New Sherwood 6700 and 6300 tests

Varistor

Why would they need an excuse? Buyers have voted with their wallets that they don't need the feature. Does the K3 have it? The vast majority of hams want to turn on their radios and just use them, without the need for extra software.

Jd Dupuy

Nope. Some like white bread and some like wheat. Life is to short to worry about where my equipment ranks on a mythical list. I just enjoy each one of my 75 Transceivers... when I can find to turn them on.

ka7gzr

I think there should be more than one specification attribute in these rankings including transmitter performance. These selected performance figures should be developed by the industry along with the users. Each of these performance figures would have a "weighting" factor applied. There could be further category rankings that include mode of operation e.g. cw, ssb, rag-chewing, dx, etc. 

KS4JU

Well, I stand corrected. There appears to be a standard USB connector as well as a USB hub connector. So, I assume the hub connector may allow for a mouse connection and maybe even a keyboard connected via a USB hub. Not to sure why they are using what to appears to be an old school DVI connector though since DVI is gradually fading away on new monitors in favor of Display Port and HDMI. I suspect the resolution will be limited to 1080p and aspect ratio to 16x9. If so no 4K or Ultrawide 21:9 support. However, I could be wrong about that too

James Del Principe

Thank you, Duane. That makes sense to me and is very logical. I will try setting up the AGC-T as you describe.   It was a bit confusing to have an 'S' meter reading with the antenna input shorted but you explanation covers that well. 73, Jim

Michael Coslo

Would not care a bit. Specs are nice and all, but I know some Hams who go to that site religiously and are the Ham radio equivalent of audiophiles.

Paul Christensen, W9AC

96 dB of close-spaced DR is still excellent.  It would be helpful to have an explanation as to the recently tested 6700's 12 dB of DR degradation on 10m.  If this is normal by design, then the League should start publishing DR performance by band of operation in its equipment reviews. 

Another issue not yet mentioned is that testing occurs on single units.  What we see in QST or in Sherwood's tests may not be typical across a population of tested units.  Of course, that goes both ways: some tested units may perform significantly better - or worse than others.  Until DDC, I would expect this level of variation across units but not with today's breed of SDR transceivers.

Paul, W9AC

    

KY6LA_Howard

Flex STILL TOPS THE SHERWOOD CHARTS. Ranked via RMDR. BUT more important the 6700 tops the charts in Phase Noise

KY6LA_Howard

The ICOM IC-7300 and IC7610 are using the traditional 36KHz DSP chain found in all their older rasdio. Basically it seems to be a cost issue to save money and reutilize old stuff rather than investing in new technology. Icom also saved money by using DVI rather than paying a license fee for more modern HDMI Frankly it seems to be a marketing vs technology issue. The Icom target audience customer base tends to be relatively unsophisticated from the technological viewpoint. That's why you saw such rave reviews of the iIC-7300 when in fact it clearly was a substandard radio with many design defects. Comparing it to legacy radios of the ICOM past it was a major step forward and most of its target audience was on aware of the technological flaws. The IC-7600 Will be a slightly better radio that the 7300 but the obvious live limitation of the 36 kHz DSP chain will still limit its features. I fully expect to see Rave review's for the 7600 from the technically unsophisticated who formed the ICOM target market while at the same time more sophisticated users of product such as flex Anan Will turn their noses up at the 7600.

Varistor

What a bunch of ****! If you think that Flex users are more sophisticated than other hams you are on something. Just take the time to read about the type of antennas being used here, the frequent complaining about RFI issues, numerous Windows issues, and OMG the discovery of remote switches. Just because people sit in front of giant screens and click on their waterfalls doesn't make them smarter than the rest. This elites view is just rude.

John

I Like My FLEX.Having said that Flex is lacking some in the CW operation.In this mode the Icom radio's are super.Perhaps Flex can work on this...

James Del Principe

I do like my Flex but my ancient FT 2000 had some nice features that would be good to have. Working split was very easy with the push of a single button I was on the 2nd VFO/RCVR. Press and hold, it went to 5 KHZ up, another press and it jumped to 10KHZ.   In SSB, if I hit the key I could send CW. There are two key jacks and each can be programmed individually. I had one set up as a straight key and the other as a 'bug'.   Yep, just like a real Vibroplex.   The negative was skirt selectivity.....very broad.

KY6LA_Howard

@N2WQ If you actually read what I wrote. I made no comment on the sophistication of individual users. It is a fact of life that the TARGET MARKET for the Icom SDR is the less technical appliance operators.

Duane_AC5AA

John - examples of how ICOM beats the Flex on CW might be helpful.

John

OK,Duane.Well to start,I can key my 7600 in full qsk.There is no delay and a beautiful cw note in the cw monitor.No delay.Now Duane,I will confess I am a fairly new Flex user.If you know of a better way Please let me know as I am really trying to give the Flex a real comparison.The filtering is equal and the Flex may beat the Icom on the NB.Icom has a antotune for peak cw.Not really used as is usually does not peak.I am learning.If you have suggestions as to help the Flex better on CW please let me know...73 john

George KF2T

Thanks, Howard. Although we'll no doubt be tagged as fanboys, the point is... you're right! Like I said earlier, there are plenty of good radios out there; pick the one you like best and just breathe.

Duane_AC5AA

Hi John - up until the last two Beta releases, which I'm guessing is what you're running, the QSK CW was outstanding. Now there are a couple of issues like an AGC(?) pop on keying and not full QSK, in addition to the intermittent hesitation if you use CWX but I expect those will be fixed on the next standard release just because they were working fine prior. I know that's probably not a very satisfying answer.

John

OK,Duane..I will back up a few releases and check that.Yes I am running the latest.Are you running direct frm the radio? not a winkeyer?  73 john

Duane_AC5AA

Correct. I use either CWX for routine or (non-serious) contesting, or a paddle plugged into the front Key jack. Both ran fine until the two recent Beta's (if I remember right - I may have skipped one of the later releases, so I might be off by one release.) One very nice thing about CWX is that it tracks keyer speed with the plugged in paddle - something that a number of rigs with internal keyers don't do.

John

OK,I am using a maestro.I don't have cwx on the maestro.I sent you a e-mail..lets chat..73 john

Ria

Icom users do tend to be more traditionalists. Fewer contesters are using icom now but that is mainly due to the popularity of the Elecraft K3(S). However there are s good few power users such as K3LR and WB9Z/NV9L (who also have a flex).

Duane_AC5AA

Hi John - I am not using a Maestro so I probably won't be able to help you on this. I use direct connection of the 6500 to my network, and SSDR from my shack desktop. I have no idea what Maestro configuration options are available, or how it works in QSK. You might want to check in with Dudley at Flex.

Andrew O'Brien

I'm wondering whether ANY of the transceivers available in the market have any real difference when it comes to "average"  ham radio activity?  While I understand the reliability of test/bench measurements, I'd like to see a test involving a human ear, 3000 miles distance between transmit and receiving stations, and average antennae. Then step down the PEP of the transmit station  and compare transceivers , determining when the human ear involved can no longer hear the transmitting stations.   I'm going to guess that for SSB phone communications, the level at which the ear can no longer copy the transmitting station is going to be the same for 20-30 of the transceivers tested. For super weak CW or deep SNR digital modes ,  it might make a bigger difference but that difference would rarely involve ability to work a station of "importance" (needed DX entity). In fact, I'm willing to argue that it is only contesting stations that are impacted by any of this.  Like the station begging for contacts  with no takers yesterday and he could not hear my repeated attempts to contact him. 

The difference in receive performance between various radios DOES become important for SWL broadcast band DXing.  Pulling in that rare 90M Indonesian  station ID might just need that extra receive sensitivity .  For average ham activity I doubt the difference between a Flex 6700 and a Kenwood TS 440 would be noticed by ears (eyes, would notice a difference) 

Andy K3UK

HCampbell WB4IVF

Here’s an article by Andrew Barron ZL3DW on SDR testing.  Note his comments on the Sherwood tests and the usefulness and applicability of tests used for traditional radios to testing of SDRs:

 https://www.google.com/search?q=Performance+testing+of+Software+Defined+Radios+By+Andrew+Barron+ZL3DW&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

And some comments (including on Flex 6000 series and problems in SDR testing) by Rob Sherwood posted earlier by John / N0SNX:

https://community.flexradio.com/flexradio/topics/arrl_and_sherwood_testing?topic-reply-list%5Bsettin...

I have my long form reports which cover operational issues, including how the radio performed in a contest. But of course the table on my web site is just numbers.  As I have said at several ham presentations, we have become obsessed with wanting or owning a 100 dB radio.  Of course bigger numbers are generally desirable, at least up to a point. Back when we had 70 dB radios, which was virtually every up-conversion radio made, the difference between a 70 dB radio and an 85 dB radio was huge.  Now the question is, once we have a whole slew of 85 dB or better radios (close-in dynamic range), what else do we look at.  Hopefully all sorts of things: clean receive audio with low fatigue, clean transmitter IMD, good ergonomics, stable software/firmware, reliability, warranty service, etc. 

  Also 85 dB is fine most of the time.  The TS-990S tests out between 85 and 98 dB, depending on the band when measured at 2 kHz.  This is because it happens to be reciprocal mixing dynamic range (RMDR) limited at 2 kHz on all bands.  At 5 or 10 kHz the phase noise is much less of an issue.  If the RMDR is 85 dB, and there is a really strong CW station 2 kHz away, the limit may actually be the key clicks of the very strong station 2 kHz above or below in frequency.  On SSB the transmitted IMD is virtually always the limit when trying to copy an S3 signal with an S9+30 dB signal 3 KHz away. 

Q:  I wouldn't expect your test results to change based on the other software enhancements or fixes that I've seen on the road map. 

Reply:  There actually have been some software issues that affected basic measurements. 

Q:  Even Adaptive Predistortion (when they eventually add that to the 6000) wouldn't affect the receiver numbers.  Does that seem right or am I missing something?

Reply:  Certainly predistortion has nothing to do with basic receiver measurements.  

Q:  Do you think  the way you rank the receivers in your Receiver Test Data listing will change to accommodate the SDRs?  There are enough differences  that you could make a case for that.  

Reply:  The problem is what is the dynamic range (DR3) of a direct sampling radio, both in the lab and on the air with real signals.  If the 6000 series or the Apache ANAN series are tested in the lab, the DR3 value is very dependent on the test level.  Unlike a legacy radio where it is super clean until it starts to overload, there is low level distortion in a direct sampling radio all the time.  It may be odd order, or at times just some other spurious.  Spurious free dynamic range should look at any near-by spur, not just third order.  I never published any data on the SDR-1000 since the general spurious was way above the third-order spurious. 

Q: At any rate I think many of us are anxious to see where the 6700 lands in your list.  (Will it be #2  #5, etc)

Reply:  That is the problem.  If tested at lower levels, like we actually usually have to contend with on the air (S9 + 40 dB), the DR3 might be in the 80s.   If tested at levels like S9 +60 dB or S9 + 70 dB, the DR3 may well be around 100 dB.  As I said earlier, real QRM signals on the band provide incidental dither (a feature not in the 6000 series chip), and may well smear distortion products into broadband noise.  How does one account for this in a table?

Here is my feeling on the subject, and this is a CW contest issue.  Once the DR3 is 85 dB or better, we are going to be fine in a contest / DX pile-up MOST of the time.  SSB contests / DX pile-ups are limited by the other guy’s transmitted IMD products, at least until we have a lot of class A rigs on the air, or a lot of rigs with really well implemented predistortion. 

Lets take the TS-990S vs. the 6700.  Both are in the 85 to 100 dB range, depending on how we measure the radio.  After the radio is overload proof “good enough” from a real-world performance stand point, I am going to pick a radio to purchase on all those other very important aspects of what is important to me.  I don’t happen to own a K3, yet 63% of the radios in the recent WRTC were K3s.   Why was that?  It works well, it is small and doesn’t weigh much, and again once the radio fulfilled the basic needs very well, it came down to the operator skills as to who won.  (They all had the same antenna.)

Q: If the ARRL decides to rate a direct sampling radio vs. band noise, I don’t see any way to directly compare it to my table or the 40 years of history of published data by the ARRL. 

Reply: Here is an example of the problem of any table sorted by close-in (2 kHz) DR3.   That isn’t the whole picture, and I have never said it was.  Take the Hilberling at the top of my table.  It has the highest 2-kHz DR3, and it has outstandingly low phase noise (RMDR).  But it doesn’t have QSK and its selectivity (300 Hz @ -6 dB narrowest selectivity) isn’t adequate in a DX pile-up.  The next one on my table is the KX3.  It has really high DR3 and its RMDR is outstanding.  However, as the foot note clarifies, its opposite sideband rejection is only 65 dB. 

Some hams go nuts over one number, such as  a K3 owner asking me if he should sell his K3 and buy a KX3.  That is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.  

Flex spent a fortune on making the 6700/6500 have a very high RMDR value, likely higher than practically necessary.  Any OEM has to look at the BOM (build of materials) cost and decide where to allocate money to the radios subsystems. 

I really liked the 6700 in the CQWW 160 CW contest in January.  I also liked the TS-990S in CQWW SSB in October of 2013.  Both radios are very different and have their own quirks.  QSK was broken with FW 1.1 in January.  The preamp gain of the Kenwood was way too high on 10 meters back in October, but has since then been improved.  

Today if I am looking at a purchase, there are at least 10 radios that should be in my consideration list.  The 6000 series would certainly be one of them.  I once bought a $10,000 radio 10 years ago, and it went away after 5 months.  It didn’t do enough better to warrant my investment in the radio, so I sold it and put up two more towers and yagis!  

Final comment:   Some of the numbers the League publishes I think are meaningless.  What does a DR3 or blocking dynamic range mean if it is measured with a 1-Hz filter?  Not much as far as I am concerned.  Now we are going to have to come up with a meaningful way to measure direct sampling radios.  Hopefully whatever the ARRL chooses has more relevance than what numbers one can get in the lab with a 1 Hz filter which has no resemblance to how we use a radio on the air. 

 73, Rob, NC0B    

Howard

Gopro

Actually, the IC-7851 have the best Phase Noise listed - 148dBc/Hz on 10kHz,
followed by Perseus(147dBc/Hz) and Collins 51S1(146dBc/Hz).
6700 have the same Phase Noise(145dBc/Hz on 10kHz) as K3.

Ria

The SEI receiver test tables order them by dynamic range, narrow spaced. This is important really only in crowded band conditions. Anything above 80dB is just fine for everyday use, and actually for most contesters. 

Ken - NM9P

If you want to run CW or RTTY Skimmer with any appreciable bandwidth, you need I/Q output.

Ria

Exactly. An I/Q output allows you to take a signal from an entire band of frequencies and process it in a computer. This can give you a better panadapter than what is on the tiny radio screen and enable you to use CW and RTTY skimmer over wide bandwidth, instead of just the 3kHz audio passband. You can also use software like HDSDR and have many more slice receivers and do all sorts of things. Think of it as an IF out, something found in many high end transceivers including the K3S or something that many mod their radios to have. 

Ria

"Buyers have voted with their wallets that they don't need the feature."

On the contrary, based on sales of the P3 and other panadapter solutions, users do want the ability to monitor a wide swath of spectrum effectively. 

The most common complaint I hear from people who have decided against flex radios is that they need a computer for it, and it doesn't have knobs and switches. Price is a secondary concern. BUt they desire the panadapter and CW skimmer capabilities. 

KY6LA_Howard

@Andy I have actually run many on air comparative receiving tests with many different brands and models of radios for a contest station Sensitivity is not noticeable except wher phase noise is a factor Dynamic Range is really important for a contest stationbut not so much for the Average Ham. Phase Noise is definitely noticeable by the Average Ham The lower the phase noise the more even a weak SSB or CW signal jumps out of the noise