Ham Radio Basics--How Does An Inexpensive Transceiver Sound Compared to A High End Transceiver?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Jim W6LG plays recordings of an Elecraft K3s and a Yaesu FT-450. Which sounds best to you? Vote for receiver #1 or receiver #2 and give a very short description as to why. Jim is planning on doing some more tests.
September 5, 2017. Here's the answer. Receiver #1 was the K3. Receiver #2 was the Yaesu FT450. I will be doing a video soon about the results of the voting and what comes next. The next test will have some changes. Thanks to the over 10,000 viewers.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
Whatever ??? I don't hear $4000 difference If #2 was the 450 a little adjustment of maybe the shift would have made them sound the same. Great test !
$500 "sounds" better to my wallet than $4000.
I'd also say that #1 was an easier copy. The signal above noise floor seemed better. The bass on #2 was what really seemed to make the difference in intelligibility, though. I'd certainly say it's not worth the price difference in the average scenario, but for very weak signals it's very nice to have. The difference between my FT-450D and my TS-590S is shocking when it comes to weak signals. For the average ragchew, I'd not be so concerned.
Hi Jim. Interesting question and brings a lot to be considered. I'm not sure which is "best", but they are certainly different. #1 seems to have a better signal to noise ratio, but the audio seem more harsh to my ear.
Conversely, the audio of #2 was smoother and easier to listen to, but the signal seemed to try to bury into the noise on weaker signals.
To me it would seem that #1 would be better with some audio adjustment of some sort. (e.g. different speaker or some type of audio filtering).
I think that audio adjustment would be easier to manage than receiver signal to noise and overall sensitivity.
I could hear #1 the best came across my left speaker clearer than #2 which was muffled the noise was worse on #2
Hi Jim,
Great demonstration on an A/B test, I like the higher fidelity on the above 1, though both seem to hear /receive the signal 📶.
I guess that the above receiver has wider bandwidth, although the bottom one sounds standard.
Best 73's
Ray GM0KET
#1 has more treble, so it is punchier. With some audio filtering, #2 might be just as good. Just based on what I heard, I would 'vote' for #1. 73 W6DOF.
Receiver 2 tone is deeper and cleaner sounding
R1 has a little higher pass audio which I favor because I have high freq hearing loss. The audio is a bit more legible, less muffled to me in R1. The signal to noise though is better on R2.
Excellent review thank you for that. I am thinking about how to do the next one. Maybe I can use FT8 to measure the signal. ? Thanks & 73, Jim Heath W6LG
Hi, I prefer receiver #1, it sounded much richer to me. 73 John AB9JS
#1 sounds like my FT 450 D.
I must admit that receiver #1 sounds best for my 65yo ears.
I have to go with #2. The #1 - while maybe a touch more clear - had too much of an "edge" to it... I could listen to #2 all day long... #1 would be too much for any length of time... 73 ... Roger / NQ8RP
Good afternon. This is EA2CJJ from Spain. Sir, in my opinion if the difference is only that I will take the cheapest one and expend de rest of the money in a good tower and better antenna. Best regards, 73´s.
#1 was more readable for me and a bit better S/N. #2 had a bit of SSB sound quality. I definitely prefer #1.
73, K9AEE
Jim, thanks for producing your videos. They've been very helpful to me in understanding what I'm getting in to as I enter the amateur radio world. Transceiver #1 sounded clearer to me with less signal to noise but transceiver #2 sounded okay also. For the record, I'm a 65 year old novice with hearing loss.
For me, #1 was definitely more readable right off the bat. I could adjust to #2 over time, but it was not as pleasant. Great work, Jim ... keep it up. WØLEN
Hi Jim, very interesting video - a question on every ham's lips - "do I need a more expensive radio?" Receiver 1 sounds better to me - more highs and less bass gives a greater distance between the voice and the noise. Received 2 sounds like there is less signal to noise and more "muddied" and at the limit I would find it harder to distinguish what was being said!
Great videos - keep up the excellent work! Kind regards
Simon M0SYS, UK
No. 1 has a brighter sound and No. 2 has a warmer sound. Prefer no. 2
I have hearing loss, and severe tinitus, and found receiver 2 to be much more comfortable to listen to and understand.
Receiver 2 sounded better as there was less white noise in the background. It sounded better filtered and processed.
Receiver #1 less muffled, more ineligible, cleaner all around...
73
There is a better clarity and a perceived lower noise floor on #1. But I personally would get very fatigued listening to it for an extended period, #2 was a lot warmer and comfortable to listen to, which in the long term is better on the ears. Most of the radios from the last twenty or so years have come loaded with options to fine tune the overall receive. For me its about what gets the job done. I have an FT1000 mk5 which has all sorts of bells and whistles included as standard and I have my old TS-850 which I just love the sound of. Every one has there own opinions on what is better, but we all look for something slightly different, A very good video but I heard nothing that would justify even a doubling of purchase cost let alone ten times the price. Karl, M0KRL
Jim, were the IF filters set to the same bandwidth?
Thank you for doing this comparison. I liked the clarity of #1 and the tone of #2. In my opinion, I detected less noise in #1 but there was a lot of treble in the sound. I could hear more noise in #2 but I also liked the lower tone of the voice (more bass and less treble). Depending on a person's ears, they are going to hear some frequencies better than others. My brother doesn't like to hear a lot of base in music (he likes what sounds to me to be a tin can sound). I like a mid level of base (more flatter sounding), but my good friend likes as much base as he can get. I know that with age we tend to lose some of the higher-end frequencies first which may be partially why a lot of people prefer receiver #1. Others probably appreciated less noise (though some may have even thought the opposite). Personally, I would prefer #1 for the clarity which is a little more important to me, but I wouldn't pay ten times the price for it on the sound alone.
The whole point of this video is lost if you don't tell us which receiver is which.
September 5, 2017. Here's the answer. Receiver #1 was the K3. Receiver #2 was the Yaesu FT450. I will be doing a video soon about the results of the voting and what comes next. The next test will have some changes. Thanks to the over 10,000 viewers. I do the videos as time and health permits. Jim W6LG
It's not lost. The point was to hear the recordings for your self without having a biased opinion of one or the other. you vote for which one you like most before knowing which one is which.
Ryan Steele Thank you Ryan! 73, Jim
yeah "not telling you" is actually the point ;) biais my friend, we're all guilty!
Do you hear an order of magnitude of difference? Me neither. To be fair, you need to look at all of the features available on both platforms and decide the correct level of investment based on your operating needs.
I voted 1 for Elecraft but I was hoping on being wrong. Reason being I own the Yaesu ft-450d Thanks for the vid it was fun 73 from N2FJ and God Bess
1 elekcraft typical robot audio 2 yaesu wide more analog and noise receiver
Hi JIm, Receiver #1 seems to "punch through the noise better and is more pleasurable to listen to. However, I think I could invest the $4,500.00 difference in other ham gear. Yeah I know I'm a cheapskate.
Can't help wonder if, as K7AGE mentioned, the IF passband is identical between the two. I think the test would be more useful if you tried to make them sound as equal as possible (maybe in another video?). I prefer rcv. no. 1 by far. Rcv. no. 2 sounds like it's got the DSP turned all the way up to 11, and more is not always better. Anyway, I enjoy your videos, thanks for taking the time to produce them! 73
I prefer the sound quality from #2. Easier to listen to over an extended time period. #1 is a little hissy, a bit too white noise.
To me number 2 sounds better. It has a warmer fuller sound and much easier on my ears. Number one seemed like I was listening through a narrow band filter and sounded tight, for lack of a better word. Like having a cold with my ears plugged up.
To my ears receiver #1 sounded clearer, the audio seemed to have more punch and body. Receiver #2 seemed to be down on volume and not as clear. Kind Regards Leon - VK3VGA
BTW. Jim I really enjoy your videos, I think they are one of the best informative straight to the point video podcast I have come across. Great reference. Keep up the great work
#1 sounds better, but that is because the IF filter width seems to be reduced too much on #2. So the difference we are hearing is audio spectrum related, not so much signal-to-noise related. In the latter aspect they are the same it appears. Which should not come as a surprise; the HF spectrum has a high background by its very nature. So in terms of noise figure, it does not take a lot of design effort (and thus cost) to come up with a receiver that reaches the theoretical maximum on the HF bands, in terms of S/N performance.
Where the K3 shines is to preserve that same sensitivity in the presence of very strong signals in adjacent channels; but that is a situation that 99% of hams will never face. The other thing is that such strong adjacent signals usually transmit a lot of noise themselves around their signal, such that even a high-dynamic range receiver like the K3 would lose sensitivity because that neighbor -transmitted noise would interfere with the K3 desired signal. And that is exactly why I think that for 99% of hams, such expensive transceivers make no sense at all. Keep in mind that the strong signals we are talking about, are in the order of 60dB above S9. Below that, even the FT-450 also won't have a problem at all. How many hams can say they face situations like that, S9+60dB signals from a neighbor? Like I said - about 1% of us. Wait - you say you have seen broadcast signals that reach S9+60dB levels? Yes, I have too. On 40 meters. But have you ever checked how much noise these broadcasters transmit in a spectrum of around 50 kHz around their carrier? Because of that noise, the K3 would not be able to receive anything either close to such a signal...
Elmer W6ERL ... number 2 best , smooth , pleasurable copy & I have excellent hearing for a 70 yr old! (CW op most) Nice fun test, thanks 73
Number one has a much higher tone which brings out the high frequency noise like frying bacon. Number two with its deeper tone also attenuates those high frequency audio peaks and makes it much more enjoyable to listen to. I think the response of ham ears is probably miserable after decades of listening to the atmosphere. I was inactive for 48 years and just coming back and the number one issue I have is all the darn atmospheric noise. I am using an EFHW and 40/80/160 is painful to even bother with. I am looking at the various RF side noise cancellers as well as the various DSP speakers and active filters as well as a Palomar Common Mode Filter, but it's a crap shoot. Looking at low cost SDR's too. My old IC-735 is a great transmitter, almost everyone can hear me even in pile ups with my wire antenna and 100W, but it is hell to hear most stations while frying bacon as S7 to S9.
After the third round rec 1 makes more sense from s/n perspective, as you can hear not on ly on dx but especially on the local skip signal. allthougf S/N on two (for me) is less pleasant the low and slow signal makes longer listening a good thing. Thank you Jim for showing this ! .. 73 Edwin
I like the #2 because I like the lower base and it seemed to be clearer
Receiver 1 sounded a bit better because it was generating higher pitched audio without increased noise, (wider bandwidth,) but I could get by listening to either of them. There really wasn't much difference as far as copying them. So whichever one was cheaper would be the one I'd use. And now, (in 2022,) I'm running a 5 band multi-mode (tr)uSDX that fits in my pocket and cost me $90, and I've paired it with a $16 amp kit that puts out 30 W on 20 and 40 meters when I feel like running power. My 70 year-old CW key is worth more than all the rest of my POTA station put together, including the QDX for data modes. The hobby is changing rapidly.
1 is definitely better but $4500 better?
Thanks Garret! 73, Jim
Interesting AB. It seems the S/N ratio was a tad better on Rcvr 1, but not $4.5K better imho. The highs and lows in the received audio can easily be modified using graphic eq between audio out and speaker. So could transmit audio on the other side for that matter. Thanks for the comparison!
Receiver 1. However, I could adjust my ears to listen to Receiver 2 without difficulty. Receiver 1 seems to have a higher pitch than Receiver 2. I would give the edge to Receiver 1.
#1 is K3, #2 is FT450 I owned them both. Would a contester take FT450 to CQWWDx? No. Would a ragchewer want K3? Not Likely. With my modest antenna (hexbeam) I kept FT450D and IC7300, use both for ragchew and contest, sent away the K3.
To be fair, there is not much in it. A 2nd hand FT450D has DSP and an internal ATU and would still cost 1/10th of Top of the range radio (irregardless of brand) It's the features and options that add to the cost, and not the dynamic range and performance. G7VFY
Number 2 sounds exactly Iike my FT450D. A little IF shift would brighten it right up. I prefer number 2 myself, more intelligible.
I Might be years too late, but Number 1 sounds much better. Higher S/N ratio and audio just clearer. I have an F-450D, but am using an SDRplay as my primary receiver an the FT-450D as a transmitter. Pretty much the way I started in the hobby in about 1962, but with Heathkit gear.
Rcvr 1 is much more pleasing albeit slightly lower in Signal. I'm guessing Rcvr 1 is the K3. 73 dc VO1VXC
Hands down #1. Easier copy for me and definitely noticeable on my ears.
I had to go with receiver #1, but that was only after I turned my headphones around (L/R swap) not $4500 difference to me. Maybe if I was listening for hours at time it would make the cost worth it. Heck I probably picked the cheap one anyway. LOL
de VE3HO not much difference nr 2 had a bit more base and less noise but I did not see 4500 worth of difference sure I like bells and whistles the TS930 kenwood was my all time favourite kx 2 was my nr 2
Interesting question. #1 has a distinctly higher tone than #2. Honestly to me, the noise floor sounds about the same on both receivers. S/N ratios on both also seem fairly similar once the tone differences are taken into account. #2 does seem to distort the signal at times more than #1, different audio path? #1's audio is more intelligible in the overall scheme, so #1 would get my vote.
Radio 1 was clearer to me but I wasn’t sure if #2 got a volume bump and the treble turned up if it would help. #2 was muddy but the volume was also just softer. The treble in #1 helped me hear enunciation. #2 has less noise but seemed to sacrifice some clarity. Again though I don’t know if that could be changed with audio settings. It seemed it might be preference between better enunciation in #1 with more noise and #2 less noise but might sacrifice some comprehension of the words. If I can’t understand the words…to me at least it doesn’t matter if #2 has less noise. At least on these recordings.
They both sound bad to me. But then I am not an active ham radio guy. If this is how those ham radios sound, good thing I never spent $5,000 on a transceiver. I have a 2 meter ; old ICOM 229A transceiver, mic, magnetic mount single band antenna. Audio is fantastic. I go through a local repeater.
one is mono and the #2 is trying to be a stereo but that might be you tube quality or the inner net prvdr.....Is ur radyo hack is in the muffled pipe shaped basement ?
Good video , Elecraft K3 is so much overpriced. Never buy American TCVR waste money. Thanks.
Receiver #1 sounds better than #2. More clear and much more treble in it. Seems #2 has more fading. 73 PD0PSX the Netherlands.
I wanted a ft-450 but they discounted before I could get the extra money. Now I have a Ic-7100 and I like it. I have my truck rigged for when i travel i just need the base and head unit and I'm good to go.
It took 30 seconds. Receiver 1 is the $500 transceiver. The sound has more highs and does not have the over engineered filtering DSP sound of the $5000 transceiver. It also has better S/N to the ear and is more intelligible. I prefer analog reception and mostly use tube receivers. I have a Japan Radio Corp NRD-545 (w/o DSP), a better receiver than the two, but I still prefer the tube sound. Sorry, now that I have heard it I would return any DSP transceiver like the $5000 transceiver as a great disappointment. Thanks for doing this and I have removed DSP type transceivers and the ilk from my small bucket list. My advice to all your subscribers is that if you have never tried a well tuned and restored tube radio, you are missing something. You may also guess than I am approaching 70. Albert KR3HAB
I liked #2 the best. It would be way more comfortable on the ears for an extended DX session. The audio receive is just a small facet of what makes a good radio though. I am curious to see what other tests you come up with.
Receiver 1
The VFO is pretty much on-frequency, so the dynamic range of the audio is greater and gives better highs and lows and less noise
Receiver 2
The VFO is a little low so the dynamic audio range is not as great as Receiver 1, plus there is slightly more noise introduced as a result.
Personally, for these reasons I believe the test is not equal and fair. For my money Receiver 1’s tuning alone won this battle.
I have to say that they sound rather close in understandability. I'd say #1 sounded a bit clearer but #2 sounded a bit punchier and fuller, I listened to this on pretty decent sennheiser headphones but the thing is, my hearing isn't exactly equal on both ears (had too much .308 gunfire close to my ears without protection). But overall the difference for me at least isn't big enough that I'd be aiming to spend the money for the elecraft.
#1 is by far brighter and clearer to my 52yo ears, but it is worth the extra cash. I wonder if the audio output was run through a good equaiizer boosting the 2K-5K frequencies how that would compare.
I am not influenced by an ownership opinion because I do not own either radio. #1 sounded "Tinny" and the hash was almost as loud as the signal.
RX 1 is more understandable to me. Is seems to dispense with lower frequency info that doesn't contribute to understanding the speech.
#1 sounds better 90% of the time, but #2 did have a few points where it sounded slightly better. In general, #2 sounded warmer and less hissy, but #1 had far better understand-ability of transmissions.
Receiver 1 sounds much better, and is more pleasant to listen. Number 2 sounds like an empty tin can. De Chris, VE2VAE.
#1 cleaner, less compression distortion higher tone levels cut threw better. #2 bassy. Or over compression almost muffled sounding. Not as clear.
#1 is better. #2 sounds like high register is out of the pass-band. I have a K3 (not sure you can upgrade to all features on a K3s - but you can come close btw) and #1's audio sounds like my audio.
Also, the FT-450 is known to have muffled audio, see eHam. There are good transceivers for under $1k that have great audio - in fact the K3 is criticized for having a too "tinny" audio by some (but I like it). Check out this video of a Yaesu 817nd vs a K3 - the audio may be better in the ($600) 817. ruclips.net/video/sGCODvlUqMY/видео.html
Finally, people don't by $5K transceivers for audio - clean audio is a given at that price point. They buy them for filtering, NR, extreme sensitivity/selectivity, dual receivers, diversity reception, ect... But, having said that, the law of diminishing returns sets in fast. I won rookie ARRL rookie-round-up contests (SSB and RTTY - not CW... I'm not fast enough) in my region with an ($1100) ICOM 7000 and a vertical antenna, and would be able to do most of what I do now with that same radio. The K3 helps in extremes, weak signal/filtering ect...; but for people getting into this hobby I'd advise them that you don't need at $5000 K3 - or even a $1500 K3 - for good audio. Don't let this video scare you into buying an expensive xceiver.
I liked receiver #1 best. FYI, age is 70 & have some hearing problems. I listened on earphones & swapped ears half way through to negate any difference for left ear vs right. Been a ham since 1960 (7th grade). de K5AVJ (original call) ... PS enjoying your videos
I, also, listened with my earphones. I used my Bluetooth ear buds. I could directly hear the difference between the left and right channel.
Hi Jim, KL3DO here, thanks for including a little clip of my recording on the video. If I were to add my two cents, I would also agree that the #1 audio appealed a little more than the other. They are very close and could sway either way but the #1 does hit the spot. I don't think the difference would be worth $4500!!! Money is much better spent on antennas and understanding that part of the equation. Many thanks for your educational comments. After hamming for almost 25 years, the best bang for the buck is antenna, hands down. Thanks again, Jim!!! 73
Audio is so subjective. Gaining an outcome that you want isn't always about $. Like any hobby $ on design and engineering counts but only to a degree. Then sadly like many hobbies it's elitist mentality. Ham is not hifi. Most of the speakers used in radios are crap to start with.
I certainly don't hear $4000.00 or whatever difference between signals, if I had a preference it would be receiver number 2 but there is so very little between them. I have never paid more than a £100 or there about's for any of my radio equipment some of the best being free to me, and I really do not see the point in spending thousands.
Rx1 sounds a little better but its narrower. a bit more tinny, lower background noise. Rx2 is a bit wider range with higher background noise with a some sideband wooing.
I found both to be good with #1 having an audio quality that was more pleasing. What it demonstrated to me was the Law of Decreasing Returns is present in the Ham radio equipment world. While #1 was clear and the tone was more pleasant it wasn't worth $4,000 more than #2. Maybe $500 more..
Receiver #one you can understand more clearly what's being said.
Receiver #two the voice sounds more human.
I would go with receiver #2 because the voice does not sound so metallic and is more bearable to listen to over long periods of time.
Interesting, I prefer receiver #2. My ears for whatever reason find #2 more base, gentler listening, and easier to understand. Have no idea which radio it is?
I liked #2 better. Both receivers gave good audio, but it seems that the noise is higher pitched on #1, which is harder for my ears to filter.
#1 gave me a headache, far to 'tinny' and harsh. The audio maybe 'punchy' but to me its to far that way, sounds 'strangled' Much prefer the bass response of #2, but would love to hear a 'proper' comparison where the frequency response on both radios it set the same. I'd guess #2 is the cheaper FT-450
Prefer #1. Clearer and sharper to me. You've got me wondering what the attenuation and preamp settings might be on either rig, if any, and how they might affect each rig differently.
73, K3TCM
I will have to go with #2 as the deeper tone is easier for me to hear as the noise is not as loud in the signal to me.
Although the Elekraft K3 has less noise, I actually prefer the FT-450 due to its more full sound and not totally outrageous amount of noise.
#1 was best, much more clarity & treble (a bit too much) with a little more hiss. #2 was too muffled to understand sometimes, blending into the noise, but more natural. Not a ham, just some SWL.
Great video Jim. Regardless they both did a good job and the cost/performance ratio is something a buyer would have to consider. For ragchewing I personally would rather listen to #2 but for pulling signals out of the noise the K3 did a better job.
Wow! Very interesting Jim. I honestly felt like I could hear fine on both. But I preferred Receiver 2. Seemed that Receiver 1 had more background noise and was higher in pitch.
Quite frankly, both samples sound pretty terrible, being afflicted with what sounds like aliasing. I'd double-check the recording chain. In fact, the mic audio seems rather sharp-sounding as well, while the remote audio sample at the end is mostly clean and sounding like what I'd expect.
#2 has a more traditional, richer, somewhat muffled sound and an overactive AGC; dialing down the RF gain and possibly choosing a longer time constant might work wonders here.
#1 has more highs and provides better intelligibility, though I'd hope one can dial in the low end for better conditions as it sounds quite restricted. As an audiophile snob, I'm not a big fan of 300 Hz rolloffs.
#2 is the one I would prefer. Now saying that I think both were very clear. 2 was just a little better.
Radio 1 best by far, but not 4,500.00 dollars better. I might pay twice the price for better quality but not nine or ten times the price. If radio 1 is the cheapest, I'm sold.
Receiver #1 - hands down the better RX. Clear, better tone, 'crisp' and a revelation.
Audio levels were so different that it cannot be a critical test. My thoughts are that you can work filters, and actually have significantly similar audio with some of the older analog legacy radios like the $500 class of older radios. It's all about the receiver. I'll be trying to play with the IC-7300 radio and compare it to my IC-756 Pro III which will be interesting. Bottom line, levels were so different, it's a bust to pick. Audacity (I think, because Cool Edit and Adobe Audition 3 have it), a "normalize' option, which takes whatever you have recorded, and brings the lows up, and the highs down, and normalizes all the audio to one level that is preset to be "normal". That would help.
The speaker can make a significant difference as well. The filtering is noticeable but so is the speaker size and placement in the radio.
Receiver #1, it's a little more clear and less muffled.
73
KM6LOR
Receiver 1 may be crisper with less his, but for my going bad ears, receiver 2 is easier for me to make out the words.
Well... 1 sounds better to me but i must say i think 2 is ok as well other then the tone seems a bit off and it sounds like the dsp is up too much. kinda muddy.
I have to give a slight edge to receiver #1. Yo my ears it was a bit clearer, a bit better S/N ratio.
I don't think #2 was setup properly. I can make my FT857D sound better than that.
Agreed there
#1...because of the small crispy sound. thats what we need to get that callsign out of the noiselevels. Best really audio receive is on TRX #3...the ic7000 where we can hear Jim....but again. He got one of the greatest DX-audio on our planet. ;)
73s Sascha PD9Z
By the way Jim, I'd just like to say how much I enjoy your videos, informative and very entertaining. I especially like the one of your granddaughter, her eBay answer to your question was priceless!! Keep up the good work and I know its a big subject but any chance of doing a few on HF antenna options as I think its a subject that you have yet to touch on? 73s M6OLM
Receiver #1 all day long please. The lack of hiss helps my ringing ears hurt less. Good SNR on R1 as well.
Liked 2 better sounds more natural for most of this but 1 did better with the last contact.
I likes the #1 rx better.... easier to understand and the noise level seemed lower to me.
Best video so far Jim, radio 1 sounds more clear and higher pitch...tnx again
Jim. ..KB8YBG