5 ms·

The attitude towards Baofeng handsets annoys me somewhat. I've had both of mine on an SA and they were absolutely fine. What tends to happen I reckon is that t

by setquk 8y ago

The attitude towards Baofeng handsets annoys me somewhat. I've had both of mine on an SA and they were absolutely fine. What tends to happen I reckon is that the end user runs it into a cheap antenna or mismatch and nukes the LPF, something which can happen to a $500 Yaesu HT if you're an idiot. But the gatekeeping is strong in amateur radio. Annoyingly so.

yardie 8y ago
And I get it. You've spent decades and $1000s acquiring HAM equipment, learning the craft, just so you can DX some guy in Kazahkstan. Then some amateur with a $80 handheld and a bit of antenna wire manages to pull off the same thing. Without the years of experience and hundreds of dollars of equipment.
- setquk 8y ago
  It's worse than that really. A lot of people are like a acquaintance of mine. Bought a FT DX 5000MP, which wasn't cheap, has hundreds of books on the matter, boxes of cables and bits of antenna, speaks knowledgably on the subject but hasn't made a single contact yet after 5 years of having a license. But he hates 'feng scum like me.
- sizzzzlerz 8y ago
  Not with a Baofeng. Long distance DX is typically done with HF gear at lower frequencies. Baofeng is a 2-meter VHF radio where communications is basically line-of-sight.
  - setquk 8y ago
    You can do satellites and ISS with a feng though. Don’t have to go across or round, up is good too :)
  - iamatworknow 8y ago
    You're right in the context of Baofeng HTs, but people get equally furious about some Chinese HF radios as well, like the Xiegu X5105 or Recent RS-918 (though the argument with that one is that it ripped off the open design of the mcHF, but the fact that it's an all mode, all band QRP HF transceiver with better features than the likes of a Yaesu FT-818 costing hundreds of dollars more probably factors in as well).
    - baybal2 8y ago
      Very true, HF radios are nothing magical. Very common parts can make you as good HF radio as physically possible. $10k iComs are mostly unicorn poo, with exception of somewhat useful DSP filtering, for which the real cutting edge research in radio tech is said to be used.
      - setquk 8y ago
        So true. One of the first things I did was build a direct conversion receiver with decent audio filtering. It had 45 mostly discrete components and sounded as good as a top end Yaesu. Similar to this one: https://aa7ee.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/using-the-nm0s-hi-per-mite-filter-from-4sqrp-to-make-a-simple-40m-dc-cw-rx/ https://aa7ee.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/using-the-nm0s-hi-per...
Aloha 8y ago
They're just (more often than not) lousy radios, buy a used Motorola, or a Yaesu FT-60.
- setquk 8y ago
  They're not that bad really. The programming interface sucks but what HT doesn't it suck on? I've got an FT-60 and FT-818 as well for ref.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    They're disposable radios - you cant fix them, align them, or otherwise do much to them, every single one I've seen has poor selectivity and sensitivity. They do usually transmit on frequency and are decently stable, but thats about it.
    - setquk 8y ago
      You’re correct but that doesn’t stop them being useful.
tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
The elitist attitude is what kept me from becoming a radio amateur. (Back then, ham radio software was also consistently proprietary payware - in an area where every participant would have benefited so much more from an open source approach, as you could expect actual contributions - and software-defined radio was the devil, at least that was the impression I got.)
- setquk 8y ago
  It put me off too for many years. If it’s any consolation there’s a lot more welcoming people these days. Tends to be the older hams and a section of black box operators who suffer from elitism. The younger lot (under 50) are totally different. As for open source, this was probably the original open source. Lots of people build their own radios and still do and publish the designs for nothing. There are technical journals such as Sprat which cover this on old fashioned paper form. Software is mostly open now from what I have seen. Main tool these days for digital modes is a good example http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html - some people are using this with home build SSB transceivers and computer interfaces.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by setquk 8y ago

yardie 8y ago

And I get it. You've spent decades and $1000s acquiring HAM equipment, learning the craft, just so you can DX some guy in Kazahkstan. Then some amateur with a $80 handheld and a bit of antenna wire manages to pull off the same thing. Without the years of experience and hundreds of dollars of equipment.

setquk 8y ago
It's worse than that really. A lot of people are like a acquaintance of mine. Bought a FT DX 5000MP, which wasn't cheap, has hundreds of books on the matter, boxes of cables and bits of antenna, speaks knowledgably on the subject but hasn't made a single contact yet after 5 years of having a license. But he hates 'feng scum like me.
sizzzzlerz 8y ago
Not with a Baofeng. Long distance DX is typically done with HF gear at lower frequencies. Baofeng is a 2-meter VHF radio where communications is basically line-of-sight.
- setquk 8y ago
  You can do satellites and ISS with a feng though. Don’t have to go across or round, up is good too :)
- iamatworknow 8y ago
  You're right in the context of Baofeng HTs, but people get equally furious about some Chinese HF radios as well, like the Xiegu X5105 or Recent RS-918 (though the argument with that one is that it ripped off the open design of the mcHF, but the fact that it's an all mode, all band QRP HF transceiver with better features than the likes of a Yaesu FT-818 costing hundreds of dollars more probably factors in as well).
  - baybal2 8y ago
    Very true, HF radios are nothing magical. Very common parts can make you as good HF radio as physically possible. $10k iComs are mostly unicorn poo, with exception of somewhat useful DSP filtering, for which the real cutting edge research in radio tech is said to be used.
    - setquk 8y ago
      So true. One of the first things I did was build a direct conversion receiver with decent audio filtering. It had 45 mostly discrete components and sounded as good as a top end Yaesu. Similar to this one: https://aa7ee.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/using-the-nm0s-hi-per-mite-filter-from-4sqrp-to-make-a-simple-40m-dc-cw-rx/ https://aa7ee.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/using-the-nm0s-hi-per...

Aloha 8y ago

They're just (more often than not) lousy radios, buy a used Motorola, or a Yaesu FT-60.

setquk 8y ago
They're not that bad really. The programming interface sucks but what HT doesn't it suck on? I've got an FT-60 and FT-818 as well for ref.
- Aloha 8y ago
  They're disposable radios - you cant fix them, align them, or otherwise do much to them, every single one I've seen has poor selectivity and sensitivity. They do usually transmit on frequency and are decently stable, but thats about it.
  - setquk 8y ago
    You’re correct but that doesn’t stop them being useful.

tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago

The elitist attitude is what kept me from becoming a radio amateur. (Back then, ham radio software was also consistently proprietary payware - in an area where every participant would have benefited so much more from an open source approach, as you could expect actual contributions - and software-defined radio was the devil, at least that was the impression I got.)

setquk 8y ago
It put me off too for many years. If it’s any consolation there’s a lot more welcoming people these days. Tends to be the older hams and a section of black box operators who suffer from elitism. The younger lot (under 50) are totally different. As for open source, this was probably the original open source. Lots of people build their own radios and still do and publish the designs for nothing. There are technical journals such as Sprat which cover this on old fashioned paper form. Software is mostly open now from what I have seen. Main tool these days for digital modes is a good example http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html - some people are using this with home build SSB transceivers and computer interfaces.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]