Category Archives: Reviews

New Products, News, Portable, Reviews

A quick review of the Raddy Multi-function Backpack for HF field transceivers

7 Comments

If you’ve been following QRPer or the SWLing Post for long, you’ve no doubt noticed that I am a certified pack geek.

I tend to buy high-quality packs from companies that both design and manufacture their products in the USA (i.e. Red Oxx, Tom Bihn, Spec Ops Brand, GoRuck, etc.).

In other words? The packs I evaluate are pricey, rugged, and backed by a lifetime warranty. Their quality is uncompromising and at the top of the market.

In addition, I’ve even helped some of these pack manufacturers during product design and development stages, much like I do for radio manufacturers.

Radioddity contacted me a few weeks ago and asked if I’d be interested in testing a backpack they’ve started selling that’s designed with field radio operators in mind. I checked out the info they sent me and the backpack design did, indeed, look bespoke–or custom–for field radio operators. In other words, it wasn’t a laptop bag merely labeled as a radio bag.

But the inner pack geek/snob in me worried that a $45 mass-produced backpack would only lead to disappointment. This is an area where I have tremendously high standards and feel like I get my money’s worth when I happily fork out $200-450 US for a pack.

Still, it’s difficult to find field backpacks that are designed to accommodate radio gear. So I told Radioddity to send me one–which they did for free (meaning, at absolutely no cost to me).

First impressions

The Raddy backpack arrived in two days (basically, everything from Radioddity seems to arrive within two days with tracking and updates).

My first impression was that the Raddy pack was very lightweight, but then again, I tend to buy backpacks made with Ballistic Nylon or 1000 weight Cordura–i.e. materials that are on the heavier side.

Radioddity mentions that this pack is “dust and rainproof” but then go on to say that it’s ” [m]ade of durable water-resistant polyester fabric with metal zippers[…]. [N]ote it’s not totally waterproof.”

Thus I believe I would classify this pack as water resistant only. I have had the Raddy pack out in light rain and the water seemed to bead up on it. The zipper openings–while covered–have no proper weather seals, but I see where it would be more than adequate for most rains or showers you would encounter on a day hike. I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable leaving it out in the rain for an extended period of time, though. Part of its ability to keep rain out relies on wearing the pack in an upright position.

The outer polyester fabric feels durable and is pleasant to the touch–it’s not abrasive like some heavier grade materials.

Opening up

First thing I wanted to do was open the main compartment to look inside. But first, I had to find the main zippered compartment.

The main zipper is recessed and protected by a rain flap.

Seriously! Turns out, unlike most backpacks, the main compartment opens from the back or shoulder harness side of the pack rather than the front. They obviously used this design to give the Raddy backpack a better operating surface for the rig inside.

Since the zipper wraps around the outside of the top of the straps, but on the inside of the straps where they attach to the bottom, I feel like the straps are always in the way.

Unzipping the main panel is a little awkward when compared with other packs mainly because the shoulder straps feel like they’re a bit in the way. Still, once I got used to this unconventional design, it became second nature to open.

The zippers are metal, but not YYK–zipper pulls are included.

Main compartment

The main compartment opens to 180 degrees if you wish, but sits comfortably at a right angle so that your radio (which will likely live in the pocket mounted on the interior side of the shoulder harness panel) will rest on a padded surface.

There are Velcro flaps on the hinge points of the interior of the pack that you can detach to have the pack open fully.

Rig Pocket

There is one large padded interior pocket that is the obvious choice for most portable transceivers–especially those with a front faceplate like the IC-703 Plus, Yaesu FT-891, Xiegu G90, etc.

This main pocket has openings at the back corners so that the rig’s power cord, coax line, and accessory cords can all be managed within the pack if you’d actually like to operate from the pack. Admittedly, I’m not certain I’d leave cables and cords attached to the back of my transceiver  during transport, though, as it could cause some stress at the connection points on the back of the radio; stand-offs and/or right angle connectors might help with this, however. The back of the pocket is padded and so is he floor of the backpack, so your rig should be otherwise very protected when the backpack is placed on the ground.

The main internal pocket also has two elastic straps designed to hold the radio in the pocket during transport. I think this is a great idea, however, I’ve found in practice they quite easily slip off all but the largest field radios.  Speaking of which, the largest field radio I own is the Mission RGO One which is ever-so-slightly too large for this pocket. I assume similarily-sized radios like the Ten-Tec Eagle and Elecraft K2 would not fit.

I wish the pack had a frame sheet and the main pocket had at least one compression strap attached to it to hold a radio in more firmly. The pocket is large enough that even my IC-703 Plus slides around inside.

Of course, this main pocket could also hold a laptop or tablet.

The main interior pocket is not well suited for “blocky” transceivers like the Elecraft KX3, Icom IC-705, or Xeigu X5105 for example. Although the pocket can hold most of these, they would simply fall to the bottom and could not benefit from the full dimension.

Battery pocket

The second large padded pocket inside the Raddy backpack is ideal for holding a battery, ATU, or even the “blocky” transceivers mentioned above. I’m calling it a “battery pocket” but in truth it’s obviously designed to also hold transceivers.

This pocket is shorter and has one elastic strap (I’d prefer a compression strap) with a Velcro attachment to hold the contents inside. It’s attached to the front panel of the backpack and when the backpack is zipped closed, this pocket and the rig pocket fit side-by-side.

When I’m carrying the Icom IC-703 Plus in the Rig compartment, I place my 15 Ah LiFePo4 battery in this compartment.

My Elecraft KX3

If I’m carrying the Elecraft KX3, I place it in this battery compartment and my tablet and clipboard in the main pocket.

My Icom IC-705

Like the main rig compartment, there are openings at the bottom corners to allow cable management and routing. I’m not so sure how convenient or practical it would be, however, to operate a radio from this particular internal pocket.

The LDG Z-100 Plus ATU tucked in the battery pocket

Mesh pockets

There are also two internal mesh pockets: one attached to the front panel and the other attached to the large rig compartment pocket.

There pockets would be ideally-suited to hold small cords, a key/paddle, and possibly a small hand mike.

While the top of each pocket has an elastic band, I would not trust these open pockets to hold small items like adapters. They could easily fall out if the backpack were turned upside down.

In addition, if you have heavier items inside, the pocket may sag a bit and look more like an accessories “hammock.”

Exterior front pocket

There’s also one large, flat exterior pocket on the front panel of the Raddy backpack. This pocket might be easy to overlook if the zipper is tucked inside.

The zipper is centered and oriented vertically. When opened, there’s a surprising amount of room inside, and all sides of the pocket are padded.

The opening isn’t large enough to fit my main clipboard (which is fine, because I would store it inside the main compartment), but it is large enough to allow one to store a tablet, notepads, pens, cables, etc. inside.

While the zipper opening has nearly overlapping seams which should help shed water, the vertical orientation of the zipper would potentially allow for heavy rains to penetrate the zipper opening, especially if that front pocket was bulging with gear. This is why conventional packs tend to have a horizontally-oriented front pocket zipper and rain flap over the zipper.

USB access

There’s also an USB access port on the pack that allows for a USB device to be plugged in on the outside and tethered to a device or battery on the inside. I assume this would mainly be used as a battery pack connection.

Interior USB extension cord

This would be handy during travels, but I doubt I would ever use it in the field.

Comfort

I’ve used the Raddy backpack on two short hikes and find it, overall, a very comfortable backpack. I do find the harness a little on the small side, but I have broad shoulders. For those with slightly smaller frames, I think this would work well.

The carry handle is attached across the top of the backpack/shoulder straps.

I also find this a bit odd, because if the pack is fully-loaded and heavy, it puts a lot of strain on the attachment points of the handles and at an angle–meaning, the double stitching isn’t providing the strength it otherwise could if the pack weight was distributed evenly on the top of the backpack body instead of the shoulder harness.

The back of the pack is padded with a mesh that allows for your back to relatively cool as you hike.

Nice touch! A strap you can use to secure the pack around the handle of rolling luggage.

Overall, it’s a very comfortable pack, although I wish the shoulder straps felt more robust and I wish the main handle wasn’t attached to the shoulder straps.

Low profile

One real bonus with the Raddy pack is that it’s low profile, has an “urban” look–in other words, fairly nondescript. This pack does not look like a radio manpack, nor is it tactical in design. If I were to take this through a large city, no one would assume this pack was full of radio gear. It looks like a normal, modern backpack.

There’s real security in a low profile, stealthy design.

In addition, other than the front vertical pocket, this would be an incredibly difficult pack for a pickpocket to steal from..

Quality

The Raddy backpack is designed to hold up to 44lb/20kg of weight. I’m not sure I’d ever need or want exceed 20-30 lbs with it myself.

Radioddity also backs this pack with an 18 month warranty. Exceptional. Radioddity told me they would offer a replacement if any stress points on the pack fail during that warranty period. They also told me they’d handle any warranty replacements within 1 business day. Having worked with Radioddity now for a year, I do believe they’ll stick by this quick response/handling time.

Summary

Is the Raddy Multi-function Backpack for you?

Keeping in mind (again) that I normally review packs at the high end of the market, I’m not familiar with with what would be expected at this $45 price point.

What I can say is that if you’re looking for a compact pack that’s designed to hold and protect radio gear, this is a good option and certainly one of the most affordable I’ve seen on the market.

This pack would best suit the casual park activator that doesn’t need to pack in a lot of extra supplies like field safety gear. It’s designed to only hold a radio, battery, ATU, cables, and a few other accessories–I’ve configured it with a number of radios and found that I can easily pack an entire QRP station inside.

I would use this pack for drive-up parks and summits, and especially for urban outings-. This would be a great pack to wear into a park in or near a city where I wouldn’t want to appear as if I’m a radio operator preparing for field combat scenarios. You could wear this pack into a historic POTA site and politely ask staff if you could activate the park with the low-profile gear you have inside. It would be much less intimidating and conspicuous than a tactical or large hiking pack.

This would also be a great pack if you plan to fly and wish to keep all of your radio gear in a carry-on. Being a compact backpack, the size should easily fit the description of a “personal” carry-on for most airlines (always check before departing, though, as these dimensions will vary by airline). With your gear loaded, it’ll might appear “intentional” and more normal as you go through Airport security as opposed to your gear being simply tossed in a suitcase.

The Raddy pack is not perfect: I would like something more rugged, with a better suspension system and even better weather-proofing around the zippers. I’d also like more rigid padded pockets inside with adjustable straps. I assume all of these things, though, would substantially add to the cost of the pack and might be overkill for most casual operators. While I wouldn’t choose this pack for a 10 mile round-trip hike to a SOTA summit, I would choose it for some casual picnic table operations and, again, for travel.

I love the fact it can be configured so that you can operate directly from the backpack. You could simply open up your pack in the field, connect the antenna, and operate from the open backpack.

I do like Radioddity and find that they stand behind their products. I’m happy to see that they’re offering a competitively-priced radio pack to supplement their product line. I hope other retailers and manufacturers will do the same.

Click here to check out Raddy Multi-function Backpack the at Radioddity ($44.99 US).

PS: It’s my policy that if I receive a free review product from a retailer or manufacture–and they don’t want it returned–I either use it or give it away. Over the years I’ve had the pleasure of giving away review gear to readers and subscribers who I knew would appreciate it. In this case, I know exactly who I’ll be giving this pack to because she’ll give it a thorough workout and is need of a compact radio pack! Maybe I can even convince her to write her own review in a year or so–? We’ll see!

Guest Posts, News, QRP, QRP Radios, Reviews

A Xiegu X5105 Field Test by KN3A

10 Comments

I told Thomas I would do my own field test of the Xiegu X5105 doing a couple of Parks on the Air activations and what I thought of the radio.

I have had several radios I’ve used on POTA and SOTA activations over the past year and without a doubt my favorite radio for out in the field is my ICOM IC-705. It has everything I want in a portable radio, however I’m also enjoying it alongside my ICOM IC-7300 in the shack. Therefore I’ve looked at other portable radios for field use.

My latest acquisition was a used Xiegu X5105 that I purchased used on QRZ. The radio works fine and for the most part the menu system with it is very easy to understand. As Thomas has pointed out, the CW memory is absolutely insane to use. It just makes no sense to me why with the 10 memory slots that it’s really impractical to use more than the memory in Slot 1, which for me is the CQ POTA.  I would never even have known how to set it up in the first place without instructions to Tom that was shared in Tom’s post regarding the X5105.

I got the radio on June 3, played around with it in the shack to get familiar with it and programmed in the memories. I went to K-5481 (Wm. Penn State Forest), which has several parts scattered around eastern Pennsylvania. It has a very small 10 acre tract in the Cornwall mountains between Lancaster and Lebanon County, which is also at a SOTA summit. I used my Sotabeams EMCOMM III antenna and turned on the radio to start calling CQ POTA. For the life of me I could not get the CQ message to send, so I gave up on that and used my CW Morse paddle and did it the old fashioned way. I also spotted myself on the cluster and made 3 QSO’s on 40 meters fairly quickly. I had success on 30 and 17 meters as well. In total, there were 10 QSO’s made in about 45 minutes.

Other than my disappointment not being able to easily send the CQ from memory, overall I was pleased with the activation. When I got home I investigated again how to send CW. I also learned how to use the DSP to make it more narrow on CW, which I was thankful for. I then started to see if I could go hands free using my Heil headset that I was able to use when I had the G90. Unfortunately that did not work at all using the AD-1-iCM adapter as it would not transmit with the foot pedal. I did use the Heil headset in the side jack and put the radio in headset mode. I was disappointed to find that I had to increase the volume up the whole way to be able to hear CW loud enough for my old ears. When I unplugged the headset suddenly the radio RX was very loud. (If anyone can offer a solution, please let me know).

Today I took it to my local POTA park near my house, K-1418 (Samuel Lewis State Park). I used the same Sotabeams antenna and was on the air in no time. Band conditions were not so good and I ended up with 18 QSO in just over an hour. It was nice having the CQ function working, however I am used to the interval where it would automatically send every 7 seconds like the IC 705 does. Not a big deal, I just had to press the PTT button on the top.

I never tried using the radio on SSB before so I called unsuccessfully on 20 meters and went to 40 where KM4JEG called me and gave me a 55. Sadly, I had to take my headset off because when I keyed the mic I was hearing my distorted voice through the headset. So, headset was removed. I didn’t expect that was going to happen, so now on SSB, I’m not able to use the headset, at least on TX.

The Good:

I really like the internal battery in the radio. I did not have to bring the Bioenno 12v 3aH battery along. The internal battery works great!

It is very portable. I watched a YouTube video, and unfortunately I cannot find who it was, but they had an Osprey UltraLight Roll Organizer which I purchased on Amazon. This is perfect for storing the X5105 and the few accessories it needs, in my car so I’m always going to have a portable radio available when I travel.

The ATU is great on the radio. I can tune all the bands I want to work with the Sotabeams antenna. This also saves having an extra wire and external ATU like I would have to use on the IC 705 with this type of antenna.

The radio is nice and portable and will store nice in my car when not in use and will be ready to go.

The Bad:

The CW presets are almost worthless and not easy to get to. Once I found how to send from the memories, it only really makes sense to use one of the memory slots. I wouldn’t easily be able to switch to a 73 menu shortcut, then go back to the CQ memory.

With the headset plugged in, when I was transmitting CW, I could hear some distortion while it was sending, however it was not too bad, but something I’m not used to hearing.

The Ugly:

The headset for SSB could not be used at all due to the distorted noise it made. Also, the volume for the headset and the volume through the radio are night and day. As I mentioned before, when I unhooked the headset and the audio came out of the radio again, I had to quickly adjust the volume down.

My Opinion:

Overall, my opinion of the radio is this: For the price and the features it has, I would say it’s a good field radio, as it is easy to store in the car, it has the built in ATU if being used on a random wire antenna, and for 5 watts, people had no problems hearing me, even with poor band conditions and QSB. I hope this radio grows on me, and in the back of my mind don’t find myself thinking during the activation, gee I miss my IC-705 out here.

I know comparing the X5105 to the IC-705 is like comparing apples to oranges. Each radio has it’s good and bad. For the price difference, the Xiegu definitely is worth the price. I would never use it as a first HF radio in the hamshack if I were a new ham. This radio is also not going to be used by me on digital modes. If I want to do digital or work a contest while doing a POTA, then there is no doubt the 705 is coming along for the activation. The Xiegu will be used by me when I want to use a random wire antenna since it has the built in ATU, along with the fact it will be light in the backpack if I am hiking to a summit, and the IC 705 will be used with one of my end-fed half wave antennas or the Hustler vertical array so I don’t need the mAT-705 which I’ll use in the hamshack. I’m trying my best to get away from wires all over the place when I  activate, so the laptop computer is staying home. I really like the HAMRS logging program, which I highly recommend, on my Android Samsung S-20.

If anyone who reads this who has some insight into some of the issues I mention, please reply so I have a better understanding of this radio.

73!
Scott KN3A

Scott Lithgow (KN3A) is a contributor on QRPer.com. Click here to check out his previous posts.

News, QRP Radios, Reviews

Comparing the lab599 Discovery TX-500 and the Icom IC-705

4 Comments

By request, I’ve just posted another transceiver comparison video. This time, we take a look at the lab599 Discovery TX-500 and Icom IC-705 to determine which radio might better suit your needs.

As I mention in the video, I see these portable QRP radios as being in two different classes:

  • the TX-500 for operators who want the most rugged, efficient, and weather-resistant general coverage transceiver currently on the market and
  • the IC-705 for operators who want the most feature-packed high-performance portable transceiver on the market

Both radios are excellent options for hams who, like me, prefer playing radio outdoors.

Video

Click here to watch on YouTube.

What did I miss?

As I mentioned in the video, I knew I’d forget some important points while making the live recording. Here are some extra notes I wish I would have included:

SSB operation: Both radios have excellent features for the SSB operator including EQ settings for both transmit and receive which is a major plus for a QRP radio. I wouldn’t make a purchase decision based on SSB operation–both are excellent.

CW operation: CW operators will be pleased with both rigs. It’s important to note, though, that the TX-500 doesn’t have full break-in QSK like the IC-705. The TX-500 has at minimum a 100ms recovery time after keying a character. That’s a quick recovery, but not fast enough so that an operator can hear between characters formed; especially at high speeds. The IC-705 has full break-in QSK and it sounds great. Note that both the TX-500 and IC-705 use relays, not pin diode switching, so you can hear relays clicking inside the radio, but both are pretty quiet.

Protecting the IC-705: There are a number of IC-705 3rd party cages appearing on the market. These can be used to help protect the IC-705 in the field. Numerous readers and YouTube channel viewers have recommended the IC-705 Carry Cage by Peovi. From what I’ve seen, it looks to be the best of the bunch, but it doesn’t do a lot to protect the lower back portion of the radio–the part of the chassis that meets a surface. I feel like it’s not quite what I’d want, thus hard to justify $135 for it. Other aluminum and 3D printed cages seem to add too much bulk to the radio or obstruct some of the most common connection points on the sides (antenna, key, ATU control cable, speaker/mic, etc.).

TX-500 connectors and cables: The TX-500 uses GX12 mm connectors that are widely used in aviation, commercial and military applications. They’re easy to find online, but the price per each with shipping is typically around $7.00-8.00 US.  You get a better deal if you buy in bulk, but often bulk packages of 5 or more are of the same pin count/configuration. W2ENY has posted a number of accessory cables, spare connectors and even a military-style handset on his eBay store and website. The Icom IC-705 uses more standard 1/8″ and smaller two and three conductor plugs.

Receiver Performance: Based on Rob Sherwood’s receiver test data table, the IC-705 has a performance edge over the TX-500.  In the field, this difference is not noticeable. Indeed, both radios have very respectable numbers. If I had to choose one radio over the other if operating in a CW contest, for example, I’d give slight preference to the IC-705. I’ve used the TX-500 during a CW contest before, however, and found it did a brilliant job blocking tightly-spaced signals–click here to watch the short video.

Warranties: Both the Icom IC-705 and TX-500 come with a one year factory warranty. Click here for lab599 warranty service contacts and centers. Click here for Icom.

Feel free to comment if you have other specific points I might have forgotten.

Resources and links

Icom IC-705:

lab599 Discovery TX-500:

Feel free to comment and please let me know if there are other transceiver comparisons you’d like to see!

New Products, News, Portable, QRP, QRP Radios, Reviews, Videos

Comparing the lab599 Discovery TX-500 with the Elecraft KX2

5 Comments

Since I took delivery of my lab599 Discovery TX-500, one of the most asked questions I’ve received from readers of QRPer.com and my YouTube channel is:

“Which should I buy, Thomas? The KX2 or TX-500–?“

I’ve also been asked which radio is “better” and which one I’d purchase if I could only buy one.

To address these questions, I decided to make a YouTube video where I outline some of the pros and cons of both radios, and compare them in terms of features especially with regard to field use.

Video

Click here to watch my video on YouTube, or use the embedded player below:

In this video, I mention a number of external sites. I’ve included them in the video description, but I’ll also link to them below:

Feel free to comment if you have any specific questions and I’ll do my best to address them!

News, Portable, QRP, QRP Radios, Reviews, Videos

Which should you buy? The Icom IC-705 or the Elecraft KX2?

25 Comments

Without a doubt, the most popular type of question I receive from readers here on QPRer.com and over at the SWLing Post has to do with making equipment purchase decisions.

In the past two months, I’ve had numerous questions from QRPer readers asking my opinion about choosing between the new Icom IC-705, or the Elecraft KX2. In fact, as I started putting this post together this morning, I received yet another email from a reader asking my opinion about these two iconic QRP transceivers!

I love both of these radios for different reasons, so the answer is not an easy one.

Let’s discuss this in some detail…

I decided to make a video talking about the pros and cons of each transceiver and note the reasons why one might pick one over the other. My hope is that this will help inform a purchase decision:

Click here to view on YouTube.

Do you own both of these radios? Or did you recently decide to purchase one instead of the other? Please comment with your thoughts and opinions!

Portable, POTA, QRP, QRP Radios, Reviews

My review of the Icom IC-705 QRP transceiver

Leave a comment

I recently published my full review of the Icom IC-705 over at the SWLing Post. If you’ve been following QRPer for long, you’ve likely seen this little radio in action.

If you’d like to read the full review, which was originally posted in the February 2021 issue of The Spectrum Monitor magazine, click on this link to visit the SWLing Post.

Antennas, Field Reports, News, Portable, POTA, QRP, Reviews

POTA Field Report: Reviewing the MFJ-1984LP EFHF with the Icom IC-705 at Lake James State Park

7 Comments

I’ve been a ham radio operator since 1997, but until 2016, I had never purchased a pre-made portable antenna–I had always built my own.

During the 2016 NPOTA (National Parks On The Air) program, however, I purchased the EFT Trail-Friendly end fed 40, 20, and 10 meter resonant antenna and it quickly became my favorite field antenna. I found that it was simply built better than I could have built a similar antenna at home.

Pre-made antennas, though, come at a cost. Most time-tested, trail-friendly, portable antennas will typically set you back $90 US or more. You can make similar antennas much cheaper especially if you already have some of the parts (wire, toroids, RF ports, enclosures, etc).

Recently, while browsing the MFJ catalog, I stumbled upon the MFJ-1984LP End Fed Half Wave wire antenna designed for for field use and retailing for only $49.95 US.

That price point is very attractive because I believe if I built this antenna myself and needed to buy new parts, I might easily sink $20-25 in it.

Most MFJ products are manufactured in the USA and the company has an incredibly extensive and diverse selection of items in their catalog. Why I had forgotten they also sell antennas is a mystery to me.

MFJ is well-known for offering products that are basic,  affordable, and accessible (they’re available directly from the manufacturer and through most major radio retailers across the globe). I wouldn’t expect their antennas to be engineered like Chameleon Antenna, for example, but I would expect them to work well and get the job done.

I know the folks at MFJ and (in the spirit of full disclosure) they even sponsor QRPer.com, so I reached out to them and asked if I could evaluate their MFF-1984LP which is their most affordable field wire antenna.  They kindly sent one my way and I took it to the field last week.

I should add here that MFJ welcomes critical reviews, which is one of the reasons I asked them to be a sponsor. That and, well before they knew me, I was an anonymous customer and they repaired my MFJ roller inductor tuner for free a good two or three years after the warranty expired. My experience with MFJ has only been positive.

First impressions

The antenna looks exactly like the product photo in their catalog (see above).

For a field antenna, the coil enclosure is a little on the large side (especially compared with my EFT Trail-Friendly), but it’s still very backpack-able. Knowing MFJ, they kept costs at bay by using one of their standard enclosure boxes for this antenna.

The enclosure also has an open grill to allow the coil to dissipate heat (see above). I found that a bit surprising since the core is so large inside, but I assume some heat must be generated if you’re running 50% duty at a full 30 watts (the maximum rated power). The matching network impedance ratio is 49:1, so there will be loss and heat.

The 66 foot radiator wire has a dark jacket that glides nicely over tree limbs and doesn’t encourage tangling when unwinding.

The end insulator is made of a thin plastic/composite material that is lightweight and shaped so that it won’t snag on tree limbs.

To the field!

Hey–the proof is in the pudding, right? Let’s put this antenna on the air and make a real-time video of the activation!

Last Wednesday (February 17, 2021), there was a break in the weather so I made a detour to Lake James State Park (K-2739) en route to visit my parents for a few days. I left the house without deciding what park to activate, but picked Lake James because I knew I would have access to tall trees and my pick of operating locations.

Gear:

Deploying the MFJ-1984LP is no different than deploying any other wire antenna. It was super easy using my arborist throw line. That thin, rounded end insulator did certainly glide through the tree branches with ease. No hint of snagging.

On The Air

I connected the antenna directly to my IC-705 with no ATU in-line. Hypothetically, I knew this antenna should be resonant on 20 meters where I planned to start the activation.

Keep in mind that pre-made antennas are often designed to be a tad long and need to be trimmed so the operator can tweak the resonant point for their preferred spots on the band. Since I tend to use the lower part of the band for CW, I typically leave my antennas with a resonant point somewhere on the upper side of the CW portion of the bands. It’s not super critical for EFHW antennas because they tend to have ample bandwidth to give a full meter band good matches.

I had not trimmed the MFJ-1984LP, but decided it should be “resonant enough” for my purposes.

I found a clear frequency on 20 meters and checked the SWR. It was spot on at 1.3:1 on 14,031 kHz! Woo hoo!

I started calling CQ and collected several stations in short order despite the poor propagation that day.

I then moved to the 40 meter band and discovered the antenna also gave me an excellent match there. I started calling CQ POTA and was rewarded with a steady stream of contacts.

I imagine I could have racked up a lot of contacts at that activation, but I made up my mind that I wanted to fit in another quick activation afterwards, so cut it a bit short.

In the end, here’s a map of my 18 contacts made in 26 minutes of on-air time:

Not bad for five watts and a wire!

Video

I made a real-time, real-life, no edit video of this activation which starts shortly after I deployed the MFJ-1984LP and ends a few moments after my last QSO. Against my better judgement, it includes all of my mistakes (including my inability to form the number 4 that day!):

Click here to view on YouTube.

MFJ-1984LP summary

No antenna is perfect and each time I start a product review, I keep a list of pros and cons. Here’s my list for this EFHW antenna:

Pros:

  • Very affordable at $49.95
  • Effective: results so far have been excellent
  • EFHW is a proven field antenna design and resonant on several bands
  • No coil on the radiator to snag in trees (see con)
  • Backed by MFJ warranty
  • Purchase supports US manufacturing

Cons:

  • Bulkier than comparable low power field antennas
  • No built-in winder (MFJ should consider altering the design to include one!)
  • Radiator is 66 feet long since there is no in-line coil to electrically shorten the length (see pro)
  • End insulator is effective, but feels slightly flimsy

In the end, there’s no magic here: the end fed half wave is a time-tested, proven antenna design and the MFJ-1984LP delivers. In terms of performance, I couldn’t be more pleased with it right out of the box. This isn’t a military-grade antenna, but it should last for years with proper use.

POTA activators that have access to trees in the field will appreciate the MFJ-1984LP. I should think you could also make an effective “V” shaped antenna if you have a telescoping support that’s 29-33′ tall.

I’m not so sure the average SOTA operator would find this antenna design as convenient–especially on high summits where you’re near or above the tree line. It could be difficult deploying a 66′ wire. That and this antenna is bulkier than other designs. If you’re backpacking it in, you typically want the most compact solution possible (this is where the EFT Trail-Friendly, Packtenna, and QRPguys designs really shine).

I will certainly employ the MFF-1984LP regularly–especially on days with less-than-stellar propagation.  I think this might become a go-to antenna for the MTR-3B, LD-11, and IC-705 since all of them lack an internal ATU.

If you’re looking for an affordable, effective wire antenna, I can certainly recommend the MFJ-1984LP.

Do you have an MFJ end fed half wave antenna? What are your thoughts?

Click here to check out the MFJ-1984LP at MFJ’s website, and click here to download the PDF manual.

Antenna Tuners, News, Reviews

Choosing the best Icom IC-705 portable external antenna (ATU)

20 Comments

I’ve received no less than three inquiries this weekend from readers who are seeking advice about purchasing a portable external ATU to pair with their Icom IC-705 transceiver.

Fortunately, there are few options on the market and I believe there is no “right” one because choices are really based on operator preferences.

I’ll do my best to sum up my thoughts below based on the three ATUs I regularly employ and what we know so far about the AH-705 ATU from Icom.

Keep in mind this list will not include some excellent options from LDG, MFJ, and other companies simply because I haven’t used them in the field. Please feel free to add your comments if you have experience with other good options.

Mat-Tuner mAT-705 Plus

The Mat-Tuner mAT-705 Plus is the first external ATU on the market that directly pairs with the Icom IC-705 via a control cable.

Note that I had issues with the first iteration of the mAT-705 and could not recommend it.

The latest iteration–the mAT-705 Plus–is the ATU I can recommend.

Be careful if purchasing an mAT-705 used as you’ll want to make sure you’re getting the Plus version. The Plus version has a USB-C charging port on the front panel (seen in the photo above)–the original mAT-705 does not (it uses replaceable 9V cells).

Pros:

  • Perfectly pairs with the IC-705 for full CAT control
  • Wide tuning range
  • Tuning is fast and relatively quiet
  • Numerous memories making repeat matching rapid
  • Internal rechargeable battery
  • Rugged chassis

Cons:

  • Cannot be paired with other radios without modification (not recommended by the manufacturer)
  • At $220 US, it’s not the cheapest option
  • Because the IC-705 relies on CAT control for operation, if you leave the control cable at home or on a park bench, you will not be able to operate the ATU. (Pro)Fortunately, the CAT cable is a simple 3 conductor 1/8″ stereo patch cable.
  • Not weather-proof

Click here to see the AH-705 Plus in action and read a deeper review.

Summary: If you’re looking for an ATU to take full advantage of IC-705 CAT control, the mAT-705 Plus is a great option. The only significant disadvantage of this ATU is the fact that it only pairs with the IC-705 (or possibly other Icom transceivers with similar CAT control). In other words, you can’t pair it with other QRP transceivers you might own.

Click here to check out the mAT-705 Plus at Vibroplex, DX Engineering, Wimo, and Mat-Tuner.

Elecraft T1

The Elecraft T1 has been on the market for at least 16 years and is one of the most popular portable antenna tuners on the market.

Elecraft offers the T1 in kit form ($159.95) and factory assembled/tested ($189.95).

The Elecraft T1 has a CAT control port that has been used with the FT-817 in the past. Elecraft recently announced that they will also produce an IC-705 CAT cable that will allow full pairing with the IC-705 transceiver (much like the mAT-705 Plus above). 

To be clear, though, the T1 doesn’t need a control cable to function: simply press the TUNEe button for one second, then key your transceiver.

Pros:

  • Very wide tuning range
  • Soon it will have an IC-705 CAT connection cable option
  • Uses common 9V battery that is easy to replace in the field. (Con) Not internally-rechargeable like the mAT-705 Plus.
  • One of the most compact automatic ATUs on the market
  • Pairs with any 0.5-W to 20-W transceiver covering the 160-6 meter bands
  • FT-817 Remote-Control Option

Cons:

  • Front panel buttons need protection while in your pack to prevent accidental pressing that will deplete the battery. I 3D-printed this simple cover that works brilliantly.
  • Not weather-proof

Summary: The Elecraft T1 is my personal favorite. Since the T1 pairs with any QRP transceiver, I love the flexibility. The T1 has also been on the market for ages and is a solid, safe choice–we know longevity is benchmark. I’ve never been in a situation where the T1 couldn’t find a reasonable match.

I will certainly test the new IC-705 control cable option when it is released in the near future–stay tuned.

Click here to check out the T1 at Elecraft.

Icom AH-705

Photo by Icom Japan

Disclosure: I have not tested the AH-705 yet, but Icom plans to send me one on loan for review once available in North America.

We do know a bit about the AH-705  because Icom has published details/specifications and some users in Japan have already received units from the first production run.

The AH-705 is Icom’s custom ATU designed to perfectly pair with the Icom IC-705 via control cable. If you want an all-Icom setup, this is it.

Pricing in US dollars is TBD at time of posting, but the announced retail price is $350 .

Pros:

  • Perfectly pairs with the IC-705
  • Wide tuning range
  • 2-way power sources using alkaline batteries (2 x AA cells) or external 13.8 V DC
  • IP54 dust-protection and water resistance construction
  • Could (potentially–?) be permanently mounted outdoors at the antenna feed point as a dedicated remote tuner

Cons:

  • In terms of overall size, the AH-705 appears to be the largest of the portable ATUs mentioned here
  • It doesn’t appear AA batteries can be recharged internally
  • The AH-705 may (we don’t know yet) only work with the IC-705 and possibly similar Icom models
  • The maximum power handling of the AH-705 is 10 watts–if you use other transceivers (if that is even possible) you would have to be extremely careful with power settings.
  • The AH-705 is pricey if the actual retail price ends up being near the projected $350 mark. Hopefully, it’ll be much less than this.
  • Like the mAT-705 Plus, the AH-705 will require a control cable for operation. (Pro) Of course this means it pairs perfectly with the IC-705 and can follow frequency changes without RF sensing.

Summary: Keep in mind, I have not tested the AH-705 yet, so this is only based on announced specifications.

The strongest selling point for the AH-705? Since the AH-705 is designed to be dust and weather resistant, it could be mounted at the antenna feed point. At home, perhaps it could act like an externally-mounted, remotely-controlled antenna tuner. I’m not sure what the maximum length of the control cable could be, but Icom Japan even lists a 16 foot control cable as an accessory. Of course, you would still need to follow Icom’s guidance about protecting the antenna, transmitter and control cable connection points.

The biggest negative to me is the size. Just check out how large it is compared to the IC-705 in this video. It’s still very portable, but the other ATU options above are much smaller.

Still: if the AH-705 is great at matching antennas and the price ends up falling below the $300 point, I’m sure it’ll be a very popular ATU.

For more information about the AH-705, check out the product page on Icom Japan’s website. I will test a loaner AH-705 in the field this year.

Emtech ZM-2

Another option often overlooked are portable manual antenna tuners. I’m a big fan of the Emtech ZM-2 which is offered both in kit ($62.50) and factory assembled/tested form ($87.50).

It is a manual tuner, so requires manual input to find a match. While it’s not as easy as push-button tuning, it isn’t complicated either.

Here’s my routine:

  1. I set the top right switch to “GROUND” if using coax feed line and “LINK” if using a balanced line.
  2. Set the added capacitance switch “ADD” to “0”
  3. Set the TUNE/OPERATE switch to OPERATE
  4. I set both capacitors to middle positions (6 on the scale)
  5. Tune to AM or SSB and listen to the noise floor as I tune the variable capacitors to maximize the noise level. I typically start with the left capacitor, maximize it, then maximize the right capacitor
  6. If the antenna is particularly challenging, I might add 250 or 500PF via the ADD switch
  7. Set the TUNE/OPERATE switch to TUNE
  8. In CW mode, I key down and make fine tuning adjustments with the variable capacitors to make the red tuning LED turn off (high SWR makes the red LED illuminate)
  9. Set the TUNE/OPERATE switch to OPERATE and hop on the air! (Often, I’ll double-check the SWR on my transceiver).

This sounds complicated, but once you’ve done it even two or three times, it becomes routine. I’ve yet to find a wire antenna the ZM-2 can’t match–it’s a very capable tuner.

Pros:

  • The most affordable option listed here
  • Very wide matching range
  • Portable and very lightweight
  • Requires no batteries for operation
  • Mechanically simple
  • Reliable

Cons:

  • Although not complicated, there is a small learning curve involved
  • Each time you change bands, you will need to manually re-tune the ZM-2
  • Not as fast and hassle-free as an automatic ATU
  • Not weather-proof

Summary: I carry the ZM-2 with me even if I plan to use an automatic portable antenna tuner. If my auto ATU loses power for some reason, the ZM-2 will always rescue me. Plus, it’s just as capable of making tough matches as the ATUs above.

I also love using the ZM-2 to match antennas for shortwave broadcast listening outside the ham bands.

Even if you buy an automatic ATU, I would still encourage you to buy a ZM-2 as a backup.  It’s affordable, reliable, and very handy.

Click here to check out the Emtech ZM-2.

What are your favorite portable ATUs?

As I mentioned above, these choices are just a small selection of what’s actually available on the market. Please share your favorite portable ATUs and experience by leaving a comment!

Announcements, Antennas, New Products, News, Portable, QRP Radios, Reviews, Videos

Testing the updated and upgraded Mat-Tuner mAT-705Plus portable IC-705 antenna tuner

12 Comments

On Wednesday (December 16, 2020) I took delivery of the new Mat-Tuner mAT-705Plus ATU.

Mat-Tuner sent this updated and upgraded version of the mAT-705 ATU to me at no cost and asked that I give it a thorough evaluation in the field.

History of the mAT-705

If you’ve been following the story of this tuner, it was the first introduced in September 2020 and designed to pair directly with the Icom IC-705 transceiver. Note that Icom plans to introduce their own IC-705 antenna tuner (the AH-705) but it is not yet on the market at time of posting, so the mAT-705 has certainly had a market opening.

The original mAT-705 had a mechanical power switch on the front/faceplate.

I received the original mAT-705 ATU via Mat-Tuner US distributor, Vibroplex, around the same time I received my Icom IC-705 in early October. I took the original mAT-705 to the field and made a quick video demonstrating its ability to find matches from 160 to 6 meters. In short, it did a brilliant job.

A couple weeks later, however, I discovered that the original mAT-705 had some design shortcomings. I updated my review with this follow-up post.  In brief, the mAT-705 could deplete a 9V alkaline battery within a couple of days if you failed to turn off the tuner’s mechanical on/off switch.

Replacing the internal 9V battery was a complicated procedure requiring the user to carefully detach the front panel without losing the LED lenses that were prone to simply pop out. The 9V battery was mounted internally on the board with adhesive–obviously, not an ideal situation for an ATU that would require frequent battery replacement. Due to this, I simply could not recommend the original mAT-705–it was too pricey at $220 for an antenna tuner with so many design shortcomings. For full details, read this post.

Introducing the mAT-705Plus

Mat-Tuner was obviously listening to customer feedback, because within two months they introduced the upgraded and updated mAT-705Plus antenna tuner.

I love the USB-C charging port!

Here are the mAT-705 upgrades:

  • No mechanical on/off switch–power is internally managed
  • 9V battery replaced with 1000 mAh internal lithium cells
  • Batteries are internally charged via USB-C port
  • No longer necessary to open the enclosure/housing

Update: Using the mAT-705Plus with other transceivers

Since the new mAT-705Plus lacks a power switch to manually turn it on, I originally noted that I was unsure if it could be engaged via RF sensing when paired with other transceivers. I tried to no avail. Before posting this review, I sent an inquiry to Mat-Tuner about this. Here is their reply:

The power of the new version of the mAT-705Plus tuner is controlled by the KEY signal of the control cable. When KEY is high, the tuner is automatically turned on. The function of following the transmitter to automatically turn on and off is realized.

In addition, the mAT-705Plus tuner follows the ICOM tuner protocol. Like other ICOM tuners, you can manually start the tuning cycle by manually customizing the control cable, just like the AT-120 tuner.

After you solve the KEY signal to trigger the tuner to start and make a manual control cable, you can use it [the mAT-705Plus] for other non-ICOM brand transmitters.  But we do not recommend you to use it this way.

Because it is specially designed for the IC-705 transmitter, [it must be modified for use with] other transmitters, which many customers cannot do.

[Since] it uses a magnetic latching relay, after completing the tuning cycle, you can completely turn off the IC-705 transmitter power and connect the tuner to other transmitters.
The tuner will remain in the tuning state.

To clarify, I believe what the Mat-Tuner engineer meant is that if you tune an antenna with the IC-705, you can power the rig down, connect the mAT-705 to another transmitter and the mAT-705 will preserve the last tuner setting (the last match).

Let’s see the mAT-705Plus in action!

Yesterday, I took the mAT-705Plus to the field and paired it with my Chameleon Emcomm III Portable random wire antenna.

I made the following real-time no-edit video yesterday afternoon. Other than charging the mAT-705Plus batteries the night before, this video captures its first time being connected and used.

The Emcomm III Portable random wire antenna’s frequency range is 160-6 meters–the mAT-705Plus quickly found matches on every band.

Summary

At first blush, the mAT-705Plus looks like the ATU Mat-Tuner should have released on the first go: it’s portable, lightweight, fully automatic, rechargeable, and quickly finds matches across the HF spectrum.

Size comparison: mST-705Plus (left) Elecraft T1 (right)

 

We’ll see how well the power management works in real life. I plan to take it to the field over the next few months and carry a small USB battery pack to recharge the mAT-705Plus when the batteries are finally depleted. Hopefully, I won’t need to recharge it for a long time! The proof will be in the pudding!

Of course, I’ll also pair the mAT-705Plus with an assortment of antennas: random wires, verticals, delta loops, doublets, dipoles, and end-feds.

Stay tuned! [See what I did there? Rimshot anyone? Anyone–?] 🙂

Mat-Tuner authorized distributors:

New Products, News, Reviews

Initial review of the Xiegu GSOC controller

1 Comment

In early November, I took delivery of the new Xiegu GSOC Touch Screen Controller which has kindly been sent to me by Radioddity on loan for a frank evaluation. [Thank you, Radioddity!]

To be clear: the GSOC is not a transceiver, it’s a control head for the Xiegu G90 and (to a limited degree) X5105. Note I recently  reviewed the Xiegu G90.

GSOC development has been closely watched by Xiegu owners since its announcement in the summer of 2020.

Frankly, I didn’t completely see the appeal myself because the price of the GSOC was projected to be around $550–at least $100 more than the retail price of the G90 transceiver it controls.

The G90, in my opinion, is a good value field radio. Not a stellar performer, but it gets the job done and the built-in ATU does a brilliant job finding matches. It’s become a very popular radio for portable field operators because of the price, the versatility, and the power output (up to 20W). It’s not a KX2, KX3, or IC-705, but it certainly provides much more than one would expect from $450.

When you combine the price of the G90 and GSOC, however, you’re pushing $1000 and that’s getting in the range of radios like the Icom IC-7300.

Not feeling the GSOC love

In short, I’ve been quite disappointed with the GSOC. It feels like a product that was rushed to market way too soon. The specs and features don’t match up to what’s been advertised yet.

Yesterday, I posted an updated evaluation of the GSOC on the SWLing Post after performing the first public firmware upgrade. If you’ve been considering the GSOC, I would strongly encourage you to read that full post.

Check out the number of images that temporarily appeared in the spectrum and waterfall.

In a nutshell, there are some major issues with the GSOC at present (December 2, 2020):

  • No documentation or owner’s manual at time of posting other than an incredibly basic quick start guide
  • CW mode is essentially unusable due to latency in the CW sidetone audio
  • Combined current drain of the G90/GSOC pair is about 1 amp. For QRP field ops, that’s a substantial number and one you’d expect from a 100W field radio
  • The spectrum display is inundated with noise and images that are not present in the G90 received audio
  • On my unit, the large encoder sticks a bit and rubs the front panel when in use. I plan to see if I can reseat the encoder knob to help.
  • A keyboard and mouse or capacitive stylus are almost required for accurate operation of the touch screen due to the size of some of the buttons.
  • Click here to view a more comprehensive list…

In summary? I can’t recommend the GSOC yet and that’s why I’m posting this summary here on QRPer–I’d like to dissuade readers from grabbing one of these as a Christmas gift.

The package looks tempting, but there are too many issues that must be addressed just to achieve proper control of the G90.  I can tell that, personally, I won’t purchase the GSOC even when everything is fixed. The price point is just too high, in my opinion, for the functionality it provides. The G90 is a fun, functional little radio, but doesn’t sport the performance and receiver characteristics that I feel warrant a touch screen controller. The controller will only ever be as good as the transceiver to which it’s attached.

Do you own or have you considered purchasing the GSOC? I’d love your comments/thoughts.