Over at HB is a recent thread where they're talking about the many accomplishments by Jim Wood who created the SW200 and SW300 (curiously no mention of the upcoming new models). Anyway, PDtechnologies mentions that the SW300 came in very useful "as I develop the next generation Part 15 transmitter that will hopefully be certified and hit the market in the next 12 months (hopefully sooner than later)" https://www.hobbybroadcaster.net/community/index.php?topic=19993.msg85685;topicseen#msg85685
Thats the first I've heard wind of that, no one over there commented about his post, so presumably they've been discussing the subject behind the walls.
I think it's great a new part 15 AM transmitter is in the works and heading for certification. I hope it isn't abandoned before that point like what happened with the new Parking Lot Radio transmitter
Nice. There's some hope that when the big three makers now that are getting older (Procaster, Rangemaster, Decade) that a product will take it's place.
If you read this PD Technologies, please consider certification for Canada also, one test can do both countries.
I'm wondering what the price point will be (presuming it makes it to market(.
Any new Part 15 transmitter would be going backwards in terms of technology if it wasn't implemented, at least in part, with SDR/T concepts. You'll need electronics hardware for harmonic suppression, of course, and various other things, but there's no reason why a good portion of the required functionality couldn't be implemented in firmware/software. Particularly with the uncertain tariffs, and the rising costs of the physical stuff.
You'd need to control the transmitter via pots and switches, so the control functionality would need to be onboard. The FCC would likely not Part 15 certify a device that could be controlled and modified by a computer. So the firmware would have to be proprietary.
One big advantage of this approach is that upgrades could be conducted solely by changing the firmware. No soldering or physical bits required.
The build cost of SDR/T's is far less than radios requiring expensive, separate components. So I would envision prices less than those by the existing major manufacturers. There is a cost to develop and support software, so that would have to be built into the equation. Plus the cost of certification.
Ok.. to start with I was thrown off when you said: "Any new Part 15 transmitter would be going backwards in terms of technology if it wasn't implemented, at least in part, with SDR/T concepts." - That statement sounded a little overboard to me.. I know you like SDR and all but your talking about an entirely different creature. Yes, it's an interesting concept but I disagree that designing a new transmitter without it would be a step backwards.
But let's say someone did, you said: "The FCC would likely not Part 15 certify a device that could be controlled and modified by a computer." - Why would you think that? Somehow that doesn't sound right. I don't know but suspect there probably are numerous such part 15 devices already for various uses.
But that's just assumption.
@richpowers Well, the FCC wouldn't want such things as power, for example, to be modified after certification. Or filtering. Or any of the vast number of things that you can tweak in software with an SDR/T that would affect performance.
As for my other statement, I just don't see the point of developing another same old same old Part 15 AM transmitter, when we already have the Rangemaster, the ProCaster, the Grain, and those are only the high level ones. Then there's the Talking House coming in at the budget end, particularly with the audio mods. And that's only for AM. FM has a wide variety of certified devices as well for all budgets.
Maybe if one were to design a working and tunable Class E-based AM transmitter. But somehow, given the conversations over at HB regarding Class E, I don't think that's in the cards, at least from them.
There is just so much functionality that can be added to SDT's easily and inexpensively, such as multiple modes, RDS encoding, audio shaping - things that would cost much more if implemented in hardware (and not be as modifiable going forward by the manufacturer).
I really don't see why we need yaamt (yet another am transmitter) following the same path as in the past.
@artisan-radio You aren't considering that the current big three makers of certified transmitters( the grain industries is no more) Decade, Rangemaster, and Procaster followed by Talkinghouse(certified), Sean Cuthbert and Spitfire(not certified) are not going to be around in the forseable future. And only one of the AM ones can be used in Canada. A new transmitter manufacturer and a new normal over the air transmitter would be nice. I don't know much about SDR, I've looked it up to see what it is, but don't quite understand it but it seems a way to use a computer as a radio/transmitter(correct me if I am wrong), and somehow complimenting a conventional transmitter, and as I understand Artisan is using a regular over the air transmitter(Talking Sign and Decade) with SDR. So what is wrong with another product waiting in the wings to replace the existing ones that have an end in sight? And if current transmitters can be with SDR why can't any new follow ups?
And if the FCC(or ISED) as Artisan mentioned most likely wouldn't certify a device that can be modified by a computer any new part 15 transmitter will be just that, the same as is now.
@richpowers Well, the FCC wouldn't want such things as power, for example, to be modified after certification. Or filtering. Or any of the vast number of things that you can tweak in software with an SDR/T that would affect performance.
Same said for ground leads, doing so is non-compliant. As is modification with software. It's the same principle.
As for my other statement, I just don't see the point of developing another same old same old Part 15 AM transmitter, when we already have the Rangemaster, the ProCaster, the Grain, and those are only the high level ones. Then there's the Talking House coming in at the budget end, ... ..
Well maybe this one will be budget priced but of high performance.. who knows? I certainly don't but it's certainly a spark of life for the world of part15am.
Maybe if one were to design a working and tunable Class E-based AM transmitter. ... ...
There is just so much functionality that can be added to SDT's easily and inexpensively, such as multiple modes, RDS encoding, audio shaping - things that would cost much more if implemented in hardware (and not be as modifiable going forward by the manufacturer) ... ...
Thumbs up on the Class E idea. For all we know PD Technologies is Class E - we don't even know if it's AM! It could be FM. But whatever it is I look forward to it coming to fruitation.
I also think your SDT idea has merit, and when I see a certified Part15-SDT transmitter on the market I'll probably buy it.
"If you build it they will come."
-Field of Dreams, I think.
@artisan-radio You aren't considering that the current big three makers of certified transmitters( the grain industries is no more) Decade, Rangemaster, and Procaster followed by Talkinghouse(certified), Sean Cuthbert and Spitfire(not certified) are not going to be around in the forseable future. And only one of the AM ones can be used in Canada.
We don't actually know the Grain is gone, and as for Cuthbert it's perfectly legal to transmit with any compliant transmitter in the US, have to look to see in the UK, and it's a bummer that Canada requires certification, which limits your options dramatically (as you pointed out).
A new transmitter manufacturer and a new normal over the air transmitter would be nice.
Cheers!
I don't know much about SDR, I've looked it up to see what it is, but don't quite understand it but it seems a way to use a computer as a radio/transmitter(correct me if I am wrong), and somehow complimenting a conventional transmitter, and as I understand Artisan is using a regular over the air transmitter(Talking Sign and Decade) with SDR. So what is wrong with another product waiting in the wings to replace the existing ones that have an end in sight? And if current transmitters can be with SDR why can't any new follow ups?
And if the FCC(or ISED) as Artisan mentioned most likely wouldn't certify a device that can be modified by a computer any new part 15 transmitter will be just that, the same as is now.
The only end in sight for transmitters is when people or agencies quit buying them. I don't suspect Rangemasters and Procasters are going to be disappearing from the market anytime soon, nor Talking House, but in the last decade no one's really been buying. - not that I can cite anything, but it appears obvious sales have been sluggish for some time.
Oh I meant to comment on this point:
I don't know much about SDR, I've looked it up to see what it is, but don't quite understand it but it seems a way to use a computer as a radio/transmitter(correct me if I am wrong), and somehow complimenting a conventional transmitter, and as I understand Artisan is using a regular over the air transmitter(Talking Sign and Decade) with SDR.
Yeah! Exactly. That's exactly me too. I don't grasp any of it clearly, but the SDR in @artisan-radio setup is a receiver of the part15xmtr signal? Right? Wrong? And then there another fascinating SDR transmitter called Hack something... And it all sounds intriguing but.. I'd have to see a video of a SDR-AM transmitter in action, with an AM radio receiving it beyond 200 ft.
@richpowers The current big three transmitter makers...Decade, Procaster, and I assume Rangemaster won't be gone because of sales. It will be because they are getting older and could pack it in at any time. And since Decade and Procaster make products that last a very long time it's not like they have to be replaced often. No built in obsolescence.
Any new transmitters on the market FM or AM is good news. And yes it's a bummer that we in Canada have so little choice as few will certify for Canada. But 1 either FM or AM is all you really need. Decade and Procaster.
@mark You said those transmitters have "No built in obsolescence."
Beautiful ain't it?
But I don't think they'll be packing it in too soon. All have already got back their initial investments years ago and the years since are gravy returns (loosely speaking). My point is they're all past the stage of struggling. Certainly periods of dry sales sucks, but nothing has been lost. Unless of course the transmitter sales are their primary income, which I don't suspect is the case with any of them.
Addum..
Keith's Rangemaster sales may be down (pure presumption on my part) but I'm guessing he's not concerned. Highlights from a quick look around..
https://hampcb.com /
I can help ideas to market.
I can to solve PCB issues.
I specialize in RF and Analog PC Boards also HDI PC boards with blind and buried vias. I use PADS POWER and Altium Designer CAD PCB design software
Schematic Capture
BOM management
Light electronics design (see examples)
Test and Troubshooting
His Linkin account says (amongst other things): https://www.linkedin.com/in/keith-hamilton-design
General class ham radio license KQ4FKS.
Specialties:
-Engineering
-RF PCB Design
-Analog
-Blind and buried via designs
-Impedance controlled designs
Altium Designer
Mentor Graphics (Pads Power and Logic)
He doesn't post on Facebook much, but enough to show he's stayed busy producing other products and services in the last 5 or 6 years...
I keep thinking about what Artisan has said that someone should design a software designed transmitter:
Any new Part 15 transmitter would be going backwards in terms of technology if it wasn't implemented, at least in part, with SDR/T concepts. ... there's no reason why a good portion of the required functionality couldn't be implemented in firmware/software. .. ..upgrades could be conducted solely by changing the firmware. No soldering or physical bits required. The build cost of SDR/T's is far less... ...
There is just so much functionality that can be added to SDT's easily and inexpensively, such as multiple modes, RDS encoding, audio shaping - things that would cost much more if implemented in hardware. ....
@artisan Now I'm wondering, or rather it seems to me that the Procaster and the SStrans models, the Culbert transmitter as well as other existing kits already are SDR transmitters.. Is not DSP (digital signal processing) basically synonymous with SDR? In that DSP is essentially a software based process?
If I understand your points correctly, what your saying is that SDR could add numerous optional features to a AM transmitter (multiple modes, RDS encoding, audio shaping - etc.) - but aren't those features already available in existing models?
So I guess what my question boils down to is this: Can software actually create an AM transmission? -
If not, then all your saying is SDR can provide additional capabilities to a part 15 AM transmitter, but it can't replace the function of the transmitter itself.
So if that's the case.. the SDR could be incorporated into a transmitter as an all-in-one, or housed in a separate encloser.
Which is already available.
That's the way it's looking to me right now, but I have no conviction about being correct. So I leave it to you.