Keeping us properly informed IMD

G4BIM

Dear Tim W4TME.

Reference IMD

'This is a feature we will seriously consider for a future version of SmartSDR.'

What does that really mean, its a bit like a statement we would expect from a Politician.

This is not a good 'Official response', it still leaves a great deal of doubt about your companies intentions.

Either you will or you won't.Either you can or you cannot.

This subject has caused a lot of discussion and we all know that it very important especially to those of us who want to continue to enjoy and promote FlexRadio and its great products.

If you continue to evade and fail to be absolute and specific it will breed suspicion, there will be those who may even sell their 6000 series product and go to the competition.

I personally did not build a multimillion pound business in the 1990's, by keeping my good and valued customers in the dark as to my companies true intentions.

We are all on your side at the moment, you must be decisive and clear.

Closing the thread at this time will only annoy people and make them think there is something 'hidden from view'.

Perhaps Gerald should make a statement so we all know where you are really and absolutely going with this.

Kindest regards

g4BIM

SteveM

Your pushing this one-trick-pony like a particular poster I see over on QRZ who seems to have a beef with Flex more than really needing an IMD fix. Tim's response was clear to me - the feature will not be available for the foreseeable future. Give it a rest.

Steve W6SDM

This post seems threatening and is way out of line.  Tim has always answered questions accurately, honestly and to the best of his knowledge.  The fact that he's there to pass on information and get answers to our questions speaks highly of the company interest in communicating with users.  Try getting this type of interaction out of Yaesu, Kenwood, or Icom.

The policy of the Flex company since the PowerSDR days is not not make forward looking statements.  Doing so causes disappointment.  Many of the features that are scheduled for future releases of SSDR haven't been developed yet.  It would be like announcing the availability of time travel in the year 2020 when you have no idea what it takes to accomplish that.

Tim is not being evasive.  He's being honest and following the communications policy his company has set forth. 

Bob Hinkle

I've had the pleasure to attend two Flex Banquets at Dayton and learned from both. Gerald, Tim and all the Flex team are highly intelligent, motivated, and responsive to users (and non-users). The 6000-series software is already amazing, and continues to evolve much as PowerSDR has up to this point. I'm impressed how the entire Flex team is involved in software/feature development, and how well the entire group works together for the betterment of the product. How anyone, like the gentleman above, could suggest a feature and then be horrified when Tim and staff won't commit to a yes or no answer is far beyond my understanding of reasonable thinking. Try that with Kenwood, Icom or Yaesu and see if THEY will commit to your demanding "suggestions" sir, in their next firmware upgrades. Apparent the "me-me-me" generation is alive and well in G-land too.

Bill -VA3WTB

Flex has always been up front with everything. There is no room here for this kind of stuff. Take some place else. This IMD thing is put to rest, It's not happening soon and that's just fine with me. No one bought their Flex for it's IMD I'm sure, I can't see any being re-sold because of Tim's statement.

Ian1

Guy's

When you do business all over the Globe there are very different ways in which people communicate " Speak, Body language etc"

Some of you are taking things out of context there is nothing threatening about g4BIM comments.

Ian

Bob Hinkle

I don't think he was being threatening, sir, I just thought he was acting like a spoiled child insisting on having his way. And that's not acceptable. And apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so. And that's my last word on this.

Terry K8EET

I don't know of many other companies that do as good a job as FLEX at keeping customers informed and as responsive to suggestions.  Not happy with your Flex put it up for sale. You will have little trouble finding a buyer.

np2g

Hold it guys . When I first read the "Official response " I must say I  was also  really taken back.  And given the question it could have been answered far more  nicer  that the political **** off . 

Even if Flex has  answered it  1,000 times before . 

Now  (No bad comment ) This is what our G4 guy drew from the answer or,  in his opinion ,  or lack of it. 

Seeing some of the Official responses  most are great but some  well they could have been  be handled differently .

Sometimes a simple Yes or no is appropriate even if there is no plans to do anything  before we land humans on Mars.

I am not looking at the G4 guy as being a bad man   nor am I looking at Flex for having a bad day .

The bottom line is  there was respect lost  . Who lost it    is how you see it . 

On a personal note my E mail box has some pretty  disgruntled individuals  who have expressed similar to G4  . I'm just glad they posted them to me than to this format . 

And, sad to say,   most didn't know about IMD before 6 months ago  or that it could be reduced . or what was it's impact . So ending on a positive note some Knowledge has been shared . 

Bill -VA3WTB

How much more can they say?
Official Response

As stated previously, we do plan to implement pre-distortion but it falls behind LAN & WAN networking in priority.  We agree that the feature has value and will implement it when it comes up in the priority queue.  It is premature to put it on the road map because we want to make sure we meet all our currently published commitments.  Note that we are the first and only Ham Radio company we know of to publish a public software road map.  

np2g

My OPINION ,  reading  the comment  its what they didn't say  " we do plan to implement pre-distortion but it falls behind LAN & WAN "  

I think  G4 wanted or expected a more definitive answer  From flex for that very same reason we all love flex. Their straight forward and truthful approach to their product 

I also Believe  it was improper to immediately close the discussion . (Again My opinion) 

Because  I do believe G4 would have asked Politely  for that directive . 
And it would have ended there . 

You cannot please everybody period .  

Bill -VA3WTB

And it's true, Gerald does not put a date on it and Tim explained why. And also, it is clear these things they are working on now must be completed first.

np2g

On a similar note:     Using  or implementing pre distortion is not that simple plug and play event ,  just yet. There does  or will involve Operator intervention .  So it is a very  good idea to get the " Other things working and out of the way "  First 



 

Bill -VA3WTB

np2g Good point, I think the plan will be to make it very automatic on the flex so the operator needs little input. Just like the network implementation coming in a few weeks, plug and play, just press a button and you done.

I'm sorry for sounding harsh in my post. I think most people see Flex as an outstanding organization. Steve, Gerald, and Tim, are first rate. When someone suggest they are not being honest and hiding something will get the fer up on most people.

PS. I think I heard you on last night,,It sounds like it was audio time for the group...lol

Ken - NM9P

OK everyone... The weather is cold and everyone seems to be getting a little thinly insulated. Hi hi.

My take is that everything I have heard at the Dayton FRS dinner, and in several presentations by Steve and others that have been posted on the web, indicate that Adaptive Predistortion is on the agenda, eventually, but not on the timeline yet, because there are other, more pressing things on the development agenda that need to be done before the APD "science project" shifts into high gear. Therefore there is no way to schedule it on a time line.

My take is that APD will be given the same attention that the panafall, speech processor, and other things have gotten, and that DSP functions will be getting in v.1.5, and that WAN networking will be getting in v.2.0.

I am confident that the end product will be well worth the wait, but FRS does not wish to put anything on the timeline because it will spawn another long series of "are we there, yet?" Postings.

Let's all just relax and enjoy the ride, and our rigs, until the next few releases are perfected. Good things are on the way. Perhaps not soon enough for everyone, but we will all get there. And we will probably see a few things along the road that we didn't anticipate!

(Disclaimer: though I am listed as an "Elmer" my comments are purely mine and do not reflect any secret knowledge or connection to FRS management. Because there is none.)

Lee

I must have missed something...many times since getting the 6500 I have asked people to look at my signal and tell me if it is clean (within the BW and no splatter) They always say it looks very good!

SOME of these folks are Flex 6000 owners and I know they could see any issues!

Are we talking again about LAB measurements that don't significantly effect the normal use of the radio??

73,

Lee

Steve K9ZW

Here is some fuel for the fire - I 'm disconnected and unworried, and bordering disinterested in IMD or PureSignal or whatever.

Scope your big-3 transceivers and you will find your Flex-6x00 is doing just fine.

Wouldn't as much aggregate improvement be achieved if people just scoped their RF and adjusted their stations once in a while? 

We're suggesting a chase of differences too small to really matter in day to day operations, for a radio that is already ahead of the class.

That all said, I would likely add the improvement if/when offered, but for now am too busy operating as the signal is to be hand wringing & worrying about improvements of what is already an exceptional signal.

I'd also be quite unhappy to have the SmartSDR Roadmap rewritten in a way that delays 1.4, 1.5 and 2.0 ... and would require added hardware & specific installation circumstances to be effective.

Having done Graduate School and worked in the UK for years afterwards, I disagree with the defenders of G4BIM's style post. 

Peter's asking perhaps the right questions but asks them in an way that would have bristled his own back badly if the enquiries came his way during his career. 

Brash and pushy, but nothing that buying Gerald and Co. a **** at Dayton couldn't fix though <wink>!! 

Actually the whole topic and possibility again is interesting enough that a few beers should be quaffed discussing it! 

73

Steve

K9ZW

Jay Nation

RE: the original posters spew !

OK, so he's not satisfied with the facts, and he's not satisfied with the truth. Would he prefer a guess, or a lie, no he wants a "statement" which he will define as being a promise. a promise on it's way to not being kept. Something he can copy paste as fact He's a TROLL on a fishing expedition hoping for another trophy. 

Don't fall for it Tim. 

np2g

To answer Lee

I am attaching the screen shot of a transceiver running pure signal and running 2 tone test pattern 

What you will see looking  at 7.168  is the fundamental frequency energy and the  opposite side band           The    IMD   is virtually below -60 DB .

And if you look to the right  7.176  frequency   you will see a signal with IMD and another station at 7.179 tuning up .  

Both the 7.168 and 7.176 stations are pretty close to the same strength .



.  


 
The shot wasn't planned to include the other station but it does illustrate what you see and hear displayed. 

I hope this helps or clarifies your question . 

np2g

To answer Steve 
the IMD we are talking about is energy generated outside your band pass usually caused by audio energy mixing in the band pass and going over the fundamental . or the opposite side band. 

The big 3      All     will produce this. Some more or some less . (Less is better) 

What's the difference .

It's a better transmitter function. You put more energy into the band pass , And yes it is cleaner audio . 

If you don't care  that's OK .

If you feel it is as good as you want   That's OK 

I personally  see the benefit of cleaning up the transmitted energy. 

Maybe its just me     Working a S2 station (We really do have a great noise floor)  and have a station crawl up on the frequency and their  IMD that could be could be  corrected  takes over. 
(some of us actually call this splatter) 

 And I do agree sometimes the transceiver is mis tuned and this exacerbates the IMD that  the transmitter produces  . 


So Flex made our flex  have superior receive capability why shouldn't they improve the Transmitter section if it is possible  . 

Please  No one wants  Flex to slow down or detour  on what they have promised.

We all should sit down with a few libations and be sociable .
Because at one time or another we all will **** 

Bill -VA3WTB

I think every one understands why it's a good thing to have. But this has been responded to by Flex. This is getting old now. There is nothing you can do or ask that will speed this up. So as Ken said, just relax enjoy the state of the art ride and have fun.

This is the last post for me on this subject as It has run the coarse. I have better things on here to read,,,cheers...