Like many current Anan users I have an older rig (200D from 2004 in my case). We have gone through several iterations of the Apache Labs/Anan hardware since then and now we have the G2. My old 200D still seems to perform well and I have benefitted from the outstanding OpenHPSDR updates to both firmware and Thetis software. Sometimes a major update to Thetis can feel like having a whole new rig with no extra cost. The 100D/200D Anan series still score well against other modern rigs in terms of both RX and TX performance.
So, I am interested in other users opinions on whether there are significant advantages in updating to a newer hardware (for example G2 or 7000DLE) or whether the improvements in performance are marginal and perhaps not worth the high purchase cost.
73 Dave G3ZQH
Is it worth upgrading from early 100D/200D rigs to latest Anan hardware?
Re: Is it worth upgrading from early 100D/200D rigs to latest Anan hardware?
If your 200D runs P2 well I would not upgrade. If a used 7000DLE Mk2 came along at a fair price, maybe. There were some TX chain upgrades, but I don’t recall them being that important.
I don’t see any value in upgrading to the G2 at all.
Doug
I don’t see any value in upgrading to the G2 at all.
Doug
Re: Is it worth upgrading from early 100D/200D rigs to latest Anan hardware?
Leaving aside the 14-bit receivers (10E, 100B), there's little practical difference between the original Hermes and the latest G2 hardware. Most of the improvements are only easily measurable on the test bench and are relatively invisible given real world conditions.
Indeed, if you study the schematics of the Hermes and the 200D, both of which are available on this forum in the schematics section, you'll see very little difference. The 7000, 8000 and G2 schematics, while available to owners, are not publicly disseminated. However you'll see the same thing with them.
What improvements there have been have been focused on improvement in the following areas:
- Receiver noise figure
- Frequency stability
- Transmit composite noise
- Crosstalk in the full duplex path (particularly where PureSignal is concerned)
However these improvements are, again, very difficult to discern outside of a laboratory environment. As the proud owner of both a 100D and an 8000DLE (identical to early model 7000 except for the amplifier), the only thing I ever notice under real world conditions is a 2 to 3 dB improvement in receiver noise floor and only under good band conditions. However, to be fair, I've modified my 100D to improve PureSignal performance and I use an external 10MHz reference. The equivalent modification was cut in on the 200D about halfway through production in the form of the Rev. 24 PA/RF board. If you have a Rev. 24 board you are good to go. And, if you don't, it's an easy modification. Similarly, if you have an earlier unit with one of the less stable 10MHz oscillators that is easily fixed by using an external GPSDO 10MHz reference.
Another area that distinguishes the 200D and prior units from the 7000 and later units is the presence of a preselector for the second ADC. However, since the preselector design remains only a 3rd order bandpass filter, out of band rejection is minimal and you'll find little difference with and without the preselector enabled.
Finally, the only thing that distinguishes the G2 from earlier models is that the Gigabit Ethernet implementation meets all industry standards and is pretty much bulletproof. The Ethernet implementation in all previous models is marginal at best. However, from the Hermes to the latest 7000 variant they all are the same in this manner.
Indeed, if you study the schematics of the Hermes and the 200D, both of which are available on this forum in the schematics section, you'll see very little difference. The 7000, 8000 and G2 schematics, while available to owners, are not publicly disseminated. However you'll see the same thing with them.
What improvements there have been have been focused on improvement in the following areas:
- Receiver noise figure
- Frequency stability
- Transmit composite noise
- Crosstalk in the full duplex path (particularly where PureSignal is concerned)
However these improvements are, again, very difficult to discern outside of a laboratory environment. As the proud owner of both a 100D and an 8000DLE (identical to early model 7000 except for the amplifier), the only thing I ever notice under real world conditions is a 2 to 3 dB improvement in receiver noise floor and only under good band conditions. However, to be fair, I've modified my 100D to improve PureSignal performance and I use an external 10MHz reference. The equivalent modification was cut in on the 200D about halfway through production in the form of the Rev. 24 PA/RF board. If you have a Rev. 24 board you are good to go. And, if you don't, it's an easy modification. Similarly, if you have an earlier unit with one of the less stable 10MHz oscillators that is easily fixed by using an external GPSDO 10MHz reference.
Another area that distinguishes the 200D and prior units from the 7000 and later units is the presence of a preselector for the second ADC. However, since the preselector design remains only a 3rd order bandpass filter, out of band rejection is minimal and you'll find little difference with and without the preselector enabled.
Finally, the only thing that distinguishes the G2 from earlier models is that the Gigabit Ethernet implementation meets all industry standards and is pretty much bulletproof. The Ethernet implementation in all previous models is marginal at best. However, from the Hermes to the latest 7000 variant they all are the same in this manner.
Re: Is it worth upgrading from early 100D/200D rigs to latest Anan hardware?
Some additional thoughts:
The newer hardware has a more effective thermal design. If the hardware is run at 100W all the time that may or may not be something of interest. That said, on the older 100 and 200 series units, the simple expedient of getting a small fan to blow across the top of the chassis, which acts as the heat sink for the PA, will largely mitigate that problem.
The other issue is that the switch from the large DB25 accessory connector to the rear breakout board style is a difference. What's interesting there, though, is that the newer design does not bring out the audio line output signals, although that's probably of interest to very few.
The newer hardware has a more effective thermal design. If the hardware is run at 100W all the time that may or may not be something of interest. That said, on the older 100 and 200 series units, the simple expedient of getting a small fan to blow across the top of the chassis, which acts as the heat sink for the PA, will largely mitigate that problem.
The other issue is that the switch from the large DB25 accessory connector to the rear breakout board style is a difference. What's interesting there, though, is that the newer design does not bring out the audio line output signals, although that's probably of interest to very few.
Re: Is it worth upgrading from early 100D/200D rigs to latest Anan hardware?
Thanks for feedback on this question. That has helped clarify my own thoughts on this which were finding it hard to see the advantages of an upgrade. I have an older Rev16 unit but I have done the upgrades for PureSignal routing and added an external fan. Not done the GPSDO !0MHz yet but have costed this up as an option. I don't find too much of a problem with stability since I tend to leave the rig on all the time. There is a problem when the rig gets too cold and there can be drop outs on PureSignal engagement.
For now I'll wait a bit more before upgrading and spend a bit more on my antennas!
73 Dave G3ZQH
For now I'll wait a bit more before upgrading and spend a bit more on my antennas!
73 Dave G3ZQH