6400 hardware vs 6300 hardware vs V2

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 1 year ago
  • Answered
I am assuming that the 6400 hardware has been redesigned and is different in some respects than the 6300 hardware design though functionally similar.  Is this a good assumption? 

That said, if the 6400 hardware design is different from that of the 6300 is it possible that V2.x.x may incorporate functional additions and enhancements not applicable to the 6300 due to hardware design limitations of the 6300?  

Or put another way, is it reasonable to assume that as V2 progresses the functionality of the 6400 will significantly diverge over time from that of the 6300 running either V1.11 or V2? 

I believe that software development eventually becomes constrained by the hardware platform.

In the community I have seen posts indicating that 1.11 will add some (or all?) of the V2 features except WAN that are applicable to 6300 hardware platform.  

I have searched the community for answers or leads but so far no luck. I am not looking for time frames or roadmaps; not asking about strategic plans. 

To me the incredibly good news in owning a Flex is the willingness of FRS to address questions and problems quickly.  I do not know of a manufacturer of ANY product with this practice.  

I understand that business reasons may dictate keeping some "look ahead" within the company. 

Tnx
Photo of N5LB - Lionel

N5LB - Lionel

  • 29 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
  • confident, thankful

Posted 2 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Ken Hansen

Ken Hansen

  • 328 Posts
  • 110 Reply Likes
I don't believe the contents of SmartSDR v1.11 have been shared publicly yet, so it isn't really possible to discuss any overlap between the two releases.
Photo of Ray Andrews, K9DUR

Ray Andrews, K9DUR, Elmer

  • 249 Posts
  • 63 Reply Likes
Lionel,

First, v1.11.x will NOT add ANY new features.  All it will include are bug fixes and performance enhancements.  That will be true for any future maintenance releases of v1.x also. 

The 6400 hardware is a totally new design and includes 9-pole bandpass pre-selector filters.  The 6500/6700 had 7-pole filters, & the 6300 had none.

This is not official, just my opinion, but I expect that the functionality of the 6400 will definitely diverge from a 6300 running v1.x, but primarily due to new features added to the software.  The owner of a 6300 will probably be able to take advantage of most of the new features by upgrading their software.

73, Ray, K9DUR
Photo of N5LB - Lionel

N5LB - Lionel

  • 29 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Excellent.  Thank you Gerald.  
Photo of N5LB - Lionel

N5LB - Lionel

  • 29 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Thank you Ray.  I understand the intent of 1.11 now.  There will be new features in V2.x that will target the 6400 but due to architectural differences not be applicable to the 6300.  

I knew about the front end filtering in the 6400, a good addition, but there are probably design differences deeper in the hardware, say around the fpga and other (?) signal processing hardware to support the future V2.x   Those, if my assumption is correct, would not apply to the 6300.  

Maybe another way to look at it: is the 6400 an incremental improvement vs the 6300 (except for rx filtering)?  It seems to be much more than incremental improvement.  

Thanks again for the feedback. 
Photo of Gerald - K5SDR

Gerald - K5SDR, Employee

  • 830 Posts
  • 1514 Reply Likes
Official Response
Correction to Ray.  The 6400 has 3rd order bandpass filters on the amateur bands except for 60m where it is in wide mode.  These are the same filters that are in the 6500/6700 design.  The 6300 is in wide mode all the time.

The 6600 has the addition of 7th order bandpass filters on 160/80/40/20/15/10m giving at least 50 dB of rejection on the adjacent contest bands.

Both the 6400 and 6600 have improved preamps with more gain settings and a lower system noise figure.

The 6300 owner will be able to take advantage of most but I won't guarantee all of new features added to the 6400.  The 6400 uses the same computational architecture but add improvements in RF performance based on things we have learned.

V1.11 will have virtually all of the bug fixes and performance enhancements that are in v2.0 but none of the new features.

Gerald
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 4232 Posts
  • 1350 Reply Likes
Lionel,

Other differences between the 6300 and 6400, besides the preamp/attenuator improvements and the bandpass filters:

* BOTH a transverter port AND an external Receive antenna port.  
* All 3 jacks for TX1, TX2, TX3 interlocks,
* A jack for TX REQ
* The capability of adding a board that will allow MARS/CAP.
* ability to use the GPS Disciplined Oscillator unit for frequency stability
* 10 MHz Reference input
* Spectrum Display/Waterfall range out to 14 MHz, compared to 7 MHz on the 6300 
* Improved IMD / RMDR over the 6300.

Several nice improvements here...

It looks like more than an incremental improvement over the 6300, but not an earth-shattering one.  It should shape up to be a fine rig, worthy of competing with anything in its price range.

Ken - NM9P
Photo of N5LB - Lionel

N5LB - Lionel

  • 29 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Still Ken, this is very interesting and helpful.  Yes, in ways incremental though the 6400 does seem to offer a bit more flexibility.  You're right, not earth shattering but going forward the 6400 seems like it should be a better platform as V2 is rev'd than the 6300.  

The waterfall range out to 14 MHz is very interesting.

The more I learn, the better I like. 
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 4232 Posts
  • 1350 Reply Likes
Nice, isn't it?

But, if you want "earth-shattering," have a look at the 6600 or 6600M!

I have a trade-up to 6600 spot reserved and am hoping that my finances will clear up before they are released!  Until the announcement was made at Dayton, I was TOTALLY pleased with my 6500!  

Ken - NM9P
Photo of N5LB - Lionel

N5LB - Lionel

  • 29 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
The 6600 seems to be a major leap with its two scu's.  I wish.........................

I hope it works out for you.
Photo of Duane, AC5AA

Duane, AC5AA

  • 449 Posts
  • 102 Reply Likes
I hesitated a little longer, Ken, but I put in my reservation for the 6600 also.  My only "regret" is the size increase on the box.  I'm going to have to find another place off the desk to put it.  
Photo of Tim - W4TME

Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager

  • 9186 Posts
  • 3547 Reply Likes
I'm going to have to find another place off the desk to put it.  

I have that problem too
Photo of Gerald Capodieci

Gerald Capodieci

  • 20 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
How repairable is the 6400?
Filter degradation seem to by a common problem across all receivers.
Are filters or other components replacable by the end user.
Photo of Tim - W4TME

Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager

  • 9186 Posts
  • 3547 Reply Likes
Nothing in the radio is user serviceable other than the installation of the GPSDO and the Extended Transmit filter for MARS.

I am not sure what you mean by "filter degradation".  We have not experienced any issues like that with any of the previous 6000s that use bandpass preselectors.