Date   

Re: FTDX101MP overshoot

33 73s
 

Yaesu issued a doc June 18, 2019 with the list of FTDX-101Ds affected by overshoots in issue (attached doc).

If your 101D dates from the first production series, you will of course have to install the update on the FW side.
You will also need to make the modification on the HW side. Yaesu (if under warranty) or a good tech can make this modification easily (it only has a small SMD resistor to replace).
I made the modification myself on my 101d, it takes me less than 30mn!

If your device is under warranty, your best bet is to contact Yaesu.

Nb. Essential modification if you use LDMOS SSPA for example ...
LDMOS do not support overshoots ...

73s Sylvain F6CIS


Le lundi 1 mars 2021 à 08:23:43 UTC+1, Rasika Liyanage via groups.io <vk2qv@...> a écrit :


Rejean, I have 101D with FW MAIN VO1-14. But i still have the overshoot problem on all HF bands. May i know when and under what FW it has been fixed please?

Thanks


Re: FTDX101MP overshoot

Rasika Liyanage
 

Rejean, I have 101D with FW MAIN VO1-14. But i still have the overshoot problem on all HF bands. May i know when and under what FW it has been fixed please?

Thanks


Re: Mouse Control

Jaime Perez
 

Hello, I repeat again I have been using a Logitech M-187 for one year with my FT101MP with no problems at all, works very well and is small and handy, I am buying another one in Amazon.
73, Jaime EA6NB.


Re: FTDX101MP overshoot

Rejean Leveille
 

Never on the MP model, this was on D and fixed,,,


Re: Mouse Control

David M0IXP
 

The receiver, some come with logitechs unified recorder that  can do multiple devices ie keyboard and mouse.  The radio lacks the drivers for this. 


On Sun, 28 Feb 2021, 18:15 Lou W7HV via groups.io, <louandzip=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Yep. Mostly that's what I've heard, but for some a M310 didn't work. Might be different versions or ones with a different dongle or something.

Anyway, it took me about 5 minutes with the mouse to wonder why I can't get into the menus without using the physical FUNC button below the screen, and once in the menus, can't change values with the mouse and have to using the physical MULTI knob.  Also, I can't click and scroll the VFO, and can't drag the VFO in the spectrum display.  Being able to do these things would be more consistent with usual mouse UIs, and make a mouse a much more useful adjunct. I would think things like these would be immediately evident to the developers...or at least the beta testers. I can't imagine it would be a technical limitation.


Re: Mouse Control

Lou W7HV
 

Yep. Mostly that's what I've heard, but for some a M310 didn't work. Might be different versions or ones with a different dongle or something.

Anyway, it took me about 5 minutes with the mouse to wonder why I can't get into the menus without using the physical FUNC button below the screen, and once in the menus, can't change values with the mouse and have to using the physical MULTI knob.  Also, I can't click and scroll the VFO, and can't drag the VFO in the spectrum display.  Being able to do these things would be more consistent with usual mouse UIs, and make a mouse a much more useful adjunct. I would think things like these would be immediately evident to the developers...or at least the beta testers. I can't imagine it would be a technical limitation.


Re: Mouse Control

ray sylvester nr1r
 

logitech m310 work fine  plug and play


Re: Mouse Control

Lou W7HV
 

FWIW:  I just got this wireless M310 this morning and it works. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003I4FHNK


Re: FTDX101MP overshoot

ray sylvester nr1r
 

yes


FTDX101MP overshoot

Jan
 

I want to buy the FTD!101MP.
Is the overshoot failure solved now?

73
Jan
PA4JJ


Re: NEWS: FTDX101 NEW FIRMWARE... soon!

Adrio Neroni <adrioneroni@...>
 

Ho fatto l'aggiornamento firmware 1.40 sul mio 7300 molte migliorie ampliando la funzione della manopola multi e tante alte cose...... insomma 14 pagine che spiegano le nuove funzioni e migliorie.
Aspetto anche io con trepidazione il nuovo firmware per il 101.
Saluti 

Adrio IZ6TGS


Re: NEWS: FTDX101 NEW FIRMWARE... soon!

 

David I completely share your point of view

We’re going to celebrate the first birthday for current public FW release (because I guess in production they shipped in the time 101 with different releases without making them available for public).
We are talking about a top rig the had a huge success (a deserved success indeed) but it seems no attention were paid to by the manufacturer…..even if many issues (important,critical,stupid,optional it doesn’t matter as no reaction no one of them produced) were send to manufactirer.

In these days another brand released a new FW version adding many enhancements and improvements for a rig that was born years ago and costs 1/3 than the 101D … the 7300 ! nothing else to add

73 Giorgio


Re: NEWS: FTDX101 NEW FIRMWARE... soon!

Frank
 

HI Giorgio,
actually it should have come out with the FW correction of most of the problems communicated and known by Yaesu

which they also almost everything confirmed: LINK 

already for a few weeks... but still no news.

Maybe they have fw soft problems or are adding more, I don't know...

However, I had received an email from Yaesu confirming the release "in days" but unfortunately still nothing ...  ;-(

I hope it will be available soon, at least to correct the current real bugs, it is at least a year after v.202004 that we are waiting ...

73
Franco


Re: NEWS: FTDX101 NEW FIRMWARE... soon!

David M0IXP
 

Very. Not only the lack of actual updates. But in a modern world where yaesu havs moved to a format that is so dependent on quality software. 

The complete lack of information as to what is being worked in or repaired in the next update. Is unforgivable. 

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, 11:22 Giorgio IK1BXN, <ik1bxn@...> wrote:
Hi guys

no news right now from Yaesu about FW update……isn’t it ?

...disappointing

73 Giorgio


Re: NEWS: FTDX101 NEW FIRMWARE... soon!

 

Hi guys

no news right now from Yaesu about FW update……isn’t it ?

...disappointing

73 Giorgio


Re: Aftermarket installation of roofing filters

Jeff AC0C
 

I've done this test a few times myself. 

The two big caveats are 1) the the AGC **MUST** be disabled and 2) some characterization of the max signal level needs to be done so that the test is representative of the the chain in it's linear form.  Here we are assuming that all the other signal toys (AF EQ, DNR, NB, etc) are all disabled - or set to 0 - or whatever the least interactive setting is for the thing you are trying to measure. 

Personally I think this sort of whole-of-rig bandpass characterization is completely valid.  Because that's exactly how the thing functions in the normal use.  While you can certainly isolate a given stage and measure the individual performance of say a specific filter, for quick and most of the time utilitarian results, this method is hard to beat.  The average joe ham can do it without a lot of specialized gear, and you are virtually guaranteed of not loading the AF output to the point that you disturb the circuit balance as is a constant challenge when driving or pulling a plot from a subcircuit.  Not to mention the occasional fried rig that can come from the "well, I was in there pulling this very cool plot with that shiny new VNA, and then my probe slipped.  The rig shut off, and now it's dead!"

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com


On 2/25/21 5:43 PM, Lou W7HV via groups.io wrote:

The filter width is determined by the narrower of the two cascaded filters, the xtal (roofing) filter or the IF DSP filter.   If the DSP filter is set narrower than the xtal filter, it will determine the width and shape.  So that's  where 600/150 and 300/150 look and essentially work the same....that is until some a very big signal(s) enters the 600 xtal filter passband but not the 150 DSP passband.  If they exceed the blocking capability of the DSP filter, they will be a problem.  The 300/150 will work better than the 600/150 in loud crowds because the 300 lets less through for the DSP filter to deal with.

This isn't much different from how the cascaded filters work in the MkV, except in that case the second filter is also an xtal filter.

One reference point is the Elecraft K4.  The base model use only IF DSP.  There are no xtal (roofing) filters and they believe this will work great for the large majority of users.  They have a another model, the K4HD, which adds another conversion and IF,  and two xtal filters, making the architecture similar to the 101 with the intent it be used in tuff condx.  The K4s are belatedly just making it out into the wild.  I don't think there's a K4HD on the loose yet.


Re: Aftermarket installation of roofing filters

Lou W7HV
 

The filter width is determined by the narrower of the two cascaded filters, the xtal (roofing) filter or the IF DSP filter.   If the DSP filter is set narrower than the xtal filter, it will determine the width and shape.  So that's  where 600/150 and 300/150 look and essentially work the same....that is until some a very big signal(s) enters the 600 xtal filter passband but not the 150 DSP passband.  If they exceed the blocking capability of the DSP filter, they will be a problem.  The 300/150 will work better than the 600/150 in loud crowds because the 300 lets less through for the DSP filter to deal with.

This isn't much different from how the cascaded filters work in the MkV, except in that case the second filter is also an xtal filter.

One reference point is the Elecraft K4.  The base model use only IF DSP.  There are no xtal (roofing) filters and they believe this will work great for the large majority of users.  They have a another model, the K4HD, which adds another conversion and IF,  and two xtal filters, making the architecture similar to the 101 with the intent it be used in tuff condx.  The K4s are belatedly just making it out into the wild.  I don't think there's a K4HD on the loose yet.


Re: Aftermarket installation of roofing filters

Barry D. Jacobson
 

The last sentence about 600/150 being identical to 300/150 is puzzling, because then it comes out that the only difference between the 300 and 600 Hz roofing filters is when DSP is very wide. So if you are having problems in QRM, just narrow the DSP. But in that case, why need a 300 Hz or 600 Hz roofing filter, when there is always a 3,000 Hz roofing filter for SSB that could be used for CW, as well, provided you narrow the DSP filter. So I am a bit unsure what's going on. I thought the roofing filters were to avoid overloading the DSP filter. Figured the bandwidth of the roofing filter must matter to some extent.

--
Barry Jacobson
WA2VIU
bdj@...
@bdj_phd

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 4:40 PM Lou W7HV via groups.io <louandzip=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I probably should have put in more of a disclaimer on those plots.  They're the audio output analyzed with a sound card and FFT software so not "instrumentation" quality.  The plots are fine for showing the shape and width of the filters but not ultimate rejection.  The baseline in those plots is basically the noise floor of sound card so it's best not to read anything into it.  I have plots like these of the filter in my K2 and the filters in my FT10000MP MkV.  Between the those three rigs, the type of filtering is different.  The K2 has a single IF filter that's electrically adjustable in width. It works very well but ultimate rejection and skirts are not quite as good as fixed IF xtal filters.  The MkV has two IFs with their own sets of xtal (or mechanical) filters and these filters are cascaded, so the signal might go through a 500Hz filter in the first IF and another 500Hz filter in the second IF.  Adjusting the shift control moves both IFs the same, but moving the width control moves them in opposite directions such that the  pass-bands are shifted relative to each other yielding a narrower bandwidth, although with somewhat less steep skirts.  This is sometimes call "dual passband tuning."   The FTDX101 is different yet in that it has xtal filters cascaded with a DSP filter.  SHIFT moves the IF and DSP the same, but WIDTH narrows only the DSP filter.  Once the DSP filter is narrower than the xtal filter, you basically get the shape of the DSP filter, which is really very good.  On the 101, the DSP filter width changes in steps of 100Hz down to 500Hz then goes in 50Hz steps below that.  600/50, 600/100, ...600/500 all look very much the same except for having the correct corresponding width.  And 600/150 looks just like 300/150 because in both cases the filter shape is defined by the DSP. 

soundcard baseline. no input
FT1000MP MkV full complement of filters


Re: Aftermarket installation of roofing filters

Barry D. Jacobson
 

The bottom line is that the final result is a sound and its effect on human discrimination, so I think audio frequency analysis is appropriate here.

--
Barry Jacobson
WA2VIU
bdj@...
@bdj_phd

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 4:40 PM Lou W7HV via groups.io <louandzip=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I probably should have put in more of a disclaimer on those plots.  They're the audio output analyzed with a sound card and FFT software so not "instrumentation" quality.  The plots are fine for showing the shape and width of the filters but not ultimate rejection.  The baseline in those plots is basically the noise floor of sound card so it's best not to read anything into it.  I have plots like these of the filter in my K2 and the filters in my FT10000MP MkV.  Between the those three rigs, the type of filtering is different.  The K2 has a single IF filter that's electrically adjustable in width. It works very well but ultimate rejection and skirts are not quite as good as fixed IF xtal filters.  The MkV has two IFs with their own sets of xtal (or mechanical) filters and these filters are cascaded, so the signal might go through a 500Hz filter in the first IF and another 500Hz filter in the second IF.  Adjusting the shift control moves both IFs the same, but moving the width control moves them in opposite directions such that the  pass-bands are shifted relative to each other yielding a narrower bandwidth, although with somewhat less steep skirts.  This is sometimes call "dual passband tuning."   The FTDX101 is different yet in that it has xtal filters cascaded with a DSP filter.  SHIFT moves the IF and DSP the same, but WIDTH narrows only the DSP filter.  Once the DSP filter is narrower than the xtal filter, you basically get the shape of the DSP filter, which is really very good.  On the 101, the DSP filter width changes in steps of 100Hz down to 500Hz then goes in 50Hz steps below that.  600/50, 600/100, ...600/500 all look very much the same except for having the correct corresponding width.  And 600/150 looks just like 300/150 because in both cases the filter shape is defined by the DSP. 

soundcard baseline. no input
FT1000MP MkV full complement of filters


Re: Aftermarket installation of roofing filters

David M0IXP
 

Cannot say how true it is. But someone ar ML&S claimed that yaesu finds that the level of seperation in the 101. Requires the filter to be soldered rather then clipped in. 

And this is why doing so is not supported as a user operation. 

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021, 22:03 Lou W7HV via groups.io, <louandzip=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Note that the MkV filters are in two columns, the 8.215MHz IF on the left and the 455kHz IF on the right, the signal goes through a filter on the the left, through a mixer, then the corresponding filter on the right.  The 101 has spots for 4 filters, essentially equivalent in function to the 4 on the left on the MkV, then instead of the 4 filters on the right, it has the IF DSP.  (and same for SUB RX)

The optional filters come on small boards with connectors that slide onto headers already mounted on the IF board so there's no removing of the IF board and soldering of the filters as there is in the FTDX101.  The filters just slide on and off and clip into plastic standoffs.  In this case, I have INRAD filters, but the Yaesu optional filters mount in the same way.  There's 20 years between the two radios. 

3281 - 3300 of 9760