[Yaesu] changes in rigs when CW dropped?

[David Willmore]

Hey, Jim.

> When the code is dropped will all the rigs come without all the nice CW
> features?

My take on its is yes and no. :)  I say 'yes' because I do feel that we're
in for a large shift in the way rigs are designed and used.  I say 'no'
because it's not going to happen *exactly* then and it will not be because
of the relaxation of the CW requirement for HF access.

Rigs with the controls on the front pannel suffer for a number of limitations.
One is that there is only so much space on the front of the pannel.  The
pannel is mechanical in nature, so is not flexable.  There are only so many
controls and displays that can be fitted to this resource.  They can only be
'shared' amongst limited variety of functions before the user just forgets
what all a knob does and when.

I think we've seen some rigs like this.  I know I've heard the complaint
that people were sticking with an older rig because the newer ones just had too
many darn buttons and "der blinkin' lights".  Several things have been tried
with some success, but not enough to solve the problem--large LCD display,
'soft' buttons, etc.. 

Also, the processing that occurs in a radio to acheive the level of performance
that is becoming standard these days takes a lot of CPU ability.  It is true
that using dedicated DSPs helps, but the flip side is the lack of flexability
of that processor--it can only do signal processing, not your taxes or read
your email. :)

What I see us going to are simpler looking and, in a sense, simpler designed
radios.  I hate to mention them, but they're ahead in this area *minutely*,
but Icom has the PCR-100/1000 receivers which are more along this line.  But
they don't go far enough to take advantage of the benefits of the new scheme.

I see future radios as a 'block' that takes in/puts out RF energy on one
side and communicates with a computer on the other.  Between the computer and
the radio is just a digital connection--USB 2.0 would be good.

Here are the bentfits:
1) simpler receiver design--no need to take the signal down to an analog baseband
signal.
2) No big chunk of signal processing necessary
3) No display and forest of knobs
4) easier connection to the shack--three connections: power, RF, and computer.

So, radios get cheaper and performance gets better.

Since most people have/will have a computer, the most expensive chunk of this
system can be considered a 'given'.  Sure, some people won't have one and
some people will operate where one is not practical.  That's one of the reasons
that I say this won't happen instantly.  A replacement for the FT-817 using
this type of design would be at least 5 years behind the FT-1000 version.

With the use of a computer as the processing and control element in the system,
you gain a large chunk of flexability in user interface and signal format.
I'm sure to start with, vendors would ship software that displayed a 'virtual
faceplace' type of design--like the Kenwood TS-2000 does.  But, that's just
the first generation to 'bridge the gap'.  Don't need too many changes all at
once or we'll lose everyone. :)  But, in the future things could change and
take advantage of the advances that are being made in user interface design--
all those computer scientists coming through the colleges and universities
are bound to come up with some interesting stuff so it would do us good to be
in a position to take advantage of it--which would be hard to do with knobs
and buttons.

For the signal processing, well, one of the big limits now on the digital
modes that are becoming so popular at HF is the bandwidth that one can get
off and on the air.  It's not as much of a problem at HF as we're used to
limiting ourselves to SSB bandwidths, but at VHF and above, it's signifigant.
With the new scheme, we're not bringing in a little 3KHz chunk of analog
baseband signal.  We could bring in a 100KHz chunk or larger (without all
the baseband limitations like IM products, etc.  Anyone see the IM problems
of a strong station in PSK31 smearing out the rest of the band?) and do the
rest of the 'selection' and demodulation in software.  Adding support for
new modes would be much easier as the hardware would not need to change.

Oh, and you could still do CW with it.  We might need to add another 'port'
to the radio 'brick' to plug a key into.  Or someone could hack up a little
key to USB adapter.  Hmmmm, that sounds like a fun project....

So, to summarize, yes and no. :)  I could go into more detail, but I'm very
sure I've gone on long enough already. 

Before anyone goes off and says this is impossible, I'll mention that all
of the fundimental chunks of this system are already done or are late in
the design stages--from various groups.  GNURADIO is working on a software
degined radio schema to allow flexable handling of big chunks of digitized
RF.  They're also working on an RF to USB2.0 converter (with digital
downmixing and filtering).  Linrad is working on software for handling large
bandwidths of signals and getting better performance in weak signal work
than top of the line conventional radios.  So, this *is* were the hobby is
going.  The concern is if our vendors (hey, Yaesu, you listening?) are going
to lead, follow or get lost.  Well, we could say the same for our members,
but every generation of radios in the past has always stirred up a cry of
"this is as good as it gets, this is the last radio I'll ever buy."  Hi hi.
Yeah, right. :)

Cheers,
David N0YMV