm sitting in my car, or on a bus, train, and so on.
What exactly is the difference?

I'm positively Luddite when it comes to new Icom radios (and many others). The things are full of knobs, buttons, and multi-layered menus that are all but useless to me (and probably a lot more people).
The big names will die as they force more and more pointless tech at higher and higher prices. Chinese manufacturers will come up with high quality radios that just work at you without 10 minutes of setting up for a simple CQ.

 

I think the hook is the magic of long distance HF. There has to be some intrigue or mysyery or challenge...

 

Dave, I think I brought this up last Digital thread; Amateur Radio without Radio is not Amateur Radio.
You don't join a train club to make airplanes.
By the same token, people who get a license who aren't actually interested in Radio, or are bothered by regulations, shouldn't be encouraged to get licensed.

I often hear the questions "How do we stay relevant?", "How do we attract more people?". I think those questions are dog whistles.
Where we stand now is that we represent .2% of the population, which is a historical high.
We attract those interested in the art of radio, in our traditions, and our ability to serve if needed. And our hobby/vocation is so multi-faceted that we attract people of all walks of life, and interests. To worry that we don't offer an IT professional something is moot as people often choose hobbies that have nothing at all to to with work.

Regarding digital and innovation:
Well that's a rather old subject, and for us folks who have had our ticket for a while you realize that digital is just another way of doing the same thing
with a smaller parts count; there are a lot of talented people in our ranks.
A perfect example is SSTV. SSTV used to require a significant investment in an expensive camera, monitor, encoders/decoders, and radio interface circuits. Now, thanks to a number of enterprising enthusiasts, all it takes is a laptop with a sound card, free software, and a interface cable. RTTY is the same game. FT8 is the same game, PSK31, Olivia, etc. Once someone jailbreaks a brand name digital voice handheld and uploads their own open source software to it, that game will change also.

The ghost of worrying about the Japanese/Chinese Radion market is just that. We're not their main market, and never have been.

The larger issue at hand from a societal standpoint, and if you belong to other clubs outside of Amateur Radio, you have seen this:
The Internet generation does not socialize the same as we did; they prefer faceless interactions, like virtual clubs. It's hard to have a physical club meeting with no participants. But like I said, that's not just an Amateur Radio issue. This bleeds over to day to day QSOs on the bands. Fewer QSOs of substance, and more RST/QTH and gone Contacts. These fill the logs, but like junk food, are unfulfilling

 

That was the hook that got me. Something going to the other continents with only a wire out my window, to their antenna. Dave, W7DGJ

 

Good post Ron, thanks. I particularly agree with the point I highlighted above. Do you think there's a way to bring substance back to the QSOs? We don't have to have hour conversations, but five minutes with some substance would be far better than an exchange of 5-9's. Dave