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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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 .
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...lol
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.)
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??
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 beer 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!
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 .
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 fubar
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...
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.