Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Robert Casey wrote:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler. Despite what marketing
wonks may tell us, nothing is. Give me what you think is an example,
and I can quickly tell you why it isn't.

OK, here goes:

Way back in the 1930s, hams began to replace their "blooper"
(regenerative) receivers with "super-hets" (superheterodynes). The
added complexity of the "super" was justified by the invention of the
single signal crystal filter, which gave improved adjacent-channel
selectivity.

Those early ham supers almost all used an IF around 455 kHz, because
the available crystal filter systems worked best around that
frequency. The better ones had one or preferably two RF stages before
the mixer, to reduce image response and override the mixer noise. A
top receiver of those days might have two RF stages and three IF
stages, plus a couple of audio stages and the mixer and detector. And
even so, image response was a problem.

After WW2, the trend moved towards "double conversion". The first IF
was typically in the low HF region, to reduce images, and the second
IF much lower, to get selectivity. Some designs like Collins kept the
455 kHz second IF, while many others (National, Hallicrafters) used a
first IF around 1700 or 2215 kHz and a second IF of 50-60 kHz. Such a
low second IF meant that LC circuits could be used for the
selectivity.

Such receivers were arguably "better" - and unarguably more complex.
Compare the prewar National NC-101X with the mid-50s NC-300, or a
typical homebrew super of the '30s with an HBR. And while better in
some ways, they were worse in others.

Then packaged high-frequency crystal filters were developed (about
1957), followed by improved mixer designs such as the Pullen mixer. It
became possible to design receivers with a high IF for image
rejection, no RF stages and a much reduced parts count. The Squires
Sanders SS-1R is an example of such a design. It is simpler than, say,
an NC-300, as well as smaller, lighter and less power-hungry.

There are lots of other examples. Compare an Elecraft K2 with almost
any other current amateur HF transceiver - then compare the specs and
features. In many ways its high performance is a direct result of the
relative simplicity.

Simplification can be an improvement. But simplicity isn't always
simple, or easy.

73 de Jim, N2EY