SmartSDR v3.4.23 and the SmartSDR v3.4.23 Release Notes | SmartSDR v2.9.1 and the SmartSDR v2.9.1 Release Notes
SmartSDR v1.12.1 and the SmartSDR v1.12.1 Release Notes
Power Genius XL Utility v3.7.32 and the Power Genius XL Release Notes v3.7.32
Tuner Genius XL Utility v1.1.16 and the Tuner Genius XL Release Notes v1.1.16
Need technical support from FlexRadio? It's as simple as Creating a HelpDesk ticket.
Keeping us properly informed IMD
Dear Tim W4TME.
'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.
SteveM MemberYour 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.7
Steve W6SDM Member ✭✭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.
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.
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.10
Ian1 Member ✭✭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.
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 Member ✭✭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.2
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 .
How much more can they say?
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.2
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 .0
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.1
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
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...lol1
Ken - NM9P Member ✭✭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.)4
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??
Steve K9ZW Member ✭✭✭
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!
Jay Nation Member ✭✭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.3
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 .
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 ****0
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...2
Leave a Comment
- 20.1K All Categories
- 186 Community Topics
- 2K New Ideas
- 387 The Flea Market
- 6.7K Software
- 5.6K SmartSDR for Windows
- 109 SmartSDR for Maestro and M models
- 275 SmartSDR for Mac
- 210 SmartSDR for iOS
- 208 SmartSDR CAT
- 142 DAX
- 332 SmartSDR API
- 8.2K Radios and Accessories
- 6.7K FLEX-6000 Signature Series
- 678 Maestro
- 37 FlexControl
- 807 FLEX Series (Legacy) Radios
- 573 Genius Products
- 322 Power Genius XL Amplifier
- 208 Tuner Genius XL
- 43 Antenna Genius
- 168 Shack Infrastructure
- 108 Networking
- 284 Remote Operation (SmartLink)
- 109 Contesting
- 453 Peripherals & Station Integration
- 105 Amateur Radio Interests
- 720 Third-Party Software