Bad Transmit Signal

Douglas Maxwell

Mike, I recon they have biased an FPGA interface timing window towards high temperature operation. My 6300 will probably perform to higher temperatures better than old working 6300s. The trouble is my cold start temperature is outside the working range for my 6300. Older 6300s may see my problem if they try a cold start at low temperatures i.e. field day in the UK hi! I can only hope that the firmware engineers at FRS will find a compromise solution that lowers the working temperature range to allow old and new 6300s to all cold start properly. If I'm right in the above assumptions, it doesn't say much for the reliability of a 6300s if it's FPGA has an interface on a timing knife edge at room temperature! Anyone like to try doing a cold start of their working 6300 at lower temperatures (using the latest firmware 1.5.1) to see if they can mimik the above test?

Tim - W4TME

We have address this in the upcoming SmartSDR v1.6 release.

Douglas Maxwell

If working temperature range isn't the root cause, then I would suspect the effect of temperature on similar frequency but asynchronous clocks used over an interface i.e. rx and tx clocks over an RGMII interface such as that used for transferring 1Gb Ethernet. 

Douglas Maxwell

Does this mean you have found the root cause but are waiting for other firmware fixes to go into the v1.6 release? If so, that is great news. Any details on what you think is causing my problems would be very much appreciated.

Dave Dave

Tim can you post a pix of how the display should look?

Also Squelch...... 1.6???

Tim - W4TME

Doug - we found an internal communication timing issue that ends up close to the edge on some radios with the latest firmware.  Thermal factors can move that point to be over the edge, so we changed tolerances to improve reliability.

Dave Dave - the display should look like Doug's 2nd picture.

Mike KD2CJJ

Glad to hear it was found!   I was getting from my contacts that I sounded "Digital" some times and other times not.

I would suggest during the support process that this information be shared to those who have support cases open!  So fare I have not received an update on my ticket with this good news or even acknowledged it was an issue!  But clearly some have it and some dont.

I would ALSO suggest trying out patches with those customers who have an issue rather than wait till a major release.  This beta testing maybe happening but clearly those of us who have open support tickets are in the dark when it comes to issue resolution.

I am NOT happy with customer support at this point in handling this specific issue.

Mike KD2CJJ

In fairness I just received a reply from support acknowledging the issue with the same explanation.  When 1.6 comes out I will post the results.

Rob Fissel

Any reason why you haven't rolled back to 1.4 at all? 

I have to defend Flex against your customer service handling complaint. I've dealt with Yaesu and ICOM in the past regarding hardware/software/firmware issues on different radios, and let's just say that their responsiveness and day to day customer interaction is severely lacking when stacked up against Flex. 

Also, this is an issue that's going to get fixed in an updated release. What's amazing is that this fix is doable. I say this, because as an IC7100 owner, I'm stuck with the permanent based hardware audio issues (TI chipset problem) that many radio owners are facing right now. ICOM has remained completely silent. Also, the low SSB average RF power output issues that the 7100 is known for... not a peep from ICOM publically, and many emails from reps to a fellow ham deny the issue even exists. No FW updates or anything...

At least with the Flex, they respond to us in a public, collaborative forum, usually within the same day. 

Mike KD2CJJ

Rob, because there are OTHER issues that are fixed in 1.5.1 I have hesitated from rolling back.  

And frankly who are you to defend the company. Customer satisfaction is not a science but an art.  One persons interaction when dealing with a company on an issue can be a perfect experience whereas another persons same dealings would be considered a nightmare.  

There are fundamentals that all customer service organizations should follow as a best practice.  Frequent communication, followup, etc. is one of those.   In this instance, for this type of severe problem that in fact degrades the performance of our transmitters I believe extra attention should be provided to those customers with such a problem.  All issues should need not be treated the same - especially when one may think there is a hardware issue apparent.

I am by no means denigrating the customer service as a whole but for this specific incident I have voiced my concerns with very specific feedback.  In general I believe Flex has OUTSTANDING customer service - but the bar is always raised; no matter how high the bar is.  And as a customer, I will push them to raise that bar.

In my professional experience, I always want to hear from my customers and understand what I am doing right and what I am doing wrong.  We are never perfect.   The moment you become complacent and believe your infallible is the day you start playing catch-up to your competitors.  

Your defense in fact hurts a company in the long run.  Let me as the customer voice my opinion based on my own interactions - this time they are doing wrong in my point of view.    And you have every right to create a post of praise to tell them what they are doing right.

Edit:
And let Flex defend how they handled this incident.  Satisfying a customer after an unhappy experience truly differentiates between good customer service and world class customer service.

Rob Fissel

Frankly, I'm a customer, just like you. I don't see why you feel I can't defend the company, yet it's ok for you to do the opposite. We'll just agree to disagree. 

Sorry we can't see eye to eye. Hope you enjoy your rig as much as I do!

73,

Rob

Mike KD2CJJ

I love my Flex and never going back!!!!

Douglas Maxwell

The fix to this problem is in firmware. I see the previous fix for this issue caused SSDR to go from v1.5 to v1.5.1. Now the new fix will cause SSDR to go from v1.5.1 to v1.6.

1) Why (this time round) is there a major version number jump in SSDR?

2) Is the third number in the version number to signify a 'beta' SSDR version?

3) What is the firmware version number?

Tim - W4TME

1) Why (this time round) is there a major version number jump in SSDR?

It isn't a major release number change.  That would be going from 1.x.x to 2.x.x.  New minor versions (1.5->1.6) indicate a different focus or theme for the minor release features.  For 1.5 it was noise mitigation.  For 1.6 it will be contesting.

2) Is the third number in the version number to signify a 'beta' SSDR version?

We do not release beta versions to the public; everything is a general release or a maintenance release..  The third number in the version string starting with v1.6 will be an alpha release sequence.  For example when SmartSDR v1.6 is initially released it may have a release number of  something like 1.6.6 indicating there were 7 alpha releases of 1.6 (0-6) needed before the general release was ready.  This is a change we will be making for v1.6  and all releases going forward to more easily allow for an interim maintenance release after we have started working on a new minor release.

3) What is the firmware version number?

It is synchronized with the SmartSDR for Windows release.  The first three digits of the version number will match.  Example, if the SmartSDR for Windows release is 1.6.6 the firmware will be 1.6.6.x where x is a build number.

Douglas Maxwell

Thanks for the detailed response. Will the new firmware version be tested to ensure clean transmit capability both at the top and bottom of the specified operational temperature range 0 to +50C, +32 to +122F?

Tim - W4TME

While we do our very best to ensure that any software fix is solid before releasing by testing on a sample of radios, there can be no absolute guarantees since the FLEX-6000 is a very complex embedded system.

Douglas Maxwell

Caveats aside, surely in light of the recent firmware instability due to temperature, a transmission test should be carried out at least within likely operational temperatures plus a margin. This is the kind of test that will ensure all 6300s will work and not just a select few as we saw last time round.