The Expert Electronics Disconnect
No, this is not about Expert Electronics radios not connecting with the software. But, instead, about Expert Electronics not connecting with their audience. So, you can tell, this is another critique of the current state of play. Boring? Yes probably. Important? Definitely, based on user feeling and specific concerns.
Don’t get me wrong though. I love my MB1 and I have the greatest respect for all the staff at EE. I have owned the radio since August 2016. There have been many advancements in the field of SDR since then. Many new products have come to the market and many new manufacturers have entered the scene. Despite this, and after thoroughly researching every new development up to and including the Yaesu FTDX101D which I was able to use briefly last weekend, I retain and intend to continue to retain my MB1.
Expert Electronics are part clever, part lucky and part enigmatic.
The clever side.
All the EE products are worthy rivals to other SDR offerings. The MB1 is exceptional. It led the way in monoblock design, a computer and SDR module in the same case. It still does. Some have tried to get on board by different methods. The Flex 6400M/6600M is an SDR with a front panel but not an integral computer. The Anan DLE7000 mkII has an i7 computer but doesn’t have an integral front panel to the SDR. Only the MB1 has both. Another unique feature is TCI. Being open source, it is beyond belief that this hasn’t been adopted by more manufacturers and software authors. It is an outstanding achievement, simple but effective.
The lucky side.
On its own, the ESDR2 software as developed up to version 1.2 is good. The GUI design(s) are excellent. On its own it stands up quite well to the competition. This is a debatable point though, because rivals such as Flex have many more features incorporated into their software. But what they do not have, and where EE have been so fortunate, is SDC. Yuri, UT4LW, created a masterpiece that not only compliments ESDR2 but enhances it greatly. If you own an SDR to not just dabble in the technology but because you are a DXer, whose aim is to put DX in your log, SDC is the edge that EE’s competitors cannot take advantage of. Just the pile-up tracking feature alone, which can help put even the rarest of DX in your log in minutes, is reason enough for a DXer to prefer Expert Electronics.
The enigmatic side.
So now I come to the crunch. The crux of the matter. The reason for this diatribe. This third face of Expert Electronics that I have called ‘enigmatic’. Well, I want to be kind. After all, maybe they will read this and take note. If I keep on their good side, maybe things will change for the better. There are other adjectives I could use – but I leave those to your imagination.
In August 2016, the development phase of ESDR2 1.2 had not even begun. The radio was supplied with a not yet finalised 1.1 version. At this point I cannot adequately explain the myriad of issues in the software. Basic things were wrong or did not work correctly. If all my emails to Expert Electronics were re-printed, they would easily collate into a book as thick as the Bible. After 2 years, they got to a bug-free platform. Like the tortoise. Painful to watch but they got there. True, promises were broken; promised implementation of TNF and ALC for the MB1 did not materialise. However, for DXers, 1.2 is at an acceptable standard. It doesn’t have everything but, especially for basic configuration MB1 owners with their not so lavish configuration of i5-6400 and 8GB RAM, it does the job. Without a debilitating effect on the RX, they can just about run ESDR2, SDC, a logger and digital software. CPU usage is nice and low and there are RX optimisation settings available such as AGC Threshold. It should have been the platform for the next stage.
We are now into the 7th month of 2019. That is 7 months of tortuous development of 1.3. Tortuous because, instead of developing from 1.2, they have destroyed part of the template. Look at the list of faults in the 4 issues of release notes. Many were perfect in 1.2 but have had to have much time devoted to them to correct newly introduced failures. 7 months and counting. When I consider the amount of time I spent testing and reporting back to help get 1.2 to where it is today, it is most dispiriting to realise that much of that time was a waste. My kind attention, and also that of many other users who helped, was just for nothing. Now we have a new wave of beta testers doing the same thing over again and really just to get back to the status quo. If indeed that can actually be achieved. When I hear of low transmit power, poor RX, users’ patience exhausted over waiting for all the small corrections, I do wonder.
There are new features in 1.3 and more to come and, depending on what those are, that is great. In absolute terms, what will those introduced so far really represent in how well the radios work? Will they put more DX in my logbook? No. Does using 1.3 so far result in putting less DX in my logbook? Yes. For one thing, the extra hit on the CPU in 1.3 is bad enough. I’ve done enough TeamViewer sessions, with users who have RX issues, to see how bad the negative effects can be. Poor PTT timing, scratchy audio, general computer lag, etc. Then there are the missing features compared to 1.2. Logic tells me that it would have been so much better to have gone forward from 1.2 instead of partly starting again. Retention of existing features was paramount. None were superfluous. But now the RX cannot be optimised as well as it used to be. Some users, along with me, have made exhaustive tests. CW signals are not so easily heard when weak. The JTDX test files for decoding efficiency shows a 5% loss of decodes using 1.3 versus 1.2.
The above evidence-based observations formed my last bug report. Up to now it has been ignored and I cannot go through another ‘beat my head against a wall’ scenario like I did before. They are essential just for getting back to the receiver performance level of 1.2. What about thinking of further receiver enhancements? In addition to the fluffy and esoteric prettiness such as ‘rotator’, actually provide what we need. Going back to the FTDX101D, it has automatic AGC Threshold, hearing compensation (to off-set age related hearing loss – amazing on SSB), excellent NB and NR, and many other software defined RX benefits. Have Yaesu removed receiver performance features available in previous radios? Or have they retained them, improved them and added new ones? Which do you think has led to the FTDX101D now being in the top place of the Sherwood receiver test table?
I have realistic expectations of where the MB1 could be placed in the Sherwood table and, in any event, the hardware is what it is. However, owners of this radio who have paid nearly 6000 euro, 58% more expensive than the new Yaesu, should have software development that retains features and performance and which corrects remaining issues and maximises the receiver potential. 1.3 does not do that. Will it ever? It is with us now, already with a chequered history, but it’s not too late. Is it?
Erik.
