Lab599 TX-500: stable, or not?

Regular readers of my blog will know that I am quite interested in using WSPR for checking antenna performance, evaluating different environments, and finding curious propagation effects.

In one way or another, at some time or another, WSPR is of use to just about all of us.  Whilst drifts of +/- 4Hz can still produce reliable decodes, drift of that degree is very unusual, generally indicates non-TCXOs, and in the WSPR community, is not really tolerated as acceptable.  Practically everyone produces zero drift, day in, day out.

Hence, as I look towards the next year, I am trying to find out as much as I can about, in particular, the Lab599 TX-500, which is not yet available in the UK.

This looks like a fine QRP transceiver.  But how good is its frequency stability?  I may have missed it, but I couldn't see any reference to the crystal stability anywhere for the TX-500; the manual's specifications pages (pp 28-29), accessed 10/09/20, has no reference to it.  

Frequency stability is, these days, quite an unusual thing not to shout about.  The forthcoming IC-705 from ICOM, in contrast, proudly announces its 0.5ppm stability.  

Even the cheap (but excellent) WSPRlite units have a TCXO, and the WSPR database is full of their zero drift transmissons.

An exchange broke out on Julian, OH8STN's Facebook page over the past day.  I was complaining that, despite several searches and requests, I still had no data on frequency stability for the TX-500.  

Julian started off by somewhat seeming to take my disappointment about the lack of data as a personal attack.  I replied that providing the stability data was as easy as someone - anyone - running a few minutes of WSPR transmissions.  But nobody has done it.  And nobody seems willing to try.

By now, Julian sounded less like an objective reviewer and more like someone trying to sell the TX-500.  He asserted that the TX-500 was stable enough to run various digital modes, which wasn't addressing my question.

Eventually, I had this, rather suprising response:

Again, this isn't providing any data.  It's merely someone's assertion.  And one where providing the data to back up that assertion, if it's true, is easy.  When I looked at Julian's call, with and without a /P extension over the past two weeks on the WSPR database, there were no entries.

A crystal stability of 2.5ppm is certainly not what we expect of a modern transceiver costing 890 Euro.  My FT-450, now an old rig, but still significantly cheaper new than the TX-500, produces zero drift in WSPR, regardless of any environmental changes.  

With the addition of a £15 generic, Chinese TCXO, my even older TS-480SAT also produces zero drift, regardless of working conditions.  And, if we believe the maker, even the Xiegu X5105 has +/- 1ppm stability - for 200 Euro less than the TX-500.

Oddly, I started out as a strong supporter of the TX-500, provided it comes to be sold in the UK directly.  But nobody seems willing to send some WSPR transmissions from it for five minutes, to which we can only submit the question: why?

Until I see someone demonstrate the actual frequency stability of a production TX-500, it will remain in the 'important questions not answered' category.

ZS4TX at dawn

Interesting to see how ZS4TX heard my 14MHz, 1W signal compared to the 0.2W sent by M0VIK/MM (he uses his 'MM' as a prefix, but I give it as a suffix, as it's meant to be).  The plot has adjusted M0VIK/MM's output to a 1W equivalent.

Despite being to the NE of me, and thus experiencing the day advance about 30 minutes ahead, I was heard by ZS4TX 30 minutes before M0VIK/MM this morning.  But I was quickly outstripped as the benefits of a boat on water, even when it's moored in a harbour, came into effect.  

Note how the difference at peak 'greyline' time was 6dB in favour of M0VIK/MM, whereas for the rest of the period, it becomes about 15dB in his favour.

 

WSPR anomalies return.

With fairly quiet geomagnetic conditions returning over the past day, I decided to run the RSP1a receiver overnight, to see what surprises might come in at 14MHz.

Sure enough, for just a few minutes around 02:20UT, KK6L's 5W was heard - quite weakly - where he was received by no other station in the dark hemisphere, other than TF4AH, who, being under the auroral oval, has markedly different propagation conditions than I do.  You might miss my reception on the plot - it's the short blue line (just three spots), right of lower centre.

I was interested to see that ZL stations were also hearing KK6L, and so I plotted ZL1ROT alongside myself and TF4AH, to see what that might reveal in relation to the opposite hemisphere.

14MHz reception of KK6L, 2020 September 07

As you can see - and remarkably clearly so - the signal response in the southern hemisphere is in a very good inverse correlation with TF4AH; when his signal is reducing to then hover around the -17dB level, ZL1ROT's received signal strength increases to much the same level.  

If this isn't immediately clear, then look at TF4AH's response, which is essentially a 'U' shaped curve, and then ZL1ROT's response, which is an upside-down U shape.  A 3-degree polynomial trend curve may make things a little clearer:

The sudden appearance of KK6L comes as the field restored from a southern deviation to a solar-quiet condition, although on this occasion, the field had been quiet for about an hour before KK6L was heard.

The reception also came, as I have seen many times before, as the auroral oval's midnight edge came to lie mid-way between KK6L and the UK.  At this time also, KK6L is just 10 minutes before sunset, so his D layer is rapidly starting to diminish. 

I expect the signal strength increase with KK6L that happens around this time briefly reaches detectable levels here in Wales due to the assistance of very localised ionisation, apparently within the inner edge of the auroral oval, if the path is assumed (probably simplistically) to be a great circle:

Terminator and auroral oval at time of KK6L reception by MW1CFN

 

Great circle path KK6L to MW1CFN at 02:20UT, assuming no skew.

Ha ha!

 

Well, though I did my best to set aside some time to take part in the recent RDRC JT9 event, I really couldn't be bothered to waste two whole days of my life gathering useless points.  

Accordingly, I ended up 90th, as opposed to last year's effort, where I received 10th place.

Rather pleased with that, as it is just too much like a pointless activity, nice though it is to see lots of JT9 signals.  If only people used it regularly, rather than just for activity days...

 

AA7FV rises in moderate geomagnetic disturbance.

A peak Kp of around 5 overnight, coupled with plenty of disturbances in the preceding day or two, brought a nice enhancement of AA7FV's 2W, 14MHz signal from his large rhombic, aimed at Europe.

I was quite surprised at the short period of reception for AA7FV on August 28th, which came to an abrupt end.  When I checked the entire reception record for that station, it was confirmed that he would disappear for everyone in the UK about 21-22UT each recent day, under quiet geomagnetic conditions.

But, with a bit of energy pumped into the ionosphere by the past 24 hours of HSS activity, AA7FV's pattern changes dramatically, to be heard throughout the night, until dawn here:

Brief G7 disturbance

Another nice example of a brief G7 geomagnetic disturbance bringing about a large enhancement of a local signal from G0CCL (14MHz) overnight. 

The peak occurs almost precisely at the most southerly deviation of the field, and when the Raspberry Pi transmitter had switched, as it is set up to do, from a series of 5W to 0.2W output, which (subject to checking with G0CCL) made this an even more remarkable enhancement:

It's perhaps tempting to think that this peak is just the passing of the greyline or some other effect.  But that is not seen on quiet days, as the results for 28-29 August 2020 show (the ~02:30UT peak is broadly coincident with a minor southerly deviation in the Z component):

G0CCL 14MHz WSPR reception on a low Kp day.

Meanwhile, W8AC comes in at a slowly increasing level, then undergoes a very dramatic slump in strength as the Z component southerly deviation strengthens, then restores as the field rebounds, before vanishing completely.  I checked various other receptions to see if this was repeated.  The result from G4ZFQ/Y, which is a Yagi pointing across the Atlantic, I think, seems to confirm it was a real effect, allowing for latitudinal differences in the stations:

14MHz reception of W8AC by MW1CFN

14MHz reception of W8AC by G4ZFQ/Y

TX-500 vs. IC-705

The Lab599 TX-500 portable transceiver is well and truly out of the stables, with a recent short review by OH8STN giving a link to a Swedish supplier, listing the unit at 890 Euro - a good price against Icom's £1299.99 for the IC-705.  The Lab599 site only shows one other outlet, based in the US, anywhere on the planet so far.

This price differential sets up a battle for supremacy between the two transceivers, where any weakness in one will tip the balance in favour of the other.  

The Icom 705, of course, carries a big, trusted name with a reputation of making quality transceivers that are already widely used.  The IC-7300, for example, which the IC-705 bears more than a passing resemblance to, quickly became one of the 'standard' rigs for the ham population these days.  ICOM also have a substantial marketing budget, whereas Lab599 seem unlikely to have much at all.

The IC-705 from Icom.  An established company with a long product line-up and industry-leading product support.

Lab599's offering comes from what I think is a new name in transceiver production, but their TX-500 appears to be a fantastic entry into the market.

An immediate concern that I have with Lab599 is the apparent lack of transparency.  If you consult their web site, glossy as it is, there is no obvious information on where the company is based, and no mail or telephone number.  You have to dig into the user manual download (see below) to find this information.

I've tried the only contact detail - an email address - to try and acquire a review model, but there has been no reply.  An identical request to ICOM UK saw a polite confirmation of being on the review list within 24 hours. Lost in the detail of the Lab599 site is an 'LLC' suffix (I also found an 'Inc' suffix), to their company name, which superficially indicates that at least the trading arm of this company is US-based, but a search on the National Corporation Directory, which is NOT definitive evidence, yielded no results for 'Lab599' or 'Laboratory 599'.  But early video reviews of the TX-500 seemed to place the maker in Russia. 

A bit more hunting on their 'downloads' page revealed, on their user guide for the rig, that they are indeed located in Rubtsovsk, in Siberian Russia.  More than one video is from R9JC.  My not-so-distant paternal family come from Russia, so I have no bias against that country.  But it will, inevitably, be a consideration for some, given this is a new maker, first registered on Youtube only a year ago.

Screengrab from the bottom of the TX-500 user guide (accessed 01/09/2020, 09:03UT).

Lab599's TX-500 Discovery.  A less well-known company, offering what appears to be a very well-engineered, clean product, albeit with unusual connectors.

OK, in the UK at least, consumer law dictates that, if you buy your TX-500 from a ham radio outlet, then it is they, not the manufacturer, who must process the handling of any failure of the equipment (and you should never accept any company telling you, as happens far too often in UK shops in general, otherwise).  So this apparent reluctance to make obvious the Lab599 company information should not be a problem to the consumer.  But it remains to be seen what happens if the TX-500 should, for example, have a basic fault that requires a lot of product returns.  

Lack of ability to contact Icom, however, will never be an issue, at least for UK consumers.  As reported last year, even when I wanted help with a fairly old transceiver I had bought from E-bay, ICOM UK were still very happy to help me with a real engineer calling me on a real telephone.  

I like the TX-500, and reviews from trusted people like OH8STN and SWLing.com seem to back up the impression that it's a rig worth considering.  I don't see the lack of complex features as being of any problem, not least because I never use any such features in my own operations.  Neither it nor the IC-705 has an internal matching unit ('ATU'), but again, I never use one anyway, though I accept they can be useful when the environment slightly detunes a wire antenna.

The IC-705 seems to have an advantage over the TX-500 in using the more usual and established range of connectors to the outside world.  Whilst wiring things up seems simple enough, you will need an external sound card and either make the cable yourself, or wait for someone like Technofix to come up with one.

At the moment, I'm undecided.  I am not an early adopter, preferring those to whom money comes easily to try products out and find their faults, if any.  If I knew the TX-500 was tried and tested, and the company was more willing to give an account of itself online, then at 890 Euro, I would lean towards it and its clean, simple, functional layout, with at least a degree of weather proofness. 

Keeping your head down in Russia is a cultural thing, coming from the Soviet era.  But it doesn't play well in the West, where we expect to know something about the company, and the people behind it.  If, as it might appear, Lab599 is a small, maybe even one-man startup company, then it has, from what I've seen so far, absolutely every reason to shout from the rooftops about itself.  It would be a lot better for us to have the full backstory of the company than either trying to say as little as possible, or give the impression of being a larger company than perhaps it is.  After all, Russia's economy was, in the past, measured on how much raw material it used in manufacturing, which was always absurd, but did at least lead to extremely robust products.  I think we all want to - and would - support someone trying to make a name for themselves, especially from somewhere that isn't the US or Japan.

So the question, for me at least, is whether the ICOM IC-705 is worth an additional £400.  If Lab599 prove to be, over the next few months, a company that wants to sell products without telling the radio community much about themselves, then that would definitely steer me away from them.  ICOM have local offices and engineers that speak to you directly to help out.  At the moment, there is absolutely no indication that Lab599 have anything like this degree of accessibility, and my single attempt to contact them, when they are trying to promote their new product, yielded no answer.  So, for now, the product of choice for me is the IC-705.  

Then again, this low power field operations area of amateur radio is really hotting up, and will only become more competitive with time.  There are alternatives like the Xiegu X5105 to consider.  I'd happily buy one of those today if - and only if - the frequency stability is of the high standard required - and anyway should not these days fail to be - for WSPR and other digital modes.  At the moment, I only have the manufacturer's word for it that the stability is "1Hz or less".  No real user has yet responded to a online forum call for details of their experience with frequency stability.  I should also point out that I've yet to see any real-world stability data for either the IC-705 or TX-500.

Disclaimer: I have no link, except as an owner of a second-hand IC-746, with ICOM, and cannot even establish a link with, never mind actually have any preference for, Lab599.  I have no link at all with Xiegu. I have not been promoted (or dissuaded) by any company to write anything about their products.