The AM Forum

Man, there are some unhappy campers on Flex board when the 5000 was announced. Priced jacked way up for the new stuff. Sounds like the same crappy DDS source and maybe a little better hardware.
Having duplicated the Flex hardware I know where it really falls apart....

Yep, heard about it this weekend.
Supposedly there's a $1000 sound card in there, with functional 6m and 2m, but really not a lot else to justify the higher cost.

Want to bet it will create a stronger market for the pre-5000 ones ?

Sort of like when Yaesu dumped the FT-102, all of a sudden people started appreciating the value/function ratio.

Paul,
I just ordered the two HPSDR boards that do the same sound card thing for under $400. I don't see how these guys can market a big bucks radio with no real specs in print. So what the close in dynamic range is 105 dB how is it at 20 KHz and what are the settings. These guys appear to measure MDS with RF amp on then measure thire order distortion with it off then claim the difference as dynamic range....wrong

They pulled the same thing when they came up with the SDR1K and made multiple hardware changes to get to to work. The 5000 looks like a beta test bed tor the SDR x they want to sell to the government letting the hams do all the testing for them after they pay big bucks for something that may kind of work.

They claim more spects to come...isn't something backwards here.
Like buying a car with maybe 4 wheels but they may come later.
I would never pay $5K for anything using a DDS LO source. A good source should have crud greater then -100 dBC not -70 as most DDS chips I have seen. 

You can buy a softrock converter that is just as good as a Flex front end for under $20. They also have a TX module just as cheap.
The only was the 5000 would be worth the money is with a tuned preselector front end and a clean synthesizer.

Because they are marketing to mostly non-technical people - hams.

Pete,
I would agree with your last statement if the Flex had real performance gain over the best analog equipment but it doesn't.
A LO source with only -70 dBC of sideband crud isn't something I would pay real money for. I think the hPSDR guys have the best chance of improving the state of the art. The 5000 looks like another computer toy. fc

I personally believe the both the Flex Systems and the HPSDR Groups will change the face of amateur radio and amateur radio equipment over the next few years. I would also suspect that the big three (Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood) have also been scrambling behind the scenes to get on this bandwagon. Flex and HPSDR have technical, software, and, most importantly, open source software code. The big three have more money to throw at projects, technical, and software expertise, but “open source software code” is something, I think, still eludes their design planning process.

This came from the marketing/product manager guy at Flex last year. A really non-technical look at the Flex.

 
The Top 10 Reasons not to buy a FlexRadio SDR-1000

10. You have a knob, button and switch fetish.

9.  The excitement of owning a radio that constantly gets better might cause you to have a heart attack.

8.  You don't need a radio that can double as a narrow band spectrum analyzer with the best performance figures ever seen in this price class.

7. You don't need the kind of continuously variable, ring free, brick wall filters, and noise reduction available with digital signal processing.

6. You have no desire for a needlepoint accurate near real time spectrum display that easily displays the weakest of signals among the strong.

5. You prefer a radio that requires costly accessories such as roofing filters and preselectors, rather than buying a radio that is complete and reaches its design specification at no extra cost.

4. You don't want a radio with the best sounding receiver and transmitter available at any price.

3. You don't need the most responsive support network available anywhere.

2. You don't want to turn all your other radios into boat anchors.

     And, the number 1 reason...

1. You can't handle any more fun in your life!
 
 

I don't know.  As one of the younger ones in the forum (I'm a 43 year old Gen Xer), I guess I'm expected to be more inclined to want everything computer/digital.  All too often, we seem to think that going digital, is the key to everything technical.  I think in some cases, this mindset is a dead end.

I've been using computers (and writing code off and on) since the early 80s.  I'm sure that the Flex Radio is pretty good, but frankly, I get tired of having to point and click to do things (I do it at work, when I go online, when I operate digital modes on HF, and even for logging, when I corntaste).  I get tired of having to screw around with menus in my FT-897D, when I want to change something.  The SDRs are this concept squared. 

It's kind of like the ultra sophisticated guitar amps that use DSP - they're out there, but frankly many guitarists hate them, because you end up spending so much time tweaking them, striving for the "perfect sound," that you lose playing time.  SDRs are the same way.  You could spend so much time tailoring them to your preferences (which of course can change from week to week), because you have so much capability to do so, that you for get about operating.  There are other issues I have.  Will the software & hardware give you issues in an RF feedback prone environment (the micropocessor in my last radio, an ICOM IC-703 Plus used to glitch out all of the time in my stray RF environment, in spite of using chokes & an RF ground).  Also, anytime you want to add a feature or fix to the SDR code, it's another patch slapped on that can potentially glitch out (like Windows occasionally does with all of its patches).  Also what about software viruses? Also, SDRs aren't very trail/hiking friendly radios (how many hikers are going to want to lug even a notebook type system with them on the trail?).  SRDs are cool.  I just don't feel they're a be-all end-all.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

I am very interested in SDR but not junk or computer toys.
I have the HPSDR boards on order so I'm not against it if done correctly.

I got a used SDR-1K on a lark awhile ago.   Fooling with it has been the most fun I've had in ham radio since building my class E and class D AM transmitters.

The panadpater on the Flex is in a class by itself.   
The filters on the Flex are something to behold and so easy to use.   You can see what you're doing.
The connections and configuration explosion (PC x Sound Card x connection method) makes for support craziness.   Too many possibilities.  Too many things to go wrong.  And they do, they do.

The Flex guys have been improving the software at an amazing rate.   The software is free.  They have to charge for something.

If I were in the market for a new transceiver I would choose the SDR 5000 over anything else in a heartbeat  even though it is PC only and I'm a dyed in the wool UNIX guy.   (This message entered via MacOS X)

Jon

Ellen,
I guess you haven't heard the guys here in the northeast endlessly tweaking the audio on their old boat anchors  ;)

cant use it with OS X and my mac, They'll never sell one to me.

Good point Blaine. :)  Nope I haven't heard them.  But I have heard plenty of Hi-Fi SSBers doing just that.  I guess for me, it would be too tempting to be dinking with the settings all of the time.  Besides the fact that I spend waaayy too much time in front of a computer (and need more computer time via a SDR, like I need a hole in my head), the lack of portability for a Flex Radio, and many SDRs is a downer for me (I like to go portable in the Summer). 

Most of my issues are software related. The potential for a virus ruining your day is one of them.  While you could add circuit mods on to a SDR, you're kind of defeating the purpose of  flexability/performance improvements via software, instead of having to buy or make a hardware add-on.  So you either have to wait for somebody to write the code you need for the mod you want, or else you have to dig through umpteen thousand lines of programming to insert the code you want to put in.  Oh, and don't forget to debug it. No thanks I did enough of that years ago.  It drove me nuts.  Here's another thought - compatability issues.  The SDR is still in its infancy, so the issues of later versions of software not being compatible with older hardware, haven't really ocurred much yet.  But they will, sooner or later.  Then what will you do with your older SDR, when it won't work with the latest & greatest, toss it, or use it until you lose all support for it?   Will SDRs wind up in the garbage like so many Pentium & Pentium IIs with Windows 98, are ending up nowadays?  Also performancewise, while an SDR has tons of flexability, an analog circuit will always work faster.  It is not at the mercy of processor speed, or program issues.

I read a blog recently by a ham who's been working with SDRs for some time.  He voiced some valid concerns he's been having about them lately.  I wish I could remember the URL, I'd post it here.  Well, , I'd better get going to work.  BTW, watch your weather.  We're supposed to get up to 8 inches of SNOW today!  You might get it yourself in the next day or two.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

I think there is a Linux version of the Flex SDR software in the works. Don't see why it couldn't be recompiled and run in an X-Window under Mac OS X.

I don't recall ever hearing anyone, let alone Flex Radio claim SDR to be the end-all, be-all or that there goal was to meet or exceed the performance of analog based radios costing 10 times more. High-end commercial and military gear has always exceeded the performance of ham grade/priced gear. Why all the P&Ming?

The reality is that SDRs are the future, and in many ways, the present. Most of your cell phones have over the air provisioning - just another way of saying they can be programmed remotely. Thus, they are largely, if not completely SDRs.

The Flex software is very cool but it doesn't make up for the hardware short comings. Yes SDR is the future and someday performance will exceed the best analog stuff out there today. I think is barely in the TRF stage for ham equipment. I'm sure the Mil guys have 40 dB or so more A/D dynamic range and can get real performance but we may never see those devices.
I'm holding a lot of hope for the HPSDR guys who are very sharp. fc

Who said it did?


At 6 dB per bit, I think even Flex is well past 40 dB DR.
 

Hi Steve,

I have nothing against Flex, or SDRs.  I guess my main concerns are just that too many people treat them like they are the be-all end-all for RF.  Maybe it's the recent human nature phenomenon, of assuming that everything digital is superior, to everything analog.  And that since it's superior, it will always work perfectly.  If I had a dime for every person I've known, who's been shocked, when the latest & greatest thing they had, gave them problems....... well, you get the picture.  Just a few thoughts here.  I know from what I've been told, Flex Radios do killer AM.  So they don't suck.  It's just that people have to remember that they aren't perfect.

73
Ellen - AF9J,
Just rambling during a break at work

Steve,
I meant 40 dB more than the best sound card out there for the public.
I'm talking MDS to Smeter peg on your R390A without AGC action and you have a chance with a broadband connection to the A/D. Once that A/D is saturated no amount of software will save you. This means minimum gain ahead of it.
I duplicated the Flex front end so know when and how it falls apart. 
My next jump in performance will be the HPSDR modules interfaced to it.
My SDR will be hanging off an IF with a roofing filter to limit the crud it sees. Close in dynamic range is very good with this method and the roofing filter helps the wide band. fc

I think it's just the natural progression of things.

     30 years ago, all hams knew what peak and dip meant, knew what drift was, and could find the VFO on a radio because they knew it would be the largest knob on the front.

     While still having an identifiable VFO, today’s radio's simplify operation all the way down to pushing one button to turn it on, and key the mic. You say "Dip" to a 21st century ham and they think about food.

     I think today's SDR's leave today's conventional transceivers in the dust as far as operational versatility is concerned, but at the sacrifice of even being identifiable as a ham radio to the uninformed eye.

     The way things are going now, today's SDR looks like it may eventually evolve into nothing more than a plug and play card to go inside your computer. Finally taking ham radio to it's last technical step; a computer application with no real hardware needed beyond an antenna and a mouse.

Just some thought's.

SK

What's all this either or stuff?    Many of the posts are pretty defensive on one side or the other.   The end of ham radio as we know it;   It makes everything  else into a boat anchor (as though that were pejorative!);  it's the best;  it's a computer toy.

It's a radio.   Mine sits next to my wonderfully restored SX-28 and WA1HLR'd Ranger.   I enjoy those two just as much.   And in operating position E is a QIX designed class E.  And in operating position V, a CE 100V, and in D a K7DYY class D  AM transmitter.     All have their allure.   The class D, incidentally, has no knobs.

Eat chocolate AND Vanilla.   Drive a 57 Chevy AND a Tesla.   Have fun.   It's a hobby.

Jon

The real problem is that A/D converters don't glow like tubes.  And SMDs aren't romantic.

Could there be tubes in the future of SDR?  How about an A/D driving the filament  of a grounded grid pair of 4X1000s?

JEK-John: That was my point. It's just another radio, has some good points, has some bad points. I hear far more 756 Pros and FT-1000s on the air than Flex Radio. And I don't see those radios as the end-all-be-all or toys too.

GX: Well, in the audio world, you can buy A/D units, as well as, just about every other sort of digital widget with a tube in it, so why not a radio? ;D

my flex drives a pair of 3-500z's
its like country AND western
"not only does it have a carrier, its transmitting upper and lower sideband at the SAME TIME!!!" ;D

It's good to know the shortcomings of the SDR-1000 as well as its capabilities. I never thought I would ever endorse a (phew!) solid state rig to the extent I have with the Flex. It's because it can do high quality AM on both transmit and receive.

Here's Dave, W9AD last Saturday morning on 40 meters as I monitored him transmitting on the SDR1000, and then, as he monitored on the SDR1000 and recorded me.

A bit more of W9AD, with less QSB phase distortion as I received Dave.

He had the synch detector on my signal, something worth the price of admission to that little SDR receiver I have heard a little about.

The real breakthrough will be the Antenna  done in software....

I use I2PHD software on my SDR it has a nice sync detector.
It also doesn't need 60 meg of gatesware to run.

My Drake R-7 and my HQ-120X don't use any bytes.

Tom,
But you don't have a FFT spectrum monitor or sync detector.

Paul,
They do sound very good but the DDS source with BB spurs down only 70or 80 dB is very poor in my view. They plan the same thing for the 5000 which puts in in computer toy status in my view. You would think they come up with something cleaner for the big price. Even a DDS running at a 1 GHz clock has the same spur problem. I was building synthesizers cleaner than that back in the '70s knowing they were crappy. The cleanest synthesizer I have seen is the harris 590 slightly better by a couple dB close in than the RA6830.

And a Maserati will go much faster and corner better than a Toyota Camry. But for the schmo driving to and from work on crowded highways with a maximum speed limit of 55 MPH, the Camry is plenty good enough.

Ham equipment usually doesn't compare favorably to mil-spec gear. How could it? The mil spec stuff is 10-50X the price, maybe more when you throw in all the NRE paid by the government.

Each ham must decide what is good enough versus the cost when they buy, build or otherwise acquire equipment. Some decide by not even thinking about the issue (I got the 756Pro cuz all my buds have one). Others go towards one end of the continuum (entry level, low cost and such) while others go for the other end (mil-spec, custom made, homebrew, hot-rodded and the like). The majority fall in between these two. And that's who Flex is going after. Could or should their synth be better? Probably. But for the vast majority of the uses and users of these radios, it just doesn't make any difference. And that's why they are selling.

True Steve, but you can't P&M about BPL if you are generating spurs all ofer the band only down -70 dBC.
me, I still think the biggest bang for the buck is mil gear built after middle 80s. Easy to work on. no real weird parts. and real specs.

True. Although I don't recall Flex Radio P&Ming about BPL. And creating spurs within a receiver is far different than transmitting spurs that affect many receivers. Apples and oranges.

The receiver will respond on spur frequencies and that same crappy lO is mixed with the modulation so it is also making crud.
The dynamic range is degraded on a spur frequency. You can't claim 100 dB of dynamic range when your LO is that dirty unless you sell used cars for a living.
The R390A is still a great RX because it has one of the cleanest LOs on the planet.

Not sure what this has to do with BPL complaints. ;D

Steve, I was just making a point. If your rig is a crap generator then you can't complain about other crap generators.
The WJ 8718 synthesizer noise falls below -100 dBC between 2 and 3 KHz off center. By the time you are out 100 KHz it is -144 dBC by my numbers. So -70 or -80 dB spurs and less then impressive performance compared to a 30 year old RX.

I think if BPL was -70 dBc, not many hams would be complaining.

My dogs bigger than your dog.

WOOF! ;D

poochie

But I have to say their software is very cool!
I just got the latest version working and will try it on my SDR set up.
I want to see how well the software noise blankers work.