Why don't we have better radios? Don't we deserve it?
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:26 pm
I am curious why we continuously spend $100+ for receivers and over $1000 for transmitters, which have clearly demonstrated faults. We've got jets that scream at over 400mph. But many of those jet pilots still trust the name brand leaders. Result? A big ball of fire that luckily didn't kill anyone at Joe Nall. As consumers, it is our responsibility to demand better.
After listening to many different opinions about these technologies, I've got some questions...
DSM2...
Why must the receiver/transmitter stay locked on 2 channels? In the event a channel becomes "lost", why not switch to another open channel? Example: Video transmitter clobbers 1 channel. System detects that channel is busy and switches to a different channel. Ie. 2-way communication
Why does the system not use some logic to make sure channels are spaced apart sufficiently?
I'm going to ask this question because i hear it all the time, but i believe i understand the answer already...
It is a very common theory that blinking lights mean a "partial bind". There is plenty of documentation around the web that very clearly states that blinking lights simply mean a voltage drop has occurred. Ie. If you turn the receiver off and on without also turning the transmitter off and on, the lights will blink signalling a "voltage drop". Just to confirm, a bind while the lights are blinking is no worse than a bind with solid lights. Correct? You just won't be able take advantage of the voltage drop detection "feature".
If i'm wrong about the above... Why would the system allow a bind at all, if it were "partial"? And what exactly is a "partial bind"?
Futaba...
Hypothetically, what happens if 90% of the channels are full? Does it show sluggishness while it searches for an open channel to "hop" to? Or, does using multiple channels at a time (all hopping) solve any sluggishness that might be perceived?
If the new trend in radio technology is to use MORE channels at the same time, won't that just cause MORE interference in the long run? Is it just me, or do others think these systems should be smarter? It seems perfectly logical to me that a radio system should be able to lock on to 2 or 3 (at most) channels at a time, and then only change frequencies when a channel is lost. I'm no radio expert, but it seems like this would be better than any of the options out there today.
Your thoughts?
After listening to many different opinions about these technologies, I've got some questions...
DSM2...
Why must the receiver/transmitter stay locked on 2 channels? In the event a channel becomes "lost", why not switch to another open channel? Example: Video transmitter clobbers 1 channel. System detects that channel is busy and switches to a different channel. Ie. 2-way communication
Why does the system not use some logic to make sure channels are spaced apart sufficiently?
I'm going to ask this question because i hear it all the time, but i believe i understand the answer already...
It is a very common theory that blinking lights mean a "partial bind". There is plenty of documentation around the web that very clearly states that blinking lights simply mean a voltage drop has occurred. Ie. If you turn the receiver off and on without also turning the transmitter off and on, the lights will blink signalling a "voltage drop". Just to confirm, a bind while the lights are blinking is no worse than a bind with solid lights. Correct? You just won't be able take advantage of the voltage drop detection "feature".
If i'm wrong about the above... Why would the system allow a bind at all, if it were "partial"? And what exactly is a "partial bind"?
Futaba...
Hypothetically, what happens if 90% of the channels are full? Does it show sluggishness while it searches for an open channel to "hop" to? Or, does using multiple channels at a time (all hopping) solve any sluggishness that might be perceived?
If the new trend in radio technology is to use MORE channels at the same time, won't that just cause MORE interference in the long run? Is it just me, or do others think these systems should be smarter? It seems perfectly logical to me that a radio system should be able to lock on to 2 or 3 (at most) channels at a time, and then only change frequencies when a channel is lost. I'm no radio expert, but it seems like this would be better than any of the options out there today.
Your thoughts?