[Premium-Rx] Premium-Rx Digest, Vol 280, Issue 1
Edward
navydude1962 at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 9 12:17:31 EST 2026
I would think/hope that the WJ 8711A gives any SDR a run for its money!
> On 9 Jan 2026, at 9:03 AM, premium-rx-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:
>
> Send Premium-Rx mailing list submissions to
> premium-rx at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> premium-rx-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> premium-rx-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Premium-Rx digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Question on older premium receivers compared to ?modern?
> technology. (Kevin Greene Oceanos)
> 2. Re: Question on older premium receivers compared to ?modern?
> technology. (sm0aom at telia.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 20:10:56 -0600
> From: Kevin Greene Oceanos <kevin.greene at oceanos.org>
> To: premium-rx at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Premium-Rx] Question on older premium receivers compared to
> ?modern? technology.
> Message-ID: <9D3B3D68-8310-4635-B56C-98ABCD76C2B5 at oceanos.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Help group:
>
> Has modern DSP receiver design in part 97 ( or even milspec usage) really surpassed the high performance designs of systems deployed in the last 1980?s up to today.
>
> I was thinking of the Rockwell collins HF805() or the TCI receivers such as the 8174 or even Harris receivers compared to modern Kenwood or Icom receivers.
>
> It seems like the older units got very close to what is technically possible to what you can receive these days. With the QRM on HF, your only real advantage seems to really about more effective antenna systems for receiving.
>
> I really want to know. The challenge I have is if I should spend the effort to fix the older receivers I have or invest the money in more effective antenna systems.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NNNN
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 13:41:28 +0100 (CET)
> From: sm0aom at telia.com
> To: Kevin Greene Oceanos <kevin.greene at oceanos.org>,
> premium-rx at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Premium-Rx] Question on older premium receivers compared
> to ?modern? technology.
> Message-ID: <c113078.7ae6.19ba2c6b043.Webtop.149 at pne.telia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=no
>
> A most interesting question.
>
> As an HF systems designer and integrator, this subject has been quite
> extensively studied.
>
> The last "top-of-the-line" analogue HF receivers, such as the Harris
> RF-590A, ITT-Standard Radio CR91, Collins HF-8054
> or the pinnacle; Telefunken E1800A had distortion and blocking
> properties which were as good or even better than the SDR:s, when
> measured
> at larger spacings.
>
> These properties were considered decisive in the Cold War radio
> environment, where many high-powered propaganda
> transmitters filled up the HF broadcast bands, and many high-powered
> commercial and military users also were
> present. This made parameters as IP3, blocking and far-off oscillator
> sideband noise important.
>
> SDR and DSP receivers have a quite different large-signal behaviour; the
> IP3 and blocking behaviours are about equal or slightly worse than
> analogue receivers, but the oscillator sideband noise issue is
> essentially absent, but when the
> dynamic range becomes exceeded the receiver overloads suddenly.
> This makes close-in performance; both filter shape and close-in
> intermodulation much better for SDR:s than for analogue receivers,
> but not "blocking".
>
> However, the radio landscape has changed considerably since the 1980s;
> the number and emitted power of the broadcasters have diminished,
> commercial and military HF is more transient and uses less power. The
> same can be said about amateur HF usage.
> At the same time, the ambient noise levels have increased considerably,
> which in effect compresses the usable dynamic range.
>
> There is experimental evidence that even "mediocre" receivers give fully
> satisfactory results in the current radio environment.
> The performance differences between "top" and "middle-class" receives
> are hardly noticeable in a current congested spectrum,
> as the adjacent channel and broad-band noise performance of transmitters
> will be determining.
>
> Both theoretical and experimental studies in these matters have been
> summarised in two recent conference presentations;
>
> Rolf Folkesson and Karl-Arne Markstr?m
> "Performance limitations in HF communication systems
> composed of practical realisable hardware"
> (Proceedings of the Nordic HF Conference HF19)
>
> Karl-Arne Markstr?m
> "A generalised approach for performance evaluation of HF systems"
> (Proceedings of the Nordic HF Conference HF22)
>
> The "bottom lines" of both presentations were that money is better spent
> on
> larger and better placed antennas together with transmitters having
> "cleaner" spectra.
> The receiver performance as such is comparatively less.
>
> Remember, "One $ in the antenna equals three or more $ in the radio".
>
> 73/
> Karl-Arne
> SM0AOM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------ Ursprungligt meddelande ------
> Fr?n: premium-rx at mailman.qth.net
> Till: premium-rx at mailman.qth.net
> Skickat: Friday, January 9 2026, 03:10
> ?mne: [Premium-Rx] Question on older premium receivers compared
> to ?modern? technology.
>
>
> Help group:
>
> Has modern DSP receiver design in part 97 ( or even milspec usage)
> really surpassed the high performance designs of systems deployed in
> the last 1980?s up to today.
>
> I was thinking of the Rockwell collins HF805() or the TCI receivers
> such as the 8174 or even Harris receivers compared to modern Kenwood or
> Icom receivers.
>
> It seems like the older units got very close to what is technically
> possible to what you can receive these days. With the QRM on HF, your
> only real advantage seems to really about more effective antenna systems
> for receiving.
>
> I really want to know. The challenge I have is if I should spend the
> effort to fix the older receivers I have or invest the money in more
> effective antenna systems.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NNNN
> ______________________________________________________________
> Premium-RX Mailing List Information
> Home: https://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> Help Page: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post to Group eMail: premium-rx at mailman.qth.net
> Help Contact eMail: 73 at 73.am
> Web Home Page: http://www.premium-rx.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Premium-Rx mailing list
> Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
>
>
> End of Premium-Rx Digest, Vol 280, Issue 1
> ******************************************
More information about the Premium-Rx
mailing list