Trials and Errors Issue #53: Near-term Innovation Wish List

Concur.

I think the 3-way digital voice "standards war" on the V/UHF bands are the result of two key things:

1. Each vendor tended to create their digital voice radio models by deriving them from products already in their respective commercial product lines. It is a lower cost way to get into it. And I think on some level that each of them are also hoping that they will "win" the senseless format war. And thus achieving "vendor lock-in".
2. The tendency of most users to have brand loyalty, it is that brand loyalty that keeps any clear winner from emerging. So we have what we currently got. A total disaster of incompatible digital voice modes on those bands.

Given those two things, I just don't see that situation changing anytime soon. And the sad part is that those digital voice modes are to a large degree a mismatch for amateur radio uses and needs anyhow, and/or are needlessly complicated to use equipment wise. They are just not that good approaches to begin with.

Yes I do know that D-Star is an open protocol. But unfortunately the chosen codec is not.

The digital voice system I think deserves far more attention is the M17 project. It is designed from the outset for amateur radio use, and it is not encumbered intellectual property restrictions.

 

As a former kit builder and now owner of the Icom used I always admired Dave @W7UUU "quasi-steampunk" style version ie the classic Heath SB-7300.

 

Many of Dave's excellent columns bring me back to thinking about the purposes of amateur radio - why I participate, why others participate, the role of emergency communications and providing a pool of experienced operators. What skills do we want operators to develop? What functionality do we put into hardware and software in light of those desired skills? Lots of good questions. Good job, Dave!

 

Thanks Richard (Rich?) - good thoughts . . . Somedays I swing back and forth between wanting to do things the hard way (and learn new skills) or wanting to just plug the darn thing in and have it work. Today I have been challenged by an outdoor activation using another small QRP radio with tiny, tiny lettering on the menu that I can't read as I have macular degeneration. Very frustrating. Didn't get on the air and dragged all my gear out there . . . I appreciate the comment about thinking about what functionality we want for our users. One thing that many manufacturers miss is simple . . . make the menu easy to read and easy to reach, even for someone with a mild vision issue! Come back again Rich, Dave W7DGJ

 

I am surprised no one brought up the Apache radios. Or more specifically, their software: Thetis, which is the the very best we have in one crucial way being Open Source. Thetis has many features not found on other radios. It can be readily adapted to new ideas. As much as I like it, I sold my 7000 DLEII because I missed the buttons and wanted a K4D.

IMO there is more to radio than the tech alone, there is a tactile aspect that Flex, Apache, and other SDR software's often lack.

It's nice to have options, I will say that one area I agree whole heartily is that we need to standardize radio CAT control, preferably over Ethernet.

I think the idea of AI noise reduction is great, some radios already have auto-tune for carrier modes, but a AI based one for SSB could be cool, though the RIT works fine here.

Interesting topics, to me user interface is chief among them. It's also worth noting that many of these ideas are maybe better realized separate from the radio, if we had good CAT and IF outputs the ham could do a lot and the radio would avoid obsolescence better.

I also feel like the software for these radios should be open source, maybe after some period of time to let the authors capitalize it for a while. Thinking of years from now not today.

 

Thanks Dave, good post. User interface is something that everyone will agree with, I'm sure, Dave W7DGJ

 

Dave

I became a radio amateur during COVID lockdown and I really enjoyed this article. I've been surprised as to how "old fashioned" the UI is on even new radios from the mainstream vendors. I have a Yaesu FT710 and while it is a fine radio, the front panel is a random scattering of controls - some using buttons and some using an extremely basic touch screen. It seemed to me that as it's an SDR a pure software UI that would run on Windows, iOS and Android was the way to go, with a snap on conventional control panel as an extra cost option.

But I've also met amateurs who consider anything involving a computer or smartphone not to be "real radio". And think that innovations like FT8 or POTA are ruining the hobby. So I'm sympathetic to the dilemma the vendors are in of trying to meet the needs of a small and very diverse market. Seems to me that the future lies with the smaller and more innovative entrepreneurs in amateur radio products and the slow rate of innovation in the mainstream amateur radio market is a direct consequence of our collective behaviour.

Like the column. It's refreshingly rant free

Ritchie VA7RLX

 

All these little qrp rigs are amusing. But how have they advanced the state-of-the-art?

SDR has improved receiver performance and given us cute little gadgets (RTL-SDR, RSP1, etc) and nice spectrum displays.

But what else are the insurgents doing that is actually useful that is not available in current commercial rigs that have knobs?

I also hate to hear people bad mouth ICOM and Yaesu. Quite literally, Ham radio would not exist without them.

 

Thanks Ritchie for the nice comments. Sure appreciate it. Yes, I was surprised at the FT710 when the two versions came out -- one a "field edition" without a speaker. Seems to me that they could have done a lot more for the money with that radio -- more innovations for sure. Yaesu makes a great radio, but they have always had a screwy mix in their UI and their deep menus. Dave

 

Hi Mike, thanks for the input. I hope you didn't see "bad mouthing" from me about the two majors you mentioned. I wrote the article as suggestions for the future and a call for these companies to be more aggressive in using the technologies and software available today . . . not putting them down, but they could be SO much more advanced in their product lines. Dave, W7DGJ

 

What would those advancements be? Would they really be advancements or just more crap stuck on the side? I can see direct USB interfaces, and possibly remote access as useful. But what else?

 

It was the open source advocate that was bad mouthing for-profit vendors like Icom and Yaesu.

 

Disagree. Amateur radio would have continued to exist just fine without them if they had never come to the fore.

Amateur radio may fade for other reasons, but any particular equipment vendor going away isn't one of them. Bottom line is if they didn't exist, there would certainly be other companies to fill that space. They aren't that special, nobody is.

 

They have performed extraordinarily and deserve gratitude and respect. They have made outstanding performance affordable for everyone. They took us from Heathkits to what we have today. Precise stable frequency control, tight filters, high IP2 and IP3, all modes, receive sensitivitu and noise figure beyond the R390A, and much more.

Without them there would surely be equipment available but at a much less desirable price - performance point.

And how many of us started out with their HTs? MOT was the only alternative up until the Chinese units showed up a few years ago.

Give them their due.

 

Now that is a stupid assertion. Special outstanding people and companies certainly exist and are responsible for virtually all positive forward movement, regardless of market.

"Average" people and companies don't deliver "excellent" or "outstanding" products and services. "Average" people do not push the state of the art forward. Only outstanding people do that.