RadioBanter - How do you define the best transceiver ?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Equipment (https://www.radiobanter.com/equipment/)

- - How do you define the best transceiver ? (https://www.radiobanter.com/equipment/15145-how-do-you-define-best-transceiver.html)

How do you define the best transceiver ?

Hi,

Survey : what do you consider as an excellent transceiver from a pure
technical side ?

I don't need that you answer me, "the RTX that suites your need, guy". I 'd
like a more technical opinion, taking in account the worst traffic
conditions.

If you like, can you give me your opinion, some clues, or even links
developing this question (NB. I haven't got QEX that could probably help).

IMHO, and very shortened, after the TX module, the RX is the most important
module of un transCV (obvious). The TX module of a transCV is quite easy to
build with few component and it has even not to be powerful (QRP). But the
receive module is by far more complex. If a TX helps you to send your signal
to the antenna, you need also an excellent RX to be able to listen to your
contact whatever the conditions.
Without speaking of the sensitivity (that I haven't discussed, looks obvious
too), an excellent receive module should thus offer a great selectivity to
remove or reduce noise and RFI and be active before the signal reaches the
detection with the less amplification as possible (using filters like
high/low cut, attn, rf gain, dsp slope, etc), excellent DSP filtering on IF
stages, and all parameters accessible in "direct access" on the front panel
instead of having to set these hundreds of values in sub-menus.
Of course you pay for it, but my question is purely technique.

Your answer will help me to complete an article I wrote about it, in which
the selectivity has still to be developed (see later at
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-transceiver.htm)

Thanks for your comments.

Thierry, ON4SKY

"Thierry" To answer me in private use
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/post.htm wrote in message
...
Hi,

Survey : what do you consider as an excellent transceiver from a pure
technical side ?

I forget to say that I 'ld like an answer specifically for SSB.
In CW, a narrow filter of 270 Hz of bandwidth is enough to work all pile-ups
and weak stations almost lost in QRM. But in SSB, the signal is much wider
with an IF passband of about 2.4 kHz at -6 dB...

Thierry, ON4SKY

I don't need that you answer me, "the RTX that suites your need, guy". I
'd
like a more technical opinion, taking in account the worst traffic
conditions.

If you like, can you give me your opinion, some clues, or even links
developing this question (NB. I haven't got QEX that could probably help).

IMHO, and very shortened, after the TX module, the RX is the most
important
module of un transCV (obvious). The TX module of a transCV is quite easy
to
build with few component and it has even not to be powerful (QRP). But the
receive module is by far more complex. If a TX helps you to send your
signal
to the antenna, you need also an excellent RX to be able to listen to your
contact whatever the conditions.
Without speaking of the sensitivity (that I haven't discussed, looks
obvious
too), an excellent receive module should thus offer a great selectivity to
remove or reduce noise and RFI and be active before the signal reaches the
detection with the less amplification as possible (using filters like
high/low cut, attn, rf gain, dsp slope, etc), excellent DSP filtering on
IF
stages, and all parameters accessible in "direct access" on the front
panel
instead of having to set these hundreds of values in sub-menus.
Of course you pay for it, but my question is purely technique.

Your answer will help me to complete an article I wrote about it, in which
the selectivity has still to be developed (see later at
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-transceiver.htm)

Thanks for your comments.

Thierry, ON4SKY

The one that you design and build for yourself.

Only CBers buy off-the-shelf rigs which they are unable
to modify or repair.

"Thierry" To answer me in private use
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/post.htm wrote in message
...
Hi,

Survey : what do you consider as an excellent transceiver from a pure
technical side ?

"Thierry" To answer me in private use
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/post.htm wrote in message
...

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in
:

Hi,

Survey : what do you consider as an excellent transceiver
from a pure technical side ?

The one that you design and build for yourself.

Only CBers buy off-the-shelf rigs which they are unable
to modify or repair.

GOAL!!! BACK OF THE NET!!!

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
The one that you design and build for yourself.

Only CBers buy off-the-shelf rigs which they are unable
to modify or repair.

Like your TS830 FT101 and RA17

GW

"Graham W" wrote in news:r9m6c.1380
:

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
The one that you design and build for yourself.

Only CBers buy off-the-shelf rigs which they are unable
to modify or repair.

Like your TS830 FT101 and RA17

What? You mean Gareth has commercial branded (CB) radios?

Whatever next?

You'd think he'd live like a Hammish - building his own house,
making his old furniture, house lit by candles, wife making
all of their clothes, own produce grown in the garden and
driving around Wiltshire in a pony and trap.

Two faced to the end.....