Bill - Thanks for that info. I wasn't aware of the X-6100 - neat radio. But I didn't see any indication of being able to alter the software of the radio.
Awesome article by SP5WWP, and I completely agree. As it turns out, a company still has to earn enough money, somehow, to pay salaries and overheads. There lies the rub: how to earn money. There is a Darwinian process that weeds out tasks that cannot be monetized, regardless of how interesting, useful or innovative. Many of us are not good businesspeople, so volunteer work is the only affordable option, even at the expense of personal health.
I don't have a solution, but of course I'd like to see one (or more).
Don - As I'll explain next week in a semi-rebuttal to SP5WWP, grants from ARDC can actually be a hybrid between purely voluntary work and purely professional work. Receiving an ARDC grant does not preclude paying for professional labor as part of a project, and SP5WWP chose not to be transparent about him being a beneficiary of that policy.
I think the theme of this issue is "interoperability."
I was recently visiting my parents. Dad's got a fairly substantial antique radio collection. One of his more prized pieces is an Atwater Kent Model 10 he restored, which is a "breadboard" radio where the components are screwed to a wood base and wired up. Radios used to be called sets because all the components needed to be assembled before you could use it (although I believe the Model 10 was sold as a complete unit). This modular approach to radio design is still normal, just that the components are microscopic now. Sure, the process allows for some amazing tech to be squeezed into a tiny package, but at what cost? I recently decided to do a little rig consolidation and picked up a Kenwood D75. I'm not as happy with the purchase as I would have liked (I knew Bluetooth wasn't going to pair with iOS, but why won't it pair with my car either?). But again, the point was to sell on a few older radios and combine D-Star and APRS/Packet into one device, along with SWL. I really haven't gained much functionality, just consolidation.
But do I need a radio that has all that packed into an almost pocketable package? What if the engineers were tasked with fitting all that and more into a box the size of an FT-817 or KX3? Would the design be able to be adaptable? Would there be an option for an expansion bus? Or a much larger battery, paving the way for a more powerful processor? Sure, it wouldn't look like an HT. And maybe that's important. Maybe even a deal-breaker for many/most hams.
What if the radio was a simple base unit (a breadboard) that had standard interconnects between modules? Sure, it might not be pure enough for some, but breaking down the radio into different modules would allow for small groups or individuals to work on their projects, assuming they could throw the signal to the next device in the path. And hams would only have to get used to thinking about, for example, buying a 5 watt amp that isn't a complete unit, but will be able to fit into the cavity available. Or having a robust interface running on the smart device they already are carrying around anyway? Why add more speakers and microphones to your hip, even if they only add a few cents to the product? But then is it still an HT? Will the community put up with a box that doesn't have knobs and keypads and a color display? Even though they already have one of the most well designed and thought out devices in history in their pocket already?
Anyway, don't want to turn this into a pitch. Just a few thoughts I've had recently.
Ready - What you need to fix your issues with the Bluetooth on your Kenwood TH-D75A (and also the earlier TH-D74A) is the B.B. Link - https://islandmagic.co/products/B-B-Link-Adapter-p629580960. Just it, and a power source into the USB-C port.
There is all kinds of experimentation going on to create new devices and new paradigms with Amateur Radio.
I was impressed with seeing the ComJot CJ-1, the first radio (I've seen) that has modern Android and the ability of the Android subsystem to move audio back and forth to and from the radio subsystem.
The closest I know of what you're asking for (interoperability / consolidation) is the Universal Radio Controller line of products from G1LRO - https://g1lro.uk.
There is SO much cool stuff going on in Amateur Radio!
Oh, I understand completely that there's an adapter out there. I'll likely pick up one or see about DIY'ing one since it's just an ESP32 module. My rant is more about the fact that the design trend from manufactures is incremental refinement and size reduction. Sure, that SDR based radio has a dynamic range of 150dB and a noise floor of -144dB, but who cares when there's so many noisy switching PSUs in the neighborhood they drown out 80 meters anyway? And yes the TH-D75 is a modern marvel of miniaturization, but why can't it just connect to my phone, or WiFi network, or even my automobile's hands-free system? Was I asking for a smaller radio? (of course that's also why I'm still using a 2018 iPad.. did I want a thinner device or one that actually improves my user experience in a substantial way?)
The IC-705 is a great example of what I'm thinking about. Here's a radio with great specs, really portable, but completely closed off. the above-mentioned X-6100 is functionally the same as the 705, maybe slightly harder to use or slightly lower performance, but otherwise there's not much differentiating the two.
Looking over the software/download section of the IC-705 product web page, it seems you have to run specific software for setting the clock (I'm assuming accurately instead of eyeballing it) from the radio. Something that my various Raspberry Pi SBCs -at $35 each- perform automagically when they connect to my network. How is it that Icom (and every other manufacturer) fails to see what's going on in the ARM pc world? Are they willfully blind to the rest of the electronics industry? Wouldn't it be a cool hack if it set itself to WWV, or at least a GPS-DO? And what about all the time and effort put into the display, knobs, legacy CAT interfaces, etc. Why not just put those resources into building a really kick-butt app? Or a well documented and accessible API? I get it, many buyers still gush about the well-balanced tuning knob, but really, how often does one reach for it in the digital contesting age?
The flip side is that it is easier than ever to get PC boards manufactured (assuming we don't start Cold War II with China). There are companies like PCB Way that will take your Gerber file and produce limited runs in a few days. Some will even do pick and place if you use common components. Sure, using these services isn't as cheap as what Icom can do, but will you have the overhead they do?
At this point I think it might be time to fork radio. Instead of continuing to adapt commercial band equipment to amateur use, maybe it's time to come up with reference designs that are specific to amateur use. Radios that run Linux or Android under the hood. That can be configured and controlled through a web browser (if my $20 light switch can do it, why can't my $800 radio?), and can run 25KHz bandwidth (or 6MHz, or whatever I dial up). DMR et al are interesting, but there's no shortage of bandwidth in the amateur bands, so why are we acting like there is (spare me the "no open repeater pairs" argument, how many inactive repeaters still hang on to "their" frequency)? DMR solved a problem we didn't have, and required bodging a fix that doesn't fit into the amateur ethos of VFO and direct operator control. But at least the radios are cheap and can be programmed to police repeaters!
Sorry to be such a downer. Maybe I'm the one who's wrong. But I think we've refined enough. Time to add a few modern features.
Ready - I don't think you're being a downer - I think you're pointing out that there's increasingly a severe disconnect with what the "mainstream Amateur Radio manufacturers" want to make (their perception of who wants to buy their products) and what the reality of the changing market is - that you can see, that I can see, and the reason that there are now 1800+ subscribers to Zero Retries.
You have it exactly right - there ISN'T any reason that a radio can't present as a web server for easy access to settings, updates, better UI, etc. And, kudos to FlexRadio for offering a radio with real (user) "software defined" features, at least upon the release of the 8000 series. You can use their "radio" user interface (have the display, knobs, etc. bolted onto the front of the radio) or just a blank faceplate and do everything from a desktop, laptop, or even phone. And add functionality using the waveform API (built-in data modes, yay!) or the external TCP/IP API (clean integration with your app running on a computer - just use clean, modern web sockets).
That was one of the reasons I was impressed with the zBitx (https://www.zeroretries.org/i/145357124/fdim-zbitx-bringing-cw-into-the-st-century-by-asher-farhan-vuese) - HE GETS what you and I have been saying - radios (should be) computers - with antennas. He's basing most of his zBitx radio around a Raspberry Pi Zero 2 W. Most of the display work is being done via a web server on the radio (no need for Internet connectivity - can be used standalone in the field, just the radio and the (unconnected) phone.
We're getting to that desired state, slowly, haltingly, painfully. I think that the pool of people who want a "conventional" radio (big box with knobs) versus those of us that want a radio that's a computer with an antenna is going to tilt decisively towards the latter by the end of this decade.
I think one friend's explanation to me was instructive - in retirement, with limited funds, I decided to spend big one last time on my dream radio. That's probably the last big, expensive radio I'll ever buy. I think folks like my friend are the current market for Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, and Elecraft who think the market wants (and they want to continue making) conventional radios with knobs, with non user changable internals. The rest of us will keep supporting the little guys like the zBitx and QMX+. I think in the end that model will win.
I'm a big fan of the book The Innovator's Dilemma which describes the current situation very well, with the "mainstream" radio manufacturers in the role of Kodak versus the early primitive digital cameras.
I believe the X-6100 and a couple of the android radio fone units will allow running apps along with the radio.
https://www.radioddity.com/products/xiegu-x6100
Bill - Thanks for that info. I wasn't aware of the X-6100 - neat radio. But I didn't see any indication of being able to alter the software of the radio.
Awesome article by SP5WWP, and I completely agree. As it turns out, a company still has to earn enough money, somehow, to pay salaries and overheads. There lies the rub: how to earn money. There is a Darwinian process that weeds out tasks that cannot be monetized, regardless of how interesting, useful or innovative. Many of us are not good businesspeople, so volunteer work is the only affordable option, even at the expense of personal health.
I don't have a solution, but of course I'd like to see one (or more).
Don - As I'll explain next week in a semi-rebuttal to SP5WWP, grants from ARDC can actually be a hybrid between purely voluntary work and purely professional work. Receiving an ARDC grant does not preclude paying for professional labor as part of a project, and SP5WWP chose not to be transparent about him being a beneficiary of that policy.
I think the theme of this issue is "interoperability."
I was recently visiting my parents. Dad's got a fairly substantial antique radio collection. One of his more prized pieces is an Atwater Kent Model 10 he restored, which is a "breadboard" radio where the components are screwed to a wood base and wired up. Radios used to be called sets because all the components needed to be assembled before you could use it (although I believe the Model 10 was sold as a complete unit). This modular approach to radio design is still normal, just that the components are microscopic now. Sure, the process allows for some amazing tech to be squeezed into a tiny package, but at what cost? I recently decided to do a little rig consolidation and picked up a Kenwood D75. I'm not as happy with the purchase as I would have liked (I knew Bluetooth wasn't going to pair with iOS, but why won't it pair with my car either?). But again, the point was to sell on a few older radios and combine D-Star and APRS/Packet into one device, along with SWL. I really haven't gained much functionality, just consolidation.
But do I need a radio that has all that packed into an almost pocketable package? What if the engineers were tasked with fitting all that and more into a box the size of an FT-817 or KX3? Would the design be able to be adaptable? Would there be an option for an expansion bus? Or a much larger battery, paving the way for a more powerful processor? Sure, it wouldn't look like an HT. And maybe that's important. Maybe even a deal-breaker for many/most hams.
What if the radio was a simple base unit (a breadboard) that had standard interconnects between modules? Sure, it might not be pure enough for some, but breaking down the radio into different modules would allow for small groups or individuals to work on their projects, assuming they could throw the signal to the next device in the path. And hams would only have to get used to thinking about, for example, buying a 5 watt amp that isn't a complete unit, but will be able to fit into the cavity available. Or having a robust interface running on the smart device they already are carrying around anyway? Why add more speakers and microphones to your hip, even if they only add a few cents to the product? But then is it still an HT? Will the community put up with a box that doesn't have knobs and keypads and a color display? Even though they already have one of the most well designed and thought out devices in history in their pocket already?
Anyway, don't want to turn this into a pitch. Just a few thoughts I've had recently.
Ready - What you need to fix your issues with the Bluetooth on your Kenwood TH-D75A (and also the earlier TH-D74A) is the B.B. Link - https://islandmagic.co/products/B-B-Link-Adapter-p629580960. Just it, and a power source into the USB-C port.
There is all kinds of experimentation going on to create new devices and new paradigms with Amateur Radio.
I was impressed with seeing the ComJot CJ-1, the first radio (I've seen) that has modern Android and the ability of the Android subsystem to move audio back and forth to and from the radio subsystem.
The closest I know of what you're asking for (interoperability / consolidation) is the Universal Radio Controller line of products from G1LRO - https://g1lro.uk.
There is SO much cool stuff going on in Amateur Radio!
Oh, I understand completely that there's an adapter out there. I'll likely pick up one or see about DIY'ing one since it's just an ESP32 module. My rant is more about the fact that the design trend from manufactures is incremental refinement and size reduction. Sure, that SDR based radio has a dynamic range of 150dB and a noise floor of -144dB, but who cares when there's so many noisy switching PSUs in the neighborhood they drown out 80 meters anyway? And yes the TH-D75 is a modern marvel of miniaturization, but why can't it just connect to my phone, or WiFi network, or even my automobile's hands-free system? Was I asking for a smaller radio? (of course that's also why I'm still using a 2018 iPad.. did I want a thinner device or one that actually improves my user experience in a substantial way?)
The IC-705 is a great example of what I'm thinking about. Here's a radio with great specs, really portable, but completely closed off. the above-mentioned X-6100 is functionally the same as the 705, maybe slightly harder to use or slightly lower performance, but otherwise there's not much differentiating the two.
Looking over the software/download section of the IC-705 product web page, it seems you have to run specific software for setting the clock (I'm assuming accurately instead of eyeballing it) from the radio. Something that my various Raspberry Pi SBCs -at $35 each- perform automagically when they connect to my network. How is it that Icom (and every other manufacturer) fails to see what's going on in the ARM pc world? Are they willfully blind to the rest of the electronics industry? Wouldn't it be a cool hack if it set itself to WWV, or at least a GPS-DO? And what about all the time and effort put into the display, knobs, legacy CAT interfaces, etc. Why not just put those resources into building a really kick-butt app? Or a well documented and accessible API? I get it, many buyers still gush about the well-balanced tuning knob, but really, how often does one reach for it in the digital contesting age?
The flip side is that it is easier than ever to get PC boards manufactured (assuming we don't start Cold War II with China). There are companies like PCB Way that will take your Gerber file and produce limited runs in a few days. Some will even do pick and place if you use common components. Sure, using these services isn't as cheap as what Icom can do, but will you have the overhead they do?
At this point I think it might be time to fork radio. Instead of continuing to adapt commercial band equipment to amateur use, maybe it's time to come up with reference designs that are specific to amateur use. Radios that run Linux or Android under the hood. That can be configured and controlled through a web browser (if my $20 light switch can do it, why can't my $800 radio?), and can run 25KHz bandwidth (or 6MHz, or whatever I dial up). DMR et al are interesting, but there's no shortage of bandwidth in the amateur bands, so why are we acting like there is (spare me the "no open repeater pairs" argument, how many inactive repeaters still hang on to "their" frequency)? DMR solved a problem we didn't have, and required bodging a fix that doesn't fit into the amateur ethos of VFO and direct operator control. But at least the radios are cheap and can be programmed to police repeaters!
Sorry to be such a downer. Maybe I'm the one who's wrong. But I think we've refined enough. Time to add a few modern features.
Ready - I don't think you're being a downer - I think you're pointing out that there's increasingly a severe disconnect with what the "mainstream Amateur Radio manufacturers" want to make (their perception of who wants to buy their products) and what the reality of the changing market is - that you can see, that I can see, and the reason that there are now 1800+ subscribers to Zero Retries.
You have it exactly right - there ISN'T any reason that a radio can't present as a web server for easy access to settings, updates, better UI, etc. And, kudos to FlexRadio for offering a radio with real (user) "software defined" features, at least upon the release of the 8000 series. You can use their "radio" user interface (have the display, knobs, etc. bolted onto the front of the radio) or just a blank faceplate and do everything from a desktop, laptop, or even phone. And add functionality using the waveform API (built-in data modes, yay!) or the external TCP/IP API (clean integration with your app running on a computer - just use clean, modern web sockets).
That was one of the reasons I was impressed with the zBitx (https://www.zeroretries.org/i/145357124/fdim-zbitx-bringing-cw-into-the-st-century-by-asher-farhan-vuese) - HE GETS what you and I have been saying - radios (should be) computers - with antennas. He's basing most of his zBitx radio around a Raspberry Pi Zero 2 W. Most of the display work is being done via a web server on the radio (no need for Internet connectivity - can be used standalone in the field, just the radio and the (unconnected) phone.
We're getting to that desired state, slowly, haltingly, painfully. I think that the pool of people who want a "conventional" radio (big box with knobs) versus those of us that want a radio that's a computer with an antenna is going to tilt decisively towards the latter by the end of this decade.
I think one friend's explanation to me was instructive - in retirement, with limited funds, I decided to spend big one last time on my dream radio. That's probably the last big, expensive radio I'll ever buy. I think folks like my friend are the current market for Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, and Elecraft who think the market wants (and they want to continue making) conventional radios with knobs, with non user changable internals. The rest of us will keep supporting the little guys like the zBitx and QMX+. I think in the end that model will win.
I'm a big fan of the book The Innovator's Dilemma which describes the current situation very well, with the "mainstream" radio manufacturers in the role of Kodak versus the early primitive digital cameras.