Old rigs never die 2
This was first published at V44KF.spaces.live.com on 27th April 2008.
*****************************************
The ham radio equipment makers have to market a new rig every year if they want to stay in business or be forced to follow in Kenwood's footsteps. Given today's technology some of the new high tech rigs seem very overpriced while others with apparently better receiver specifications are still priced to suit the average ham radio operator's pocket. No matter the price tag all rigs are treated equally, and usually end up on the test bench in various institutions like ARRL and Sherwood Engineering Inc, to verify the 'claimed' and published performance data, and of course to see how they stack up against each other. In light of the latest Receiver Test Data table, dated 15 February 2008, produced by Bob Sherwood of Sherwood Engineering, http://www.sherweng.com/table.html, I may have to change this blog subject because these old rigs seen to have something extra about them, more than just design and components, that the modern and recent receivers of today seem to be lacking.
With a DRNS, Dynamic Range Narrow Spaced of 80 dB at 2kHz given as the minimum specification for a receiver to adequately cope with contest QRM, the kilowatt alley guys and the full assortment of lids on-the-air these days, Bob Sherwood's receiver test results indicate that only 15 ham receivers meet or exceed this minimum specs that everyone seems to be in agreement with. I notice that half of the qualifying receivers were made before 2004. Bob Sherwood's top 15 receivers in order are, Elecraft K3, Flex 5000A, Ten-Tec Orion 2, Ten-Tec Orion, Icom R9500, Drake R-4C/CF-600/6 [January 1974], AOR AR-7030, Icom IC-765 [December 1990], Atlas 350-XL [October 1977], Kenwood TS-830/YK88 [May 1981], Ten-Tec Omni VII, Icom IC-7800 [June 2003] , Elecraft K2 [March 2000], Ten-Tec Omni VI+ [November 1997] and Yaesu 901-DM [November 1978].
Here are the remaining receivers, in order as they fall below the minimum receiver spec, and these range from DRNS 79 dB down to DRNS 56 dB at 2 kHz spacing. Ten-Tec Corsair, Icom IC-720A, Kenwood TS-820S, Kenwood TS-850, Yaesu FT-1000 MP MkV Field, Ten-Tec Omni 5, Atlas 210/215, Icom IC-756 Pro 3, Icom IC-756 Pro 2, Drake TR-7, Heath SB-104, Icom 706 MK2G, Ten-Tec Omni-B, Icom IC-730-781, Kenwood TS-9S, Icom IC-701, Icom 756 Pro, Icom IC-761, Kenwood TS-870S, Yaesu FT-1000 D, Kenwood TS-430S, Yaesu FT-1000 MP, Signal One CX-11A, Kenwood TS-180s, Icom IC-735, Collins KWM-380, Icom IC-751, Icom 7000, Yaesu Ft-2000, Kenwood TS-520, Yaesu FT-One, Yaesu FT-980, , Yaesu FT-101E, Yaesu FT-757.
These are all pretty good receivers in times of peace and quiet, but you will definitely have a problem when you enter the DX and contest arena and want to work a weak station who is only making S-2, and there is another station just 2 kHz away trying to choke you off with splatter or has his boots in you face. With a good DX antenna like mine, it is not unusual for YV, HK and KP4 stations to be trying to break off my S-meter around sunset. So how on earth do you expect me to hear the weak DX signals unless my receiver is selective enough and has a great immunity to strong signals 2 kHz off my frequency. When the station is 20kHz off your listening frequency there is usually no problem at all. But there will always come a time when you hear the weak ones that you really need. Most times they may hear you, but you have problems receiving them. Now that we know why, we can elect to improve our receiver to get it to perform just like today's $10K+ radios or maybe better, but without the $10K+ price. In my particular case the Kenwood TS-940SAT [1986] is fitted with INRAD filters and all the factory approved modifications and then some more.
Don't be alarmed by the number of older rigs which have just refused to die. There are a few white and green papers around that clearly explain the phenomenon, for those who want to believe it is. But what all this translates into is something that you may wish to consider the next time you feel the urge to add another receiver to the station line up. You may need to think twice about upgrading to what may be advertised as one of the latest technologically adept receivers. Many science fiction movies now depict us in the future and going back to the old and obsolete equipment for survival after the great high tech war to come. Maybe we are already living in that dimension with some aspects of the fallout but we just do not fully comprehend that as yet.
I will not debate the 'quality' of the older receivers, suffice to say that their eBay prices have been steadily going up for some time now, and most of them are being given "collection" status as they can now be totally refurbished with brand new parts. The move is on, and the choice is yours. For my part I may just collect a couple of the top old models and incorporate a few 'official' circuit modifications to get them over the edge with a better DRNS specs than the IC-756 Pro 3 and the FT-2000 and to have them rubbing shoulders with the IC-7800, Orion and Elecraft. I think I can do that for under 200 bucks each. From what I have read, Kenwood seem to be the least trouble to modify, update and upgrade, while it appear that Icom may be at other end. In any event if one exercises due care and attention all things become possible.
By now you would have noticed that it is all about receiver selectivity and a serious attention to some construction specifics. An investment in an INRAD filter can help your receiver to move up the table to the point where it may even exceed the minimum specifications. Most receivers that show a DRNS of 70dB and can be out fitted with INRAD filters, usually realize an 8 to 10 dB improvement to just about the DRNS 80 dB figure. Another couple dB may be available from circuit and component tweaks. So it is really not that difficult for your receiver to make the minimum specs, as long it was properly engineered from its creation. Looking at the receiver test data table again, all the receivers from number 16 to number 47, that can be fitted with INRAD filters and can entertain a few circuit tweaks, could have the ability to meet the minimum specifications of DRNS 80 db at 2kHz.
I can now see why the old time rigs on eBay are still selling high after 10, 15 and 20 years. Given the present world economic situation, old rig prices may not drop down quite to where we expect they should, and the other Japan rig makers may be forced to follow Kenwood's lead. But all may not be lost because the USA rig makers seem to have the solution well in hand, and it can prove to be a very interesting situation in the not too distant future. But while we are looking for that bargain on an old but capable second rig, or maybe first rig for some, we may also have to consider the fact that the most capable top-of-the-line-rig, the Elecraft K3, made in the USA is now available brand new for less than 20% of the cost of the most expensive top-of-the-line Japanese rig made by Icom. To me this warrants serious consideration and seems to fit into the camp of a once in a lifetime deal. It is extremely difficult to get any better than this.
*****************************************
The ham radio equipment makers have to market a new rig every year if they want to stay in business or be forced to follow in Kenwood's footsteps. Given today's technology some of the new high tech rigs seem very overpriced while others with apparently better receiver specifications are still priced to suit the average ham radio operator's pocket. No matter the price tag all rigs are treated equally, and usually end up on the test bench in various institutions like ARRL and Sherwood Engineering Inc, to verify the 'claimed' and published performance data, and of course to see how they stack up against each other. In light of the latest Receiver Test Data table, dated 15 February 2008, produced by Bob Sherwood of Sherwood Engineering, http://www.sherweng.com/table.html, I may have to change this blog subject because these old rigs seen to have something extra about them, more than just design and components, that the modern and recent receivers of today seem to be lacking.
With a DRNS, Dynamic Range Narrow Spaced of 80 dB at 2kHz given as the minimum specification for a receiver to adequately cope with contest QRM, the kilowatt alley guys and the full assortment of lids on-the-air these days, Bob Sherwood's receiver test results indicate that only 15 ham receivers meet or exceed this minimum specs that everyone seems to be in agreement with. I notice that half of the qualifying receivers were made before 2004. Bob Sherwood's top 15 receivers in order are, Elecraft K3, Flex 5000A, Ten-Tec Orion 2, Ten-Tec Orion, Icom R9500, Drake R-4C/CF-600/6 [January 1974], AOR AR-7030, Icom IC-765 [December 1990], Atlas 350-XL [October 1977], Kenwood TS-830/YK88 [May 1981], Ten-Tec Omni VII, Icom IC-7800 [June 2003] , Elecraft K2 [March 2000], Ten-Tec Omni VI+ [November 1997] and Yaesu 901-DM [November 1978].
Here are the remaining receivers, in order as they fall below the minimum receiver spec, and these range from DRNS 79 dB down to DRNS 56 dB at 2 kHz spacing. Ten-Tec Corsair, Icom IC-720A, Kenwood TS-820S, Kenwood TS-850, Yaesu FT-1000 MP MkV Field, Ten-Tec Omni 5, Atlas 210/215, Icom IC-756 Pro 3, Icom IC-756 Pro 2, Drake TR-7, Heath SB-104, Icom 706 MK2G, Ten-Tec Omni-B, Icom IC-730-781, Kenwood TS-9S, Icom IC-701, Icom 756 Pro, Icom IC-761, Kenwood TS-870S, Yaesu FT-1000 D, Kenwood TS-430S, Yaesu FT-1000 MP, Signal One CX-11A, Kenwood TS-180s, Icom IC-735, Collins KWM-380, Icom IC-751, Icom 7000, Yaesu Ft-2000, Kenwood TS-520, Yaesu FT-One, Yaesu FT-980, , Yaesu FT-101E, Yaesu FT-757.
These are all pretty good receivers in times of peace and quiet, but you will definitely have a problem when you enter the DX and contest arena and want to work a weak station who is only making S-2, and there is another station just 2 kHz away trying to choke you off with splatter or has his boots in you face. With a good DX antenna like mine, it is not unusual for YV, HK and KP4 stations to be trying to break off my S-meter around sunset. So how on earth do you expect me to hear the weak DX signals unless my receiver is selective enough and has a great immunity to strong signals 2 kHz off my frequency. When the station is 20kHz off your listening frequency there is usually no problem at all. But there will always come a time when you hear the weak ones that you really need. Most times they may hear you, but you have problems receiving them. Now that we know why, we can elect to improve our receiver to get it to perform just like today's $10K+ radios or maybe better, but without the $10K+ price. In my particular case the Kenwood TS-940SAT [1986] is fitted with INRAD filters and all the factory approved modifications and then some more.
Don't be alarmed by the number of older rigs which have just refused to die. There are a few white and green papers around that clearly explain the phenomenon, for those who want to believe it is. But what all this translates into is something that you may wish to consider the next time you feel the urge to add another receiver to the station line up. You may need to think twice about upgrading to what may be advertised as one of the latest technologically adept receivers. Many science fiction movies now depict us in the future and going back to the old and obsolete equipment for survival after the great high tech war to come. Maybe we are already living in that dimension with some aspects of the fallout but we just do not fully comprehend that as yet.
I will not debate the 'quality' of the older receivers, suffice to say that their eBay prices have been steadily going up for some time now, and most of them are being given "collection" status as they can now be totally refurbished with brand new parts. The move is on, and the choice is yours. For my part I may just collect a couple of the top old models and incorporate a few 'official' circuit modifications to get them over the edge with a better DRNS specs than the IC-756 Pro 3 and the FT-2000 and to have them rubbing shoulders with the IC-7800, Orion and Elecraft. I think I can do that for under 200 bucks each. From what I have read, Kenwood seem to be the least trouble to modify, update and upgrade, while it appear that Icom may be at other end. In any event if one exercises due care and attention all things become possible.
By now you would have noticed that it is all about receiver selectivity and a serious attention to some construction specifics. An investment in an INRAD filter can help your receiver to move up the table to the point where it may even exceed the minimum specifications. Most receivers that show a DRNS of 70dB and can be out fitted with INRAD filters, usually realize an 8 to 10 dB improvement to just about the DRNS 80 dB figure. Another couple dB may be available from circuit and component tweaks. So it is really not that difficult for your receiver to make the minimum specs, as long it was properly engineered from its creation. Looking at the receiver test data table again, all the receivers from number 16 to number 47, that can be fitted with INRAD filters and can entertain a few circuit tweaks, could have the ability to meet the minimum specifications of DRNS 80 db at 2kHz.
I can now see why the old time rigs on eBay are still selling high after 10, 15 and 20 years. Given the present world economic situation, old rig prices may not drop down quite to where we expect they should, and the other Japan rig makers may be forced to follow Kenwood's lead. But all may not be lost because the USA rig makers seem to have the solution well in hand, and it can prove to be a very interesting situation in the not too distant future. But while we are looking for that bargain on an old but capable second rig, or maybe first rig for some, we may also have to consider the fact that the most capable top-of-the-line-rig, the Elecraft K3, made in the USA is now available brand new for less than 20% of the cost of the most expensive top-of-the-line Japanese rig made by Icom. To me this warrants serious consideration and seems to fit into the camp of a once in a lifetime deal. It is extremely difficult to get any better than this.
Comments