Icom IC-7300

[djacobow]

So, the IC-7300, the first SDR to come from a "big three" Japanese manufacturer was just approved by the US FCC. Is anybody looking at it? It'll be $1500 -- a huge discount compared to the other SDR transceivers like K3s, FlexRadio units, and Anan units.

I actually don't own an HF transceiver, and am looking to buy my first. I've been surprised/disappointed to see how none of the mainstream ones seem to have a modern receiver, all with traditional superhet architectures and similar performance, like IP3 or "close in dynamic range" being on mainstream units being a good 20dB worse than the best SDR-based units.

I'm just getting into the hobby, and am not going to drop $2k on a transceiver, so have been considering an IC-7200 for awhile, despite it being traditional. But IC-7300 looks interesting. On the other hand, perhaps if this radio is good it will push down the price of the -7200.

http://www.icomamerica.com/en/products/amateur/hf/7300/default.aspx

[AF6LJ]

There is a big difference between spending what a Flex  SDR costs and what a modern non SDR radio costs. At this point in time I am not convinced the cost difference is justified considering I would be tied down to a computer and a radio; something only one of my radios requires.

The kind of figures you mention in terms of IP3 and close in dynamic range occur only in multi operator conditions. If you are the only ham on your block operating HF you are not going to ever require those performance standards. Chasing numbers in the hope of having the best radio is a good way to spend all your money in the wrong place. What good would having a Flex 6500 if you live in a condo with an HOA that is hostile toward amateur radio, and can't put up a decent antenna?

Among the "Big Three" they have alternatives with digital IF sections instead of a filter like the IC-7200, however you get what you pay for.

The price point on the IC-7300 is almost too good to be true, makes me wonder just how well it well actually work. Thankfully I am within a few miles of the local Ham Radio Outlet and when it comes out, I plan on spending some time up there playing with it.

Never buy a radio sight unseen, always play with it, or the same model first.
This is the voice of experience.

[TheSteve]

Pretty sure the IC-7200 has been discontinued.

I know there is a lot of excitement surrounding the 7300, I hope it lives up to the hype. If you're new to HF you might want to consider a used transceiver to get your feet wet. And, more importantly, what antenna do you have? End of the day that is generally more important then the radio you pick.

[djacobow]

Pretty sure the IC-7200 has been discontinued.

I know there is a lot of excitement surrounding the 7300, I hope it lives up to the hype. If you're new to HF you might want to consider a used transceiver to get your feet wet. And, more importantly, what antenna do you have? End of the day that is generally more important then the radio you pick.

Yeah, -7200 is discontinued, but you can still get them for now. Used is potentially interesting, though I am not interested in boat anchor vintage. Seems, though, that a lot of used solid state HF gear has issues. Is that so? I personally haven't found much appealing on E-bay. Where should a new ham be looking?

My antenna situation is pretty sketchy. I'm on a small lot with a single medium tall tree. I have a G5RVjr hung as an inverted vee. Top is about 30' up and ends about about 10-15' off the ground. It's not optimal, but I have pretty good performance on 40m in particular. Hear SSB from as much as 1000 miles away, CW from maybe 2x that, and JT65 from all manner of crazy places.

I might convert the G5RVjr to a center fed zepp. We'll see. Verticals, ground- or roof-mounted seem a step too far for me right now.

[TheSteve]

Most used equipment on ebay is too expensive anyway - unless you get a buy it now item that was just listed for a good price. I'd look for used gear locally - craigslist, ham swaps, or in the FS section of qrz.com etc. I don't recommend a boat anchor but anything from the last 10-15 years should be fine. Don't forget a power supply and an external antenna tuner.

[AF6LJ]

Pretty sure the IC-7200 has been discontinued.

I know there is a lot of excitement surrounding the 7300, I hope it lives up to the hype. If you're new to HF you might want to consider a used transceiver to get your feet wet. And, more importantly, what antenna do you have? End of the day that is generally more important then the radio you pick.

Yeah, -7200 is discontinued, but you can still get them for now. Used is potentially interesting, though I am not interested in boat anchor vintage. Seems, though, that a lot of used solid state HF gear has issues. Is that so? I personally haven't found much appealing on E-bay. Where should a new ham be looking?

My antenna situation is pretty sketchy. I'm on a small lot with a single medium tall tree. I have a G5RVjr hung as an inverted vee. Top is about 30' up and ends about about 10-15' off the ground. It's not optimal, but I have pretty good performance on 40m in particular. Hear SSB from as much as 1000 miles away, CW from maybe 2x that, and JT65 from all manner of crazy places.

I might convert the G5RVjr to a center fed zepp. We'll see. Verticals, ground- or roof-mounted seem a step too far for me right now.

You might have better luck looking for used gear on E-Ham or QRZ or whatever is on consignment at your local HRO. QTH.com is also another good source for used gear.

[German_EE]

When I saw the block diagram of the IC-7300 I took a deep breath. Icom have made a very brave decision here and I hope that it works out for them.

Would I buy one?

No, but only because I don't have 1500 USD to spare. I shall therefore watch this technology very closely because I believe that it represents the future of amateur radio.

[mehdi]

I will wait for user reviews and comparisons to come out, before making my decision.
With 7200 being discontinued and price drop, it's also a very good rig to consider.

[KM4FER]

A first radio huh?
My opinion, but yours may be different and that's OK.

I have been playing around awhile with a simple and crude homebrew single band SDR receiver and it has been fun.  It's cool to see signals jump in and out of the waterfall spectrum and if one looks good jump to it and listen in.  But I've been wanting to transmit as well so the other day I picked up a 198? 3-30KHz transceiver donated to the local radio club by the widow of a deceased member.

WOW !   Using an analog radio is like being blind.  All you know is what is happening at the frequency you are tuned to and maybe a few hundred Hertz away.  You have no idea if there's a good signal higher up the band or lower down.  All you can do is slowly tune around and hope for the best unless you have and trust a scanner. 

I've gained a new respect for the old timers and their ability to accomplish what they have with simple radios.

73
Earl

[TheSteve]

It is hard to give up a spectrum scope/waterfall but you're really missing out if you rely only on it. There will often be signals the scope doesn't show as anything but noise but it might just be a station you want to work!

[djacobow]

Considering how inexpensive SDR receiver hardware is becoming, I wonder how the high-end SDR transceiver folks are going to justify their super high prices, especially when the transmitter side of the units aren't that different performance wise. (they do vary, of course, qsk, tx 3rd order, etc)

Maybe the future is separates. I think if there were a box that had a good transmitter, and antenna and receiver connection, and proper switching/protection for the receive connection to the antenna, I might be inclined to get something like that and continue experimenting with a new $200 SDR receiver whenever an interesting one came out. Of course, such a box should have all the rig control goodies, etc. In fact, if while transmitting the unit connected the receiver to the transmitter through the proper attenuator (rather than just clamping it to ground or whatever) you could also monitor your signal when transmitting.

[TheSteve]

A cheap SDR is just that - cheap. They have improved massively but really good receiver performance still costs real money.

[djacobow]

A cheap SDR is just that - cheap. They have improved massively but really good receiver performance still costs real money.

I seriously don't know that much about it, so am willing to be enlightened. It seems to be that there are components in a good receiver that cheap SDRs don't have, like good preselector filters and traditional knobs and dials. But what other "stuff" in a receiver /has/ to cost money? Seems to be that you put some money into input filters, a variable gain stage, and an ADC, and everything after that is DSP grunt -- much of which can be reasonably offloaded to a cheap computer that is otherwise sitting next to you at near-idle.

There should be plenty of daylight between $75 SDR dongle and $4500 Flex to make a fine  SDR receiver.

[AF6LJ]

A first radio huh?
My opinion, but yours may be different and that's OK.

I have been playing around awhile with a simple and crude homebrew single band SDR receiver and it has been fun.  It's cool to see signals jump in and out of the waterfall spectrum and if one looks good jump to it and listen in.  But I've been wanting to transmit as well so the other day I picked up a 198? 3-30KHz transceiver donated to the local radio club by the widow of a deceased member.

WOW !   Using an analog radio is like being blind.  All you know is what is happening at the frequency you are tuned to and maybe a few hundred Hertz away.  You have no idea if there's a good signal higher up the band or lower down.  All you can do is slowly tune around and hope for the best unless you have and trust a scanner. 

I've gained a new respect for the old timers and their ability to accomplish what they have with simple radios.

73
Earl

They make panoramic adapters I have a couple, not counting the one built into my IC-756.
It all depends on what you want to do.
A cheap SDR will make a really good pan adapter.

[AF6LJ]

Considering how inexpensive SDR receiver hardware is becoming, I wonder how the high-end SDR transceiver folks are going to justify their super high prices, especially when the transmitter side of the units aren't that different performance wise. (they do vary, of course, qsk, tx 3rd order, etc)

Well for one thing the high end radios like the Flex gear deal with issues like latency in carrying out operations such as rapid tuning, full break in CW VOX operation and the like. Stuff that cheap SDR gear simply cannot live up to in terms of performance.

Maybe the future is separates. I think if there were a box that had a good transmitter, and antenna and receiver connection, and proper switching/protection for the receive connection to the antenna, I might be inclined to get something like that and continue experimenting with a new $200 SDR receiver whenever an interesting one came out. Of course, such a box should have all the rig control goodies, etc. In fact, if while transmitting the unit connected the receiver to the transmitter through the proper attenuator (rather than just clamping it to ground or whatever) you could also monitor your signal when transmitting.

You won't be able to monitor your signal very well in real time.
Latency again is the big issue with that.
Try listening to yourself with a .2 second delayed signal in your ear...

[djacobow]

Well for one thing the high end radios like the Flex gear deal with issues like latency in carrying out operations such as rapid tuning, full break in CW VOX operation and the like. Stuff that cheap SDR gear simply cannot live up to in terms of performance.

Hmm, well, having started with computer-based receivers, I don't think I'll miss rapid tuning I've never experienced, anyway. I've been more of a point-n-click user. It's like whack-a-mole, spectrum display edition. The break in issue, I definitely get.

You won't be able to monitor your signal very well in real time.
Latency again is the big issue with that.
Try listening to yourself with a .2 second delayed signal in your ear...

Ah, right. I actually wasn't even thinking about monitoring aurally, but visually -- seeing if you're over/under modulating, generating splatter, etc. But yeah, I get that.

[TheSteve]

Always have to remember CW is alive and well - full QSK can be a real challenge in any transceiver.

[borjam]

Among the "Big Three" they have alternatives with digital IF sections instead of a filter like the IC-7200, however you get what you pay for

EA2EKH here, IC-7200 user.

The IC-7200 is a SDR with digital domain last IF filtering and demodulation. It is not a direct sampling one, though, with a couple of conversions (and a roofing filter).

The price point on the IC-7300 is almost too good to be true, makes me wonder just how well it well actually work. Thankfully I am within a few miles of the local Ham Radio Outlet and when it comes out, I plan on spending some time up there playing with it.

The thing is, SDRs avoid using some very expensive components like good filters. My IC-7200 doesn´t need additional expensive filters to have selectable bandwidths: I have three filter presets and I can set them to whatever I like between 500 and 3200 Hz, and I can even choose between two filter shapes.

So, the IC-7300 can actually be the first transceiver that finally delivers the cost reductions provided by SDR techniques. Of course, this comes at a cost: repairability will be much lower, and modding can be much harder when not impossible depending on what you wish to achieve. Lots of components are now replaced by a FPGA and a DSP.

Actually the IC-7200 delivered some of those reductions already. It offers features that 10 years ago were more usual in high end models. How much would it cost to have three or four optional filters in a classic analog radio?

Never buy a radio sight unseen, always play with it, or the same model first.
This is the voice of experience.

Of course. Radio design is a very difficult thing, and even the best manufacturers usually overlook something.

[Electro Fan]

WOW !   Using an analog radio is like being blind.  All you know is what is happening at the frequency you are tuned to and maybe a few hundred Hertz away.  You have no idea if there's a good signal higher up the band or lower down.  All you can do is slowly tune around and hope for the best unless you have and trust a scanner. 

I've gained a new respect for the old timers and their ability to accomplish what they have with simple radios.

73
Earl

Roger and Amen

[AF6LJ]

I wouldn't consider an IC-7200 an SDR.
Where is the brick wall filtering and continously adjustable bandwodth, among other things.
I have a Motorola Micom 2E which can be remotely controlled by a computer, and just about everything from the first mixer to the recovered RX audio is digital, but that doesn't make it an SDR.
The transmitter is the same way everything from the high level audio in to the TX mixer is digital...

The 7200 like the 2E is a hybrid.
 

[borjam]

I wouldn't consider an IC-7200 an SDR.
Where is the brick wall filtering and continously adjustable bandwodth, among other things.

Filtering and demodulation are done in the digital domain. There are two different shapes and the filtering bandwidth is adjustable between 50 and 3600 Hz in 50/100 Hz steps which, in my book, is more than reasonably equivalente to "continuous". 

The IC-7200 applies some filtering in the IF conversions, but the final IF filtering, notch and demodulation is done in the digital domain, on the sampled last IF at 15.625 KHz. Unless I am wrong, of course. This is a SDR in my book. SDR is not synonimous with "direct sampling SDR".

I have a Motorola Micom 2E which can be remotely controlled by a computer, and just about everything from the first mixer to the recovered RX audio is digital, but that doesn't make it an SDR.
The transmitter is the same way everything from the high level audio in to the TX mixer is digital...

Then it is a SDR as well.

The 7200 like the 2E is a hybrid.

It is a matter of definition, of course. Some heterodynation doesn´t mean that a radio is not a SDR. What happens if you use a Flex Radio as an IF for a microwave transceiver, for example? Does it stop being a SDR because you have added a frequency conversion? I don´t think so

[AF6LJ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radio

I rest my case, a 7200 is not an SDR.

[borjam]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radio

I rest my case, a 7200 is not an SDR.

Quoting:

"Software-defined radio (SDR) is a radio communication system where components that have been typically implemented in hardware (e.g. mixers, filters, amplifiers, modulators/demodulators, detectors, etc.) are instead implemented by means of software on a personal computer or embedded system.[1] "

(filters: check; modulators/demodulators/detectors: check)

And yes, the article mentions an ideal SDR system, with a converter attached to an antenna. But obviously that's not exactly possible.

You can certainly say that one transceiver has more SDR-ness than others, based on the amount of analog circuitry present. But the definition quoted from the Wikipedia doesn´t require *all* the components to be implemented in software. It just says "where components..."

Someone used the term "hybrid SDR", but it doesn't make much sense in my opinion.

Anyway not trying to start an off-topic argument. But it's really curious how many people react when hearing "hey, this is also a SDR".

[djacobow]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radio

I rest my case, a 7200 is not an SDR.

Quoting:

"Software-defined radio (SDR) is a radio communication system where components that have been typically implemented in hardware (e.g. mixers, filters, amplifiers, modulators/demodulators, detectors, etc.) are instead implemented by means of software on a personal computer or embedded system.[1] "

Well, without jumping into how-many-angels-on-head-of-pin argument, and without conceding final authority to Wikipedia, I'll say the SDR is a loose term and people apply it rather loosely.

If I were being pedantic, I might say a radio is DIGITAL if it does most of its business in the digital domain. But even that can only ever be a matter of degree. There was a time not long ago when people would say, well, yeah, there's an analog mixer up front but after that it's ADC and all digital, and that's a digital radio. When there was no digital circuit that could keep up with RF at frequency, that seemed pretty reasonable. Now, people might say, well, it's only an all-digital radio if it has the ADC right after the antenna. But what about pre-selectors and antialiasing filters? Those are analog. So, obviously, no radio will ever be 100% digital.

Then there is the question of _software_. Clearly a lot of digital radios are not software defined, they run special purpose hardware blocks, or maybe they run in an FPGA. Hey, FPGAs are kind of interesting. You start with something that looks a lot like software (verilog, vhdl) and through various processes end up with a bitstream (also looks like software) that is stored in memory and loaded into the fpga when it starts. Maybe that IS software defined?

Or maybe the hardware block that does the digital business is actually just a special purpose DSP, deeply embedded in some ASIC, running a piece of software that you will never directly access or see? Is that SDR?

To me, the holy grail of SDR would be a very open radio (FPGA or DSP based or combo) that I could radically change the data flow of with my own efforts: either providing DSP code or re-zapping the FPGA. Even now, with almost every radio with a DSP in it, it would be super duper nifty if I could, say: at this point in the data stream, use the array of filter coefficients found on my SD card to implement a FIR. Such could be implemented in a digital non-SDR, but I don't care. It would still be cool.

In fact, if you use GNUradio and similar with these "SDR sticks" you are doing SDR. I'd just like to see that ability in a radio that could also stand alone. That would be nifty, and you could call it whatever you like. :-)

[AF6LJ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radio

I rest my case, a 7200 is not an SDR.

Quoting:

"Software-defined radio (SDR) is a radio communication system where components that have been typically implemented in hardware (e.g. mixers, filters, amplifiers, modulators/demodulators, detectors, etc.) are instead implemented by means of software on a personal computer or embedded system.[1] "

Well, without jumping into how-many-angels-on-head-of-pin argument, and without conceding final authority to Wikipedia, I'll say the SDR is a loose term and people apply it rather loosely.

People DO tend to be rather sloppy with terms.
We can agree on that.

If I were being pedantic, I might say a radio is DIGITAL if it does most of its business in the digital domain. But even that can only ever be a matter of degree. There was a time not long ago when people would say, well, yeah, there's an analog mixer up front but after that it's ADC and all digital, and that's a digital radio. When there was no digital circuit that could keep up with RF at frequency, that seemed pretty reasonable. Now, people might say, well, it's only an all-digital radio if it has the ADC right after the antenna. But what about pre-selectors and antialiasing filters? Those are analog. So, obviously, no radio will ever be 100% digital.

Those are usually all passive parts; which completely digital circuits have plenty of..

Then there is the question of _software_. Clearly a lot of digital radios are not software defined, they run special purpose hardware blocks, or maybe they run in an FPGA. Hey, FPGAs are kind of interesting. You start with something that looks a lot like software (verilog, vhdl) and through various processes end up with a bitstream (also looks like software) that is stored in memory and loaded into the fpga when it starts. Maybe that IS software defined?

We make a distinction between "firmware" and "Software" See Wikipedia...

Or maybe the hardware block that does the digital business is actually just a special purpose DSP, deeply embedded in some ASIC, running a piece of software that you will never directly access or see? Is that SDR?

Nope; no more than a diode matrix is.

To me, the holy grail of SDR would be a very open radio (FPGA or DSP based or combo) that I could radically change the data flow of with my own efforts: either providing DSP code or re-zapping the FPGA. Even now, with almost every radio with a DSP in it, it would be super duper nifty if I could, say: at this point in the data stream, use the array of filter coefficients found on my SD card to implement a FIR. Such could be implemented in a digital non-SDR, but I don't care. It would still be cool.

In fact, if you use GNUradio and similar with these "SDR sticks" you are doing SDR. I'd just like to see that ability in a radio that could also stand alone. That would be nifty, and you could call it whatever you like. :-)

Right now the term seems to be applied to many types of radios.
I think if you met up with a rep from ICOM at one of the ham fests and asked if the IC-7200 was an SDR they would say no it is not. As a matter of fact I was witness to such an exchange at the 2014 SANDARC / ARRL Southwestern Convention.

The Micom 2E I have can be remotely controlled with a computer with or without a front panell
Not only that when you power up the Micom it defaults to the last frequency, mode and power level it was in and a computer or a front panel is not required to operate that radio on that one frequency.

[djacobow]

We make a distinction between "firmware" and "Software" See Wikipedia...

No, you make such a distinction, a distinction, which no matter how many bits are spilled in Wikipedia, is conceptually meaningless. There is no intrinsic difference between firmware and "software." Those are words of convenience to describe different ways software is deployed, and they are utterly imprecise, too, as "firmware" is stored in all manner of ways from ROM to floppy and everything in between, and can be updated or not updated in various ways from only-at-the-factory to user-click-here to completely autonomously. There is no hard line between firmware, embedded software, non-embedded software.

Nope; no more than a diode matrix is.

Actually, yup, exactly as much as a diode matrix is.

And if that diode matrix happens to be configured as a ROM that has a program stored in it, is the program magically no longer software because "diodes?"

Right now the term seems to be applied to many types of radios.

Yes, we agree on that.

People call the Elecraft and Flex products SDRs, too. But I can't write software for either of them and load it without violating their warranties, nor can I find a program on the Internet to run on them. Does that mean they're also not SDRs? Perhaps the Flex is more of the "radio" takes place on the PC. But can I run something other than PowerSDR? And so PowerSDR is different from "firmware" in what operative way, exactly? If I put PowerSDR onto a USB stick and then flipped the write protect switch, would it be firmware then?

This whole discussion is an exercise in distinctions without a difference.

On the other hand: A radio signal path defined by changeable mathematics rather than physical components is a real distinction, and it seems to be what most people mean by SDR -- regardless of whether they actually will ever do so, or if the interface for such changes are open to the user.

[AF6LJ]

We make a distinction between "firmware" and "Software" See Wikipedia...

No, you make such a distinction, a distinction, which no matter how many bits are spilled in Wikipedia, is conceptually meaningless. There is no intrinsic difference between firmware and "software." Those are words of convenience to describe different ways software is deployed, and they are utterly imprecise, too, as "firmware" is stored in all manner of ways from ROM to floppy and everything in between, and can be updated or not updated in various ways from only-at-the-factory to user-click-here to completely autonomously. There is no hard line between firmware, embedded software, non-embedded software.

Nope; no more than a diode matrix is.

Actually, yup, exactly as much as a diode matrix is.

And if that diode matrix happens to be configured as a ROM that has a program stored in it, is the program magically no longer software because "diodes?"

Right now the term seems to be applied to many types of radios.

Yes, we agree on that.

People call the Elecraft and Flex products SDRs, too. But I can't write software for either of them and load it without violating their warranties, nor can I find a program on the Internet to run on them. Does that mean they're also not SDRs? Perhaps the Flex is more of the "radio" takes place on the PC. But can I run something other than PowerSDR? And so PowerSDR is different from "firmware" in what operative way, exactly? If I put PowerSDR onto a USB stick and then flipped the write protect switch, would it be firmware then?

This whole discussion is an exercise in distinctions without a difference.

On the other hand: A radio signal path defined by changeable mathematics rather than physical components is a real distinction, and it seems to be what most people mean by SDR -- regardless of whether they actually will ever do so, or if the interface for such changes are open to the user.

It is pointless arguing with you.
Sorry Dude, I was an RF tech for twenty one years.
I know the difference between software and firmware.
Software controlled and software defined radios.
Have a nice day.

[voltz]

To me, software is software.. But the application of it produces new terms.

No matter what the target application is, you still need a person with an IDE, typing code, compiling, linking and generating a target. That process is creating software. However, the application of that software gives it a new name. Firmware being a target that is designed to go into a ROM or Embedded processor and carries out defined procedures (defined by the software author). Application software is more desktop/mobile phone/user interaction stuff.

The line get blurred for example when we talk about operating systems burnt to an embedded chip, Its application code on a firmware type device. Hmm.. I'd personally call that firmware but some would say its an OS and therefor software. Matter of debate i think.

So you could say software and firmware are the same thing, but life becomes complicated if you do and its best to draw a distinction between the two when talking to other engineers. So they  'get it'.

To the original poster; seriously looking at the 7300 here. I do believe this is the future of ham radio, and probably pro radio designs to come. Its a bold start into complete digital domain designs. And no PC required! But i suspect we will always need true inductive filtering along side the FPGA side of things. So RF engineers will still be in demand. (glad to say).

bottom line: I want one,  See Youtube videos starting to appear now. The radios' audio sounds just great

[AF6LJ]

 

[dr.diesel]

I've been holding out for a K4, but it's starting to look like that day might never happen.  The 7300 might just be the right fit for a modern compact rig to fit on the bench.

Wonder if the firmware can be updated via SD-Card, no WindBlows box required?

[voltz]

"Wonder if the firmware can be updated via SD-Card,"
Sorry, no idea at this time. I believe the SD can record QSO's.

" no WindBlows box required?"
For operation do you mean?, no. Its a self contained unit - can go mobile if you want.

[AF6LJ]

Damnit.. The manual is not available online yet...

[dr.diesel]

" no WindBlows box required?"
For operation do you mean?, no. Its a self contained unit - can go mobile if you want.

Not for operation, just for updating firmware.  If you can load via the SD-card, that would make it much easier on non Windows people like myself.

[voltz]

Ah, i see what you mean. Yes, would be easier from SD.

heres the user manual:
http://www.difona.de/pdf_en/icic7300_manual.pdf

And i'm pretty sure i seen a service manual already too.

[AF6LJ]

Ah, i see what you mean. Yes, would be easier from SD.

heres the user manual:
http://www.difona.de/pdf_en/icic7300_manual.pdf

And i'm pretty sure i seen a service manual already too.

If you find a link to the service manual please post it.

[deephaven]

Damnit.. The manual is not available online yet...

Lots of info here http://www.ab4oj.com/icom/ic7300/main.html including a link to the schematics pdf

[voltz]

Just seen this in the SD card menu of manual:
"Displays the Firmware Update mode"

promising.

Not quite the service manual Sue, but here's the schematic.
http://www.hamradio.co.uk/userfiles/file/IC-7300_Schematic_Diagram.pdf

Edit: ah, beat me to it

[dr.diesel]

Confirmed, firmware updating is done via the SD-Card.   

[AF6LJ]

Thanks Guys. 

[dr.diesel]

Dangit, I've made Dayton every year for the past 10, but can't make it this year.  I was going to wait and see if anything new came out, but this is cheap enough I might just order one anyhow.

[borjam]

The distinction between the terms "firmware" and "software" can be somewhat vague.

Some can apply the term "firmware" to software that is used mostly internally, without visible change or interaction with the user. For example, the firmware in a graphics card. In this case, "software" would be used to refer to "programs" you install, but which are not necessarily "fixed".

Accepting this distinction, built in software in an embedded system would be aptly called "firmware". But there is one more twist. Not all that firmware is necessarily a part of software, as some equipment's firmware can include changes to FPGA's configuration, which is equivalent to a hardware change.

So, in embedded systems. Can you choose which software you install in your transceiver? You don't, so it's called firmware. And, as I said, that firmware can both include actual software and FPGA configuration.

However, if you have one of those SDRs that work by running software in your computer, at least in theory you can use different SDR programs with the SDR transceiver, so it's "software". However, the SDR box will probably have firmware as well (the basic part needed for communication with the computer and, again, whatever FPGA configuration it includes).


It's somewhat different if you have one of those oscilloscopes based on Windows and you install, for example, Matlab. That would be called software, not firmware.

[dr.diesel]

I might just order one anyhow.

Ordered last week, currently showing to ship on 4/1.

[zibadun]

 The ICOM remote control protocol can transfer the spectrum image to the PC pixel by pixel (475x160), however this is practically useless for signal processing.  I think the value of this transceiver would sky-rocket if one could tap into the real I/Q stream and somehow make it accessible on the PC.  Hopefully this new radio is hacker friendly

[Theboel]

I have use FT1200 and FTDX3000 one thing I dislike is, I can feel "digital" sound really hope this 7300 has less digital sound

[borjam]

The ICOM remote control protocol can transfer the spectrum image to the PC pixel by pixel (475x160), however this is practically useless for signal processing.  I think the value of this transceiver would sky-rocket if one could tap into the real I/Q stream and somehow make it accessible on the PC.  Hopefully this new radio is hacker friendly

Actually, according to the advanced manual (and the schematic confirms it) you can select wether you want demodulated audio or a 12 KHz IF signal sent to the computer over the USB port (and the ACC connector). However, it's not an I+Q IF. But it should still be useful for signal processing.

[zibadun]

you can select wether you want demodulated audio or a 12 KHz IF signal sent to the computer over the USB port (and the ACC connector). However, it's not an I+Q IF. But it should still be useful for signal processing.

you can't do a much with a 12 khz slice.  may be listen to some DRM, if you can find content.  (last time I checked it was mostly religious broadcasting).    the built in band scope shows up to 1 MHz at 30 FPS but it's not available to tap into with PC SDR programs

[borjam]

you can't do a much with a 12 khz slice.  may be listen to some DRM, if you can find content.  (last time I checked it was mostly religious broadcasting).    the built in band scope shows up to 1 MHz at 30 FPS but it's not available to tap into with PC SDR programs

Well, you can also use your own demodulation programs if you like to play with that. Amateur radio signals on HF are limited to a bandwidth of 5 KHz.

The really intriguing part is how they have done it keeping the costs low. I bet it's undersampling, as it's explained in this document from Analog Devices.

http://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/design-handbooks/practical-analog-design-tech-sect5.pdf

(page 9, figure 5.9)


You play with a pass band filter and a sampling frequency lower than the Nyquist value in order to "tune" the A/D converter to one of the windows. As just one of the windows can actually reach the converter thanks to the filters you don't suffer an aliasing problem, you rather exploit the aliasing phenomenon to your advantage.

[GEuser]

We make a distinction between "firmware" and "Software" See Wikipedia...

No, you make such a distinction, a distinction, which no matter how many bits are spilled in Wikipedia, is conceptually meaningless. There is no intrinsic difference between firmware and "software." Those are words of convenience to describe different ways software is deployed, and they are utterly imprecise, too, as "firmware" is stored in all manner of ways from ROM to floppy and everything in between, and can be updated or not updated in various ways from only-at-the-factory to user-click-here to completely autonomously. There is no hard line between firmware, embedded software, non-embedded software.

Nope; no more than a diode matrix is.

Actually, yup, exactly as much as a diode matrix is.

And if that diode matrix happens to be configured as a ROM that has a program stored in it, is the program magically no longer software because "diodes?"

Right now the term seems to be applied to many types of radios.

Yes, we agree on that.

People call the Elecraft and Flex products SDRs, too. But I can't write software for either of them and load it without violating their warranties, nor can I find a program on the Internet to run on them. Does that mean they're also not SDRs? Perhaps the Flex is more of the "radio" takes place on the PC. But can I run something other than PowerSDR? And so PowerSDR is different from "firmware" in what operative way, exactly? If I put PowerSDR onto a USB stick and then flipped the write protect switch, would it be firmware then?

This whole discussion is an exercise in distinctions without a difference.

On the other hand: A radio signal path defined by changeable mathematics rather than physical components is a real distinction, and it seems to be what most people mean by SDR -- regardless of whether they actually will ever do so, or if the interface for such changes are open to the user.

It is pointless arguing with you.
Sorry Dude, I was an RF tech for twenty one years.
I know the difference between software and firmware.
Software controlled and software defined radios.
Have a nice day.

This series should be in the "What Ever Happened To Ham Radio" thread , it's exactly what happened , black box operators claiming because they purchased a licence and also purchased the latest and greatest multi thousand dollar stuff one automatically knows everything , and still happening imo and always will until the Earth blows up .

I'm a Shortwave listener , I hear heaps of stuff and it'd put HF CB'ers to shame if that's possible btw .
ps> this elucidation post is not directed at you Sue btw , I just thought I'd rattle a few sensitive out there as I know they are out there after 30 years of SW Listening .

[zibadun]

You play with a pass band filter and a sampling frequency lower than the Nyquist value in order to "tune" the A/D converter to one of the windows. As just one of the windows can actually reach the converter thanks to the filters you don't suffer an aliasing problem, you rather exploit the aliasing phenomenon to your advantage.

 I do not think that ICOM cuts any corners here.  However undersampling is most likely what they have done with the 70 MHz band, otherwise they'd have to clock ADC at close to 170 MHz  (70x2 + 20%) to receive 70 MHz in the first nyquist zone.   the lower bands, up to 6m, could be covered with a 124 MHz ADC.  The speculation is that they are using LTC2208-14.  The ADC part number is obscured in the schematics and in the service manual, and it's also covered by a permanently mounted heat sink! (may be it can be lifted off with the help of some hot air  )..

The FPGA is a high end Altera chip which can run at 200+ MHz and  would have no issues processing the full speed ADC stream even for the 70 mhz band with no undersampling.

Another possibility is that they are  not using a fixed ADC clock, but vary  it according to the selected band so that it falls nicely into the processing window.  E.g. there is not much reason to run ADC at 124 MHz on the 160m band (except to to gain a few extra DB of dynamic range due to processing gain). 

I look forward for the first ham with a scope and a curious mind to report more on the inner workings of the ADC.  From what I've heard the dealers have received services manual under the condition that they will not "leak" it to the internet.   Otherwise it would a cool thing to browse!

[dr.diesel]

Look what just arrived:

[deephaven]

Lucky man. I'd be interested in your impressions of it once you found yourself around it.

[AF6LJ]

Very nice; can't wait to hear what you think.

[TheSteve]

Very nice, as others have said it looks like a baby IC-7600. The initial reports I am hearing are all quite positive. Receiver testing done by Adam VA7OJ and Rob Sherwood NC0B should be out in a few days, then we will know how it really performs.

[voltz]

Oh nice. Do let us know what you think of it

[davebb]

But can it be locked with a 10mhz ext ref
Dave 2E0DMB

[German_EE]

What good would a 10 millihertz reference be? A 10 MHz reference is a much better idea even if I'm not sure that the IC-7300 can use it

[dr.diesel]

But can it be locked with a 10mhz ext ref
Dave 2E0DMB

Nope.

I've had very little time with it, but so far I very much like the menu navigation and the compactness of the rig.  This is my first Icom rig, but I'm willing to bet it's pretty easy to win me over from Yaesu, which I despise more and more by the day.

[davebb]

Looks like a very nice radio, I used a icom ic-7000 in the car that was very nice with the filters,
I live close to a radio shop so I hope that they get one in so I can have a play/look
I have seen demos on youtube ,How good is the filtering with very close in frq and high signal strength ?,
as I have a kenwood TS-2000 and when I got that the filtering was not that good, but now that I fitted a inrad filter it has changed the radio, And It is locked to a 10MHZ ref gpsdo using a board from David Smith VK3HZ as the radios ref is 15.6MHZ
Have fun with your new radio, lut use know more about what you think once you get use to it
Dave 2E0DMB

[eliocor]

Does it have an I/Q exit?
If not, how can it be called a "REAL" SDR radio?

[wkb]

Does it have an I/Q exit?
If not, how can it be called a "REAL" SDR radio?

Why not?

[AF6LJ]

Does it have an I/Q exit?
If not, how can it be called a "REAL" SDR radio?

Since when does an SDR have to have I and Q outputs?
What if the computer that controls the radio is in the radio?

[eliocor]

If you say so, you surely have never used Tx/Rx like the FDM-DUO or similar devices like the Perseus receiver...
Just an example, in 2002 there was the Digimit:
http://microtelecom.it/digimit/
http://www.microtelecom.it/digimit/digimit2002.htm
just SOME time earlier than the IC-7300...

[wkb]

You still haven't given a sensible reason why the 7300 should not be called an SDR radio.

[borjam]

If you say so, you surely have never used Tx/Rx like the FDM-DUO or similar devices like the Perseus receiver...
Just an example, in 2002 there was the Digimit:
http://microtelecom.it/digimit/
http://www.microtelecom.it/digimit/digimit2002.htm
just SOME time earlier than the IC-7300...

SDR means exactly Software Defined Radio. It doesn't mean radio with an IQ output. Also, SDR doesn't mean "direct sampling" as some seem to suggest. At least one Flex Radio transceiver (Flex 1500) that I have seen does not have direct sampling, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that "it's not a real SDR".

It is the first SDR sold as such by one of the big Japanese manufacturers, because SDR is not new for them. For example, the IC-7200 doesn't use crystal or mechanical filters for the last IF, nor does it use analogue circuitry for modulation/demodulation. For pure marketing reasons (probably in order to avoid scaring away older/more conservative customers) they called the thing IF-DSP. But SDR it is.

And SDR techniques are used all over the place in many applications outside of the amateur radio world which, of course, don't have an IQ output or anything of the sort.

It's quite funny, actually, that some sort of religious cult has sprout around SDRs and soon there will be true believers, heretics and such  Anyway, as the market matures, SDR becomes more of a medium and less of an end itself.

[AF6LJ]

I see that some of you have a problem seeing the difference between "Digital" and "Software Defined". I guess you never worked in the two way communications business.

Oh Well
 

[borjam]

I see that some of you have a problem seeing the difference between "Digital" and "Software Defined". I guess you never worked in the two way communications business.

Not pointing to me I hope!

[zibadun]

I've heard that someone was brave enough to pull the heat sink from the ADC.  They found LTC2208-14 there

[djacobow]

Sherwood tests:

http://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/sherwood-xcvr-tests/icom-ic-7300/

I'm not sure why these are not up on the actual Sherwood webpage; maybe they're bogus?

[AF6LJ]

Sherwood tests:

http://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/sherwood-xcvr-tests/icom-ic-7300/

I'm not sure why these are not up on the actual Sherwood webpage; maybe they're bogus?

I don't think he is done yet.
We'll see.

[TSL]

Sherwood tests:

http://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/sherwood-xcvr-tests/icom-ic-7300/

I'm not sure why these are not up on the actual Sherwood webpage; maybe they're bogus?

Hmmm interesting, but I question the  methodology, using another radio for tx phase noise test as your test gear is questionable at best despite it being a top line SDR. Additionally no methodology is given for receive tests.

[AF6LJ]

Sherwood tests:

http://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/sherwood-xcvr-tests/icom-ic-7300/

I'm not sure why these are not up on the actual Sherwood webpage; maybe they're bogus?

Hmmm interesting, but I question the  methodology, using another radio for tx phase noise test as your test gear is questionable at best despite it being a top line SDR. Additionally no methodology is given for receive tests.

It would be tie same as using a spectrum analyzer you just have to take the equipment generated noise into account.
The local HRO has one on display, next time I have a few minutes to spare I plan on going in and using it for a bit.

[donmr]

SDR means SOFTWARE Defined Radio.  Software means something that can be changed after the system is built.

If this radio (or any radio) has its code in a ROM and does not have I/Q outputs, the I'd call it a FIRMWARE Defined Radio.

One of the attractions of SDR is that the user can experiment with new modes and protocols long before the big radio manufacturers decide to support them.

Now if they would listen to Bruce Perens and put the DSP in a separate processor which the user can program (or install something someone else wrote).  Then they would have a very attractive SDR product.

[zibadun]

Now if they would listen to Bruce Perens and put the DSP in a separate processor which the user can program (or install something someone else wrote).  Then they would have a very attractive SDR product.

wouldn't an open source firmware be nice?   similar to a hacked fw for the Canon cameras http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

but don't hold your breath...

[dr.diesel]

In depth testing/review:

http://www.ab4oj.com/icom/ic7300/7300notes.pdf

[TSL]

And the schematic is available here too !

http://www.qrpblog.com/2016/02/icom-ic-7300-schematic.html

[deephaven]

In depth testing/review:

http://www.ab4oj.com/icom/ic7300/7300notes.pdf

What a good review that was 

[Mr Simpleton]

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

Do not really see why all the hype though 

[dr.diesel]

Uh, for the price/features, it scored very well.

[AF6LJ]

Had an hour to play with one yesterday.
I think for the money it is a very good radio.
I'm not real fond of touch screen operated gear, with that aside the radio works very well.

[djacobow]

Had an hour to play with one yesterday.
I think for the money it is a very good radio.
I'm not real fond of touch screen operated gear, with that aside the radio works very well.

Thanks. This and other reviews seem to reach the same conclusion, that this radio is good value for the money, but it's not going to outperform the heavy hitters, and it does have its quirks. I think I will get one, as $1500 is about all I am comfortable coughing up at this point.

[AF6LJ]

And by the way...
The radio decodes RTTY quite well.
According to one of the salesmen The IC-7300 will also decode PSK..
Don't know if it does CW but it wouldn't surprise me.

[TheSteve]

No CW decode. The RTTY/PSK decoder code has been reused from previous radios.
I do think it is a very nice radio, especially for the money. You can expect it to sell for $1300.00 USD or so within a few months. I'm still not really a fan of touchscreens though.

[AF6LJ]

No CW decode. The RTTY/PSK decoder code has been reused from previous radios.
I do think it is a very nice radio, especially for the money. You can expect it to sell for $1300.00 USD or so within a few months. I'm still not really a fan of touchscreens though.

Our local HRO had several standing orders for the radio and managed to keep one for display. They go out as fast as they can get them. The going price here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia... $1,499.00 USD...
Add $120.00 (more or less) for sales tax and it's yours.