Hi, no it is actually 5 different IC7300s tested by 3 different people, including Rob Sherwood. if you have time you can see the plots and some other data that I posted earlier just do a search. I’m in my lunch break or I would do it for
Yes my TX IS that good but it is easier for me because I use 0dBm transverter drives at 28Mhz and transverters with high quality Xtal local oscillators. The 0dBm from either my K3S or TS-890S is very good indeed. IMD3 from both is better
On 144 MHz, PN noise at 1kHz separation is -144dBc/Hz and close to 156dBc/Hz at 10kHz. This is with the LO PLL active, free running it is a little better. Composite noise is the same as in this case it is PN dominated. IM3 is -38dBc but
more importantly the 7th and 9th orders are better than -80dBc. This is achieved by using tetrode finals on all bands.
432 and 1296 are of course worse as the LOs are multiplied from Xtals in the VHF region. However my TX is some 40dB better than an IC-9700 at 1.3GHz at 10kHz separation.
Only 50MHz is a little worse due to my TS-890S PA linearity but with the noise on 6m being higher it is acceptable. When I am on FT8 where linearity does not matter it is superb. But who cares we are all on the same ‘channel’.
I suspect your specification is still beyond the state of the art. Is your transmitter that good?
It sounds like the 7300 is cleaner than average close in but has some issues fairly far out. That is a little surprising. I wonder if the "IP+" technology is simply RF feedback to linearize the transmitter stages such as is seen in the old Collins kW SSB amplifiers.
I can see that having an issue that depends on the charteristics of the feedback loop. But those are strange characteristics.
I take it the noise peaks are broadband, right? Do they depend on the transmit frequency in any way? It sounds very much like there is a defect in a specific radio near you. Is that the case or are hams measuring this in general? If this affects all the 7300s
then the FPGA code will probably have to be reworked to fix the bug. I kinda wish I had one and a nice lab with lots of pertinent test equipment. I doubt Keysight and ICOM would set me up to do it. (It'd be better for them to set up a tiger team of their engineers
with the equipment needed to suppress this possible bug.)
On 20220225 01:55:45, Conrad, PA5Y wrote:
By clean I mean - can I hear anything of sufficient magnitude to disturb the noise floor anywhere in band, and hence inhibit my ability to receive signals close to the noise floor. The noise floor in a semi-rural location on 28, 50 and
70MHz is not particularly low so I do not feel that this is unreasonable. The biggest problem with the IC7300 is the AM noise bump at 20kHz and 130kHz which is only 60dB down on the carrier when running at 30W on 28MHz. This power level is typical when driving
an amplifier. When modulated with an SSB signal this occupies a considerable amount of bandwidth. The close in PN -s only -120dBc/Hz at 1kHz and -130dBc/Hz at 10kHz. The composite noise is -115kHz at 10kHz, this is not what I would consider clean, even
close in. The K3S( and a few others) is far better in this respect although the PA has quite poor linearity, especially on 6m.
The Hermes will do a much better job with any decent PA, even without pure signal. There are some spurs @ -65dBc which improve with a higher sample rate. I have not checked these with the V2 firmware but I will do immediately I receive
my Hermes from Apache.
I do not think that a transceiver at the IC-7300 price point has fixed pre-distortion. As you quite correctly say keeping it under control over temperature and voltage variation would be difficult. Also Icom would almost certainly have
mentioned it in their advertising. What the IC7300 does well is manage audio overshoots by using a ‘look ahead’ algorithm. This is maybe where the impression of it having a clean TX comes from.
I think that the problem here is that so many transceivers are quite bad, so I can just about accept that the IC-7300 is less bad.
OK, please refresh my mind what you mean by "clean". It certainly appears to be sending something much closer to pure signal concentrated within its intended bandwidth than most other transmitters. I also understand that it is not as good
as it can be with full active predistortion. Both might generate increased noise at some significant separation from the intended signal frequency. I am not sure of the mechanism by which this would take place.
As an ornery critter there is nothing I would sit down and declare "clean" without a definition of "clean". I guess I am asking for your definition of the term or even of the term "clean enough".
On 20220225 01:13:11, Conrad, PA5Y wrote:
I KNOW for a fact that the IC7300 is not clean. Please provide me some evidence to the contrary. I have measurements with a R&S FSWP Signal analyser out to a 1MHz BW. You guys are looking in an SSB BW which is fine unless you happen to
be 130kHz away, then you will hear plenty of splatter from the IC7300. I tested the IC-7300 as a result of hearing this on 50MHz. In other words the lab tests were driven by on air experience.
You are spreading misleading and incorrect information.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:24 PM, Max wrote:
I just think if we follow good design and signal chain management that superb, clean signals can also be generated without the need for PS, that's all.
I disagree. My signal is my signature. Audio clarity is admittedly important but what matters most to me is a splatter-free signal, and in that regard nothing comes close to what PS can produce. As I stated earlier, even the best Class A amplifiers only have
-40dB splatter. PS starts at -60db and often pushes -70dB. That means that PS reduces splatter to less than 1% (and at times only 1/10 of 1%) of what even the best traditional equipment can produce.
I also agree with Simon that the 7300 (and also the 7610 for that matter) produces an extremely sharp-edged signal with unarguably less splatter than is achievable with any other non-ANAN radio. It was explained to me by Ray N5LAX that the reason those radios
are so clean splatter-wise is because ICOM embedded an algorithm into the firmware that functions very similarly to PS in the sense that it corrects for non-linearity in the PA, but it is a fixed-value (i.e., static) correction only, not a real-time self-adjusting
correction value such as is employed by PS. NOTE: I have not been able to verify that info, but that is what was told to me over-the-air by Ray when I commented that I had no idea how the 7300 could produce such a clean, sharp-edged signal. So I'm repeating
IMO it's unwise and short-sighted to summarily dismiss the game-changing value that PS brings to the hobby. Its benefits are so unarguable that I (and Rob Sherwood) often wonder why the big-name radios don't offer it as a standard feature. It's free, so utilize
it for goodness sake!