IC7300 Manual Released

Barry N1EU

Rob, if you're up for an experiment, please reply and attach the image to your post.

Rob Fissel

Here you go!

Rob Fissel

That's the image that I saw in the email sent to me regarding your post. No picture seen when I visit the actual post. Checked both Firefox and Chrome. Strange. 

James Whiteway

Just wondering, it says thats as good as it gets, even on an external monitor. I thought the 7300 had no video output for a external monitor. So, where does that image come from? James WD5GWY

Walt - KZ1F

Ya know what? That works just fine for me. Throw that up on a 32" monitor, what's not to like? Oh wait, I forgot where I was.

Oh, Barry... YAY!

[Deleted User]

Maybe all this should be in a Icom 7300 forum somewhere ??? I really don't give a hoot about the 7300. If I did I'de join the group.

Barry N1EU

James, the IC-7300 doesn't drive an external monitor directly.  You need to run software on the PC that  interfaces to the 7300 via USB and I assume the video memory is passed via the USB port.

Walt - KZ1F

I think there is something of an issue that floats in and out of here every so often, that is just how all Flex all day and night is this forum supposed to be. To put words in Tim's mouth, it's like ****, he knows it when he sees it. Strictly speaking this is a Flex support forum, so therefore, the effervescent IHeartFlexRadio, waves of euphoria washing over one is also off topic, as is Barry's display of not ssdr, etc etc. People's tolerance for anything beyond 'I have a problem with my 6000 or 1500', vary by individual and time of month. But the facility exists for one to opt out of activities against a conversation or, for that matter, all conversations. Simply unclick 'follow'.

I was not picking on Barry or Rob. Strictly speaking, most every conversation on here is off topic.

Barry N1EU

I think there's a large group of Flex owners who ARE interested in following the introduction of other manufacturers' direct sampling xcvrs and a large group who AREN'T interested.  I would simply hope that the ones who aren't interested just refrain from reading the threads whose titles clearly indicate that's what they're about.  Or am I missing something?

Peter Bentley

No you are not Barry.

Please keep contributing

Thank you

G4BIM

Walt - KZ1F

Barry, you worded that WAY better than I did, but we do share the same sentiment. Although I don't share the WAN sentiment as its been available with not only Flex radios but many others for years. It's a well established mode. As its not publicly implemented yet anything said about it is pure wishful thinking.

Ken - NM9P

I think the competition will be interesting and ultimately good for the hobby. Just as the 1500 is often a "gateway rig" for many Flex users, I think rigs like the IC-7300 and the Elad Duo and others will serve as entry level rigs for more advanced SDR's. Other operators will find that they are perfectly satisfied with the performance/cost of these rigs and will happily use them for years. But there will be a lot of "cross-pollinization" as more companies get into SDR or hybrid SDR rigs and creativity begins to multiply exponentially. I see nothing wrong with a thread or two dealing with comparisons between Flex rigs and the competition, as long as the conversation is civil and productive. I enjoy hearing about the new offerings and how they compare. It may help others decide if a Flex is for them, and which model might best fit them. Others clearly have the option to "Unfollow" the thread. When a thread begins to wander from either civility or productivity, I am sure that Tim will close it....as he should. So far I haven't seen any cause for it. Ken - NM9P

Bill -VA3WTB

Most interesting times. As more products come out, they will test the definition of what SDR is. Some may be full SDR and others may have things about them that implies SDR but not really. We have already seen debates here if the K3x is an SDR radio.

Software Defined Radio will be widened to mean almost anything with some processing in it. One thing seems clear, SDR is something almost all radio companies want a peace of. Unless there is an universal agreement as to what the SDR definition is, many with radios without dispute running SDR radios will be offended. Long live SDR, what ever it is.

Walt - KZ1F

Yes, WAN appears to be positioned as the marquee feature of v2. My point was people feeling they can't use their 6000 remotely like they can with K3S or TS-990 or even the lowly IC-7300 are mistaken. For those that have amps and rotors and external antenna switches/tuners VPN (and you don't actually need a virtual private network (VPN)) will be pretty much stuck with, what you refer to as, the less elegant solution.  Some would call it the more elegant solution. There are miles of space between a VNC (remote desktop) connection and a few select ports that are open.

I believe there are many people who believe WAN is the next great wave of euphoria that will be washing over them, after Maestro...of course.

Paul, what you've quoted from Gerald isn't the wishful thinking I was referring to. I believe that stmt you quoted is the sum and substance of what we officially know about it. Hardly euphoric wave worthy. You missed my point.

Bill -VA3WTB

Right, the definition can not be challenged, there is not one.

Walt - KZ1F

Something I've mentioned/asked several times on here is what is it beyond a name and replicating some analog function digitally, beyond what DSP already does. As Howard has often said, SDR is the future of radio. That may well be the case. For the moment, let's not compare the 6000 series. The ic-7300 is an SDR. I suspect there will be little push back on this as I predict the ic-7300 will be ranked far below the K3S on the Sherwood ranking, perhaps in the vicinity of the 1500. The panadapter is very slick, but that is hardly unique to Flex or even SDR. Beyond the material cost of the radio, I am at a loss for where the decisive advantage is. Where legacy radios already are capable of hearing below the atmospheric noise floor is the technology already pretty much up against a hard stop? So the yes I am, no you're not argument on what radio(s) can call themselves SDR seems to me to be in the realm of product marketing. The thing about software is you write it once. Take a vintage 1980 TV, every unit sold had a lot of hardware in it, raising the cost of every unit. The material price of TV s now is far less, but the stations are the same.

Some people will read this and assume I am merely being provocative. I am not, there is a sincere question in that.

Bill -VA3WTB

Sorry Walt, can you scale it down a bit,,what is the question? I'm slow at getting it...

Barry N1EU

I think it's more definitive and clear to call a radio "direct sampling" when that's the case, rather than "SDR".  "SDR" means nothing anymore as far as I'm concerned.  Any radio with an I/Q output is an SDR supposedly.  Some even call any DSP I.F. radio an SDR.

Bill -VA3WTB

It can be understood that a SDR radio is software, not just software controled?

Walt - KZ1F

Thanks for that Paul. I didn't know that existed. By the quote that is paragraph 3, virtually every radio made since the 80's is free to call themselves SDR as 'some part' of the process is done in software. That'll cause an uproar,and no, I am not trying to elicit that. I just think that is an exceptionally broad definition.

Bill -VA3WTB

This gets even more interesting Walt. In my opinion, their should have been a button down definition of what SDR is, and what you read there, to me is not it.

The problem with not having a clear definition is a problem for consumers. Under that understanding almost anyone could say their radio is SDR. That's not good for the not so astute consumer who buys a radio thinking they have an SDR radio and they really don't.

To that end, could we not call companies out who misrepresent their products? if their radio is clearly not an SDR to what we understand it to be?
But by who's definition do we chose? I'm not bringing this to light because of Flex.
It does bring to the table a problem in the market, as was stated, it is all about how companies market.

Only the consumers can push this, but with out guide lines it will be difficult.

Walt - KZ1F

Bill, I don't disagree, given the popular definition some/most of us have been used to viewing the world through. However, given the peer reviewed status of the definition, I'd have to conclude the popularized definition some/many on here have been accustom to is incorrect.

Now, I believe, this conversation is very germain to the subject of this forum. I think, further though, it supports my thesis regarding the manufacturing/production management aspect of the electronics industry, be it consumer or specialty. Clearly, in this case, it involves radio based electronics. So if the production line is designed for a run of 200,000 or 2,000,000 units the per unit cost of production is staggeringly small, compared to non SDR technology, as software costs, per unit is mind numbingly small.

Walt - KZ1F

Bill, to double back to your question above, and let's use direct sampling rather than SDR. Where is the decisive differentiator? Yes, I understand the marketing differentiators. Given the ic-7300, f6700, f1500, and ic-7851, in a blind taste...err listening test, wouldn't the bulk of the test subjects choose either the 6700 or 7851 over the 1500 or 7300? In other words, the hypothesis is, if you didn't know what it was you couldn't tell what it was. Again, I get there is a EE difference in the technology.

Barry N1EU

I like the blind taste test.  I was just thinking about that during my walk at lunchtime and how my K3s would fare against my 6500.  Going into such a test, I would not bet against the K3s, but who knows?

Walt - KZ1F

Barry, that is why I deliberately did not us Elecraft in that example, too much emotion over Elecraft v FRS. My premise is the high end radio would win, regardless of the technology.
Howard will tell you they did that, 6700 v K3s and he felt the 6700 won. Not a blind test and, as I recall, Dennis disagreed. To do this correctly you'd need at least 4 radios such that the subject not only not know which test included their favorite but there would be tests low end against low end and high end against low end and high-end against high-end.

KY6LA_Howard

Here is a link to my Friedrichshafen -2015 paper defining Four Genrations of SDR

The 7300is pretty obviously a 1st Generation Direct Down Conversion SDR

https://www.dropbox.com/s/deg696253ag...

Charles - K5UA

And....it would be a DOUBLE blind test.

Walt - KZ1F

Precisely

Duane N9DG

First : They are all SDRs per the definition of “SDR”.

Second: They are not all the same, despite all being SDRs, far from it.

Third: You can't make truly meaningful comparisons between them based only on their single signal at a time operating traits.

You must consider their displays/scopes (and how many), scope/display quality, non traditional tuning and control capabilities, I/Q signal, audio, control, and other I/O capabilities. And now also IP connectivity, and any multi-band, multi-mode operational parallelism they may or may not be capable of.

Bottom line is that when looking at the different SDRs to compare them you must do so on their FULL RANGE of capabilities and functionality.

As for categorizing them in terms of generations, I think that is an exercise in futility. And perhaps more troubling is that it can easily miss what is truly relevant and important when making comparisons between them. I instead divide them along the lines of “Sliver band sampling” or "Wide band sampling” (what Lee alluded to that I have posted elsewhere before):

1. Sliver band sampling – basically any radio that has a "narrow" roofing filter and samples a ~15kHz or less chunk of spectrum.

2. Wide band sampling -  basically any radio that samples a 24kHz or wider chunk of spectrum. AND perhaps more importantly, has the ability to provide two or more software only RX and/or TX's anywhere within that sampled bandwidth simultaneously. You will see that no sliver band (narrow roofing filter) SDR can do that. Though some sliver band designs do provide some degree of analog IF or I/Q outputs to support external SDR software.

You can certainly sub divide the wide band sampling designs in to two sub groups. But they will mostly differ in how much analog mixing is ahead of the ADC, and how much spectrum bandwidth is actually sampled. Their other traits and capabilities will still be quite similar.

And I just don't get this obsession/debate over in-radio vs. in host PC processing either. They are simply design choices that have been made to address different economic and technical trade-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. And the two approaches need not be mutually exclusive either. The 6K series does offer DAX I/Q that can happily feed PC based SDR SW after all.

The IC-7300 is thus far a unique case though. Its underlying technology is certainly wide band sampling. But the way that radio can, and is expected to be used, is anything but “wide band”. It in fact nearly 100% emulates a traditional sliver band design. First by limiting the amount of spectrum that is actually sampled. And then further limiting it by not providing any means to spawn multiple “radios” in the software alone. It is a single signal at a time radio. Period.

Walt - KZ1F

I am with you on that one Paul. I really don't think that will happen here. I cannot recall any other object that rose, to so many people, to the level of cult. There are people who will become downright belligerent if one dares to say or imply anything that might tarnish the euphoria inducing nature of this radio. To some it has become a religious icon. In that sense perhaps it would be better to hold to the strict purpose of this forum, for people to report they have a problem. No fielty tests, no attribution.