Yaesu AR-DV10 with a receiver made by AOR

[marlbrook]

Given that the Icom R8600 is twice the price, and more than double the physical size of the AR-DV1 I would expect it to be an excellent receiver.

I have not had the same opportunity of actually physically comparing the DV1 against the R8600, or the VR-5000, so cannot begin to imagine, or know as you do, just how 'poor' the DV1's HF performance is, especially with a side by side comparison, using the same antenna.

I can say that the DV1's performance on HF and Digital Modes show no problems against my Icom IC30, and on HF against my Yaesu FT818ND or Icom IC7100, in the same location, at the same time, and using the same external antenna. However no doubt all of those may be considered, by those experts 'in the know', to be mediocre quality radios at best, and probably under those circumstances so would be my comparison observations.

 

[w4amp]

After seeing the way AOR has handled the DV10 disaster, I will never buy one of their rigs again. An Archer Space Patrol HT has better frequency accuracy. And Yaesu should have never got involved.

 

[SigIntel8600]

The digital decode capabilities of the DV1 and the DV10 go way beyond the Icom R8600, but they are in two completely different leagues with the DV1 being a mediocre quality receiver at best where the R8600 is top notch. Talking with a few other DV1 owners, the HF performance is similar to an Yaesu VR-5000, which is probably the worst performing HF receiver I have ever used.

I would have sprung for the R8600 but at that price point and so many digital modes missing. No thanks. The Yaesu VR-5000, that rig was the king of BC Band intermod. No PL/DPL, and worst of all, that silly A/B antenna switch on the BACK of the radio. What a dog that one was.

 

[marlbrook]

I would have sprung for the R8600 but at that price point and so many digital modes missing. No thanks. The Yaesu VR-5000, that rig was the king of BC Band intermod. No PL/DPL, and worst of all, that silly A/B antenna switch on the BACK of the radio. What a dog that one was.

Do you agree with prcguy that the DV1's HF performance is as bad as the VR-5000, the 'worst performing receiver he has ever owned', i.e. 'very poor', and that the AR-DV1 is as he quotes a 'mediocre quality receiver at best '

As you can see above I most certainly do not agree with him on either point. I am sure from your previous posts you can be trusted to give a 'balanced' and 'informed' assessment.

 

[prcguy]

I use large HF antennas like 133ft 80-10m offset center feds, 93ft ZS6BKW, 133ft half wave resonant end fed 80-10m, etc. The conversations I had with DV1 owners complaining about HF performance were using similar large antennas and they were having to use AM BCB filters to make their radios usable on HF.

Is anyone else using a "large" HF antenna on their DV1 or DV10 and having good success with no BCB Intermod or other problems?

 

[iMONITOR]

The conversations I had with DV1 owners complaining about HF performance were using similar large antennas and they were having to use AM BCB filters to make their radios usable on HF.

Is anyone else using a "large" HF antenna on their DV1 or DV10 and having good success with no BCB Intermod or other problems?

I honestly never even tried using the DV1 on HF, I have better receivers for HF. I didn't buy the DV1 with that use intended. I could be wrong but I think like me, most owners of the DV1 bought it for it's numerous digital modes capability, and VHF/UHF bands. However as you said, there are filters available at reasonable cost to help resolve the intermod issue. It's very common to use theses filters even with dedicated HF receivers.

 

[EricCottrell]

Hello,

I use a Wellbrook loop, which has 0 dBm output on some local AM stations. I have to use a MW Band-Reject filter on my DV-1 and other radios.

The DV-1 documentation mentions a 18 MHz direct conversion receiver and I find no problem with local MW stations above 18 MHz. It appears they only use a single 18 MHz low-pass filter for frequencies below 18 MHz.

73 Eric

 

[SigIntel8600]

Do you agree with prcguy that the DV1's HF performance is as bad as the VR-5000, the 'worst performing receiver he has ever owned', i.e. 'very poor', and that the AR-DV1 is as he quotes a 'mediocre quality receiver at best '

As you can see above I most certainly do not agree with him on either point. I am sure from your previous posts you can be trusted to give a 'balanced' and 'informed' assessment.

I certainly wouldn't call the DV-1 a mediocre quality receiver. I also wouldn't describe the DV-1's HF reception as very poor either. I would describe it as average for a wideband receiver. The DV-1 is not my primary HF receiver, I mostly use it on VHF/UHF for digital searching, but it sure is nice to have HF available and I enjoy computer controlled scanning the HF bands occasionally with the DV-1. The RF-Gain feature as well as the 3 Level NR work as expected. Comparing the HF receive on the DV-1 to my previously owned AOR-AR8600, I find the DV-1 on HF appears to have less overloading than the 8600 and the S-meter on the DV-1 is so much more accurate than the 8600 was. I wonder why AOR did not include an internal band scope for the DV-1 like the AR8600 had. The band scope on the AR8600 left much to be desired anyway. Good thing we have software like eSPYonARD that offers a band scope. Are we going to be pulling out weak signal HF DX on the DV-1? probably not.

 

[iMONITOR]

Good thing we have software like eSPYonARD that offers a band scope. Are we going to be pulling out weak signal HF DX on the DV-1? probably not.

I just bought eSPYonARD myself about a weeks ago. Still going over the manual, impressive software!

 

[marlbrook]

I certainly wouldn't call the DV-1 a mediocre quality receiver. I also wouldn't describe the DV-1's HF reception as very poor either. I would describe it as average for a wideband receiver. The DV-1 is not my primary HF receiver, I mostly use it on VHF/UHF for digital searching, but it sure is nice to have HF available and I enjoy computer controlled scanning the HF bands occasionally with the DV-1. The RF-Gain feature as well as the 3 Level NR work as expected. Comparing the HF receive on the DV-1 to my previously owned AOR-AR8600, I find the DV-1 on HF appears to have less overloading than the 8600 and the S-meter on the DV-1 is so much more accurate than the 8600 was. I wonder why AOR did not include an internal band scope for the DV-1 like the AR8600 had. The band scope on the AR8600 left much to be desired anyway. Good thing we have software like eSPYonARD that offers a band scope. Are we going to be pulling out weak signal HF DX on the DV-1? probably not.

Although this thread is about the DV10, I see no problem in including comments about its big brother, as the DV10 should have been a DV1 in miniature, and people wondering about the problems of the AR- DV10 should be aware that they are certainly not shared by the AR-DV1.

Your comments mirror my feelings exactly, thanks for the input. I have used the DV1 with a full sized HF dipole, and a long wire with no inter-mod problems. It would not be my first choice for serious HF DX listening naturally, however its HF reception is not 'poor'. For me one great thing is the small footprint, so I can have a good all rounder sitting on my desk, taking up very little room, and occasionally sitting on the Cars dashboard. Add to that its multi mode VHF and UHF capabilities, both analogue and digital, make it well worth owning.

Interestingly I have seen a picture of the DV1 prototype which indicated it would have a Band Scope. The 8600 screen (I have one) is the same small size, and I agree its internal Band Scope is far from brilliant. The size of the screen on both Receivers make it impossible to do any better.

Thank you both for the kind remarks about eSPYonARD. Just finishing a new update which adds tweaks to 'Q' and the Band Scope, plus a few other things.

 

[SigIntel8600]

Although this thread is about the DV10, I see no problem in including comments about its big brother, as the DV10 should have been a DV1 in miniature, and people wondering about the problems of the AR- DV10 should be aware that they are certainly not shared by the AR-DV1.

I am still perplexed as to why the DV-10 has numerous deficiencies that are NOT found in the DV-1. There were some things I really liked about the DV-10, but in the end the numerous "bugs" found in the DV-10 beat me down and my inquiries were met by silence or cookie cutter responses by AOR or Yaesu. "Please upgrade the firmware and complete a full reset" got tiring to hear after taking the time to spell out the issues I was having with the 10. I'm just glad I was able to dump it and get the DV-1 without taking a loss. Do you think we will see a DV-11 or a DV-10 Mark II with some of the issues addressed?

 

[marlbrook]

Sadly I am not optimistic.

On the one hand I really sympathise with AOR's predicament. On the other, it was their fault. They released the DV10 in the state it was in.

When the crisis point arrived they had to decide whether to bluff it out or bite the bullet, accept the DV10 needed to be re-called, and take a hit financially then and there.

It was of course a difficult financial decision, however in the long run they chose to risk their hitherto excellent reputation, and even greater potential losses, by adopting a strategy of trying to 'get the toothpaste into the tube'. Given that I have my doubts if a MK2 or DV11 would be trusted now.

Had the DV10 not suffered from the frequency stability issues, it is probable that most problems could have been fixed by firmware updates.

The Radio should have made them lots of money. The concept, following on from the DV1 was very good, and a handheld version of that receiver that was as described would and should have been a great achievement. The frequency stability matter clearly demanded a hardware re-design. Pretending it was OK, whilst on the other attempting to fix it in Firmware could almost be described as a farce, but that is the way they decided to go.

I have said before that middle Management might have had a hand in those decisions, and for their own preservation persuaded AOR's top Management to go down that line, with every indication they initially adopted an approach that the faults disclosures had been fabricated by those Customers who brought them to public attention. 'Shoot the messenger' (sigh).

However having decided to try to ride out the storm, without taking drastic remedial action, the decision is probably never going to be reversed, for the sake of losing face.

I have no idea if they can afford to bring out a DV10 MK2, and if they do that will kill whatever sales they can still manage of the DV10 MK1. Some people are still buying the DV10. Some seem totally satisfied with its performance as it stands, but again as I have said before, without comparing it to a stable Receiver, especially using Digital modes, they will 'never know what they are missing', frequency wise. Digital is like that, either you hear it, or if the frequency is 'off' by too much you hear nothing, unlike Analogue signals.

AOR may have missed the boat now. The Icom IC-30 is much less in price, frequency stable, and an excellent receiver. If ICOM 'see the light' and release a DMR add on, the DV10's specifications and performance, in its current form will be out classed, and out priced.

Such a great shame. Despite all the praise I continue to heap on the AR-DV1, and other AOR products, from past, bitter experience, whoever at AOR reads this will cast me as the villain (again) In retaliation for bringing these matter out into the light AOR have attacked me, and the program. I was very excited when I bought my DV10, and had almost finished a program to control it, including a functioning Band Scope. I abandoned that program for two reasons, the first being that the DV10's firmware kept crashing under external control, (still does) and the other because I could not bring myself to support the receiver.

Despite that I still wish AOR well, however there are people to blame for the DV10's problems, and some may believe they are within the Company itself.

 

[woodpecker]

I am still perplexed as to why the DV-10 has numerous deficiencies that are NOT found in the DV-1.

Some of the problem is what AOR thought they could get away with, the DV1 isn't ultra stable on freqeuncy but its ok, although better specified than the DV10, in the DV10 they thought they could get away with a cheap oscillator but didn't take into account how hot things get in a small case and hence how much the oscillator would drift. The firmware botch they came up which I fully documented including formula is something they should be ashamed of.

The smaller size of the DV10 also limits the amount of RF filtering, this is another hardware problem, depending on the RF environment the DV10 can suffer extreme blocking on UHF and AM airband signal images can be found all over the 165MHz band spaced at fundamental + IF.

The firmware is something else, I've NEVER seen a product that's been on the market for a year still in such a mess, the remote protocol only half works and often locks it solid, random times the whole unit will perform a full reset including settings, it suffers from some crazy 32 bit overflow problem where it starts displaying non ascii characters all over the screen, the automode bandwidth at 15kHz is useless if you try and listen to anything spaced 3.125kHz or 6.25kHz apart.

The AOR and Yaesu response has been non-existant, they just deny the problem then block your email address, they add *features* instead of fixing problems, their equipment at all levels including the AOR Alpha is mediocre at best, nothing they produce is suitable for professional use, its no good for hobby use!

Due to their arrogance, contempt and handling of the DV10 situation they deserve to go out business.

 

[Whiskey3JMC]

HF performance on the DV1 isn't the best but it isn't the worst. I definitely didn't buy mine for the HF, that's what my SDRs are for

 

[SigIntel8600]

HF performance on the DV1 isn't the best but it isn't the worst. I definitely didn't buy mine for the HF, that's what my SDRs are for

So much VHF/UHF (non trunked) to monitor at my location (NYC metro area). My AOR DV-1 is pulling out VHF marine signals that my Whistler and Uniden scanners miss consistently. Rail systems, aircraft, big metro PD systems like the NYPD and Newark, NJ. My local PD/Fire/EMS is VHF analog (for now, LOL). Will I take my DV-1 out on the back deck and listen to WBCQ on shortwave or a Mets game if I'm in the mood? Hell, yeah. Now add all the digital modes that the DV-1 receives and I am one happy camper. That's why the AOR wideband receivers have always found a place in my shack. I was hoping the DV-10 would allow me to go fully portable, (parks, hiking, etc) but the DV-10 turned out to be a no go for me. I'm kind of pissed that I sold my AOR 8200 with the hard to find serial programming cable to jump on the DV-10. Oh well, I'll be keeping an eye out for another one maybe.

 

[bearcatrp]

So much VHF/UHF (non trunked) to monitor at my location (NYC metro area). My AOR DV-1 is pulling out VHF marine signals that my Whistler and Uniden scanners miss consistently. Rail systems, aircraft, big metro PD systems like the NYPD and Newark, NJ. My local PD/Fire/EMS is VHF analog (for now, LOL). Will I take my DV-1 out on the back deck and listen to WBCQ on shortwave or a Mets game if I'm in the mood? Hell, yeah. Now add all the digital modes that the DV-1 receives and I am one happy camper. That's why the AOR wideband receivers have always found a place in my shack. I was hoping the DV-10 would allow me to go fully portable, (parks, hiking, etc) but the DV-10 turned out to be a no go for me. I'm kind of pissed that I sold my AOR 8200 with the hard to find serial programming cable to jump on the DV-10. Oh well, I'll be keeping an eye out for another one maybe.

The Icom R30 could be the ticket for you. Yeah it sucks no DMR but other than that, it’s a great receiver. Am surprised there hasn’t been a class action against AOR for this mess. You have enough proof. I take it the latest firmware didn’t help?

 

[SigIntel8600]

The digital decode capabilities of the DV1 and the DV10 go way beyond the Icom R8600, but they are in two completely different leagues with the DV1 being a mediocre quality receiver at best where the R8600 is top notch. Talking with a few other DV1 owners, the HF performance is similar to an Yaesu VR-5000, which is probably the worst performing HF receiver I have ever used.

The Icom R30 could be the ticket for you. Yeah it sucks no DMR but other than that, it’s a great receiver. Am surprised there hasn’t been a class action against AOR for this mess. You have enough proof. I take it the latest firmware didn’t help?

Icom is all butt hurt with their competition..................No DMR because DMR is the competition, no Yaesu Fusion because they are the competition. Boo hoo hoo ICOM, embrace your competition and include all digital modes. No ICOM for me.

 

[marlbrook]

ICOM deserve to do well with the IC-30. I have one. It is stable, and for a small handheld device works very well. I certainly sympathise with AORradiofan's comments above, re. ICOM not incorporating the extra Digital Modes, even as paid extras That seems a very strange commercial decision, even if it is taken 'on principle'.

One would have thought that ICOM's current competitor to go for, 'if it had worked as advertised', would have been the DV10.

With extra Modes and the significant price difference the IC-30 could have blown that out of the water. That would have made real commercial sense.

So currently Customers are stuck between 'a rock and a hard place'. Go for the ICOM, get a stable Receiver but have to miss out on some Digital Modes that many would want, or pay twice as much and 'hope against hope' AOR will put the DV10 right, so it works as advertised, and have proper frequency stability so the Digital Modes it has can always be relied upon to function correctly. Even with analogue signals, CW, LSB and USB will be affected by the frequency issues. Of course, unless it is a very strong Digital signal, if the DV10 is even slightly off frequency, nobody will ever know. The squelch will just not open.

At least with the IC-30 when you enter a frequency one can be sure the Radio remains true to it.

It is worth repeating that the AR-DV1 does not suffer from the current faults of the AR-DV10, Of course, despite its small footprint, is not a handheld, but of a size that does allow it to be used 'mobile' as a portable without difficulty. In my opinion, AOR got that Receiver right, and deserve credit for that.

Still we are only Customers it seems, why should we interfere or matter in the Manufacturer's decisions (SIGH).

 

[prcguy]

How is Icom "hurt'? They are loosing a very small amount of customers who must have DMR but in the big picture, Yaesu Fusion is a tiny little fraction of what anyone would listen to. And although DMR is gaining popularity in both amateur and commercial use, its not really a format for public service comms, which is what sells most "police scanners". I would certainly like to have DMR or even Fusion in my R8600, but I see my radio as more of a high end HF/UHF/VHF/Microwave DX machine and not a police scanner.

Your statement is like telling someone who just bought a Ferarri that its a piece of crap because it can't carry the family with all six kids and a dog, and its trunk space sucks and the gas mileage is terrible. The guy who bought a Ferarri doesn't care about the same things you do.

Icom is all butt hurt with their competition..................No DMR because DMR is the competition, no Yaesu Fusion because they are the competition. Boo hoo hoo ICOM, embrace your competition and include all digital modes. No ICOM for me.

 

[bearcatrp]

I can get DMR on my 436 if needed. Not enough DMR in my area worth spending the bucks for it. But nice to have multiple receivers/scanners to cover different areas at the same time.