The AM Transmitter Challenge Results..

Bugus test results .. That dude is trying to sell I am radio units.

My SS Trans 5000 EX kicks the crap out of my Talking house and it's ATU.

If the guy who owns this site would have not slammed Phil over and over , perhaps phill would have sent him an EX to test.

I am so sick and tired of being lied to.

Bugus test results .. That dude is trying to sell I am radio units.

I don't comprehend your insinuation.. the iAM units came in last place.

As for the SSTran 5000, he did explain that it was used only with it's supplied wire antenna becuase there's not an alternative antenna available from the company, nor is there a standard configuration specified in the manufacturer's documentation for another antenna.

I know others have expressed that the SSTran 5000 can outperform even the Rangemaster providing a eleborate antenna system is engineered along with complicated (evidently) tuning proceedure requiring advance equipment and methods.

But I drifted my point; which is that the iAM came in last place.. so how would one conclude the objective of the challenge was to sell iAMs?..

This is the second indication of negativity I've witnessed tonight concerning the occurence of these controlled transmitter performance test, and I don't get it! - Are there many others who apparently resent this test and report??

My reaction has been just the oppisite... enthusiasic interest.

I just don't get it.

Rich

The I Am came in third with the ATU .

That was my point , The SS Tran 5000 EX is the system I am pointing out.

I don't know if the 5000 EX will out perform the Rangemaster , but I do know that it all out kills my I Am with ATU System.

I'm sorry and I should have pointed that out.

But I find this transmitter Shoot Out to be somewhat fake when comes to the number three system.

It's all cool though and I am sorry for the negative post.

Well.. if the test were bias due to some grudge against Phil, that would be disapointing. I do have a AMT3000 and with just the wire antenna I find it's performance and sound impressive, although I've never attempted an outdoor install with it. I'm a little intimidated at the thought of constructing the advanced antenna for it because I've never done anything like that before.. and based on all the post I've read about the AMT5000, well, I find it even more intimidating!

But that's just me. Unlike most of you guys here, I'm basically just a plug-and-play guy, I prefer the pre-built ready-to-go route. Unimpressive as that may be.

Anyway, we're all free to express our opinions. 

Rich the SS Tran 5000 is in a case just like a rangemaster and uses a whip just like the range master.

The SS Tran 5000 EX is still a kit , but the kit comes with all of the stuff to make it just like a self contained rangemaster.  No Antenna building needed.

I will post a pic of mine tomorrow so you can see what I am saying.

This transmitter will shock you with it's sound and it's range.

When I did my first audio test I did it with a wire antenna with the SS tran out of the case and it sounded big and the range with the wire on the ground or floor was about 1/4 mile.

First tests with the system on a pole at two feet above the ground and it's hitting over a mile on my car radio with no ground system.

Anyway again I am sorry to come off so harsh , I just find it strange that this shoot out seems to have an agenda.

The Potomac FIM utilized in this website promotion has been talked about for several years, but no mention has been made so far as I've seen of it being factory re-calibrated at any point along the way.

According to FCC Rules the licensed stations must have their FIM equipment re-calibrated every year-and-a-half, so I've been told by a station engineer.

Any results published are very suspect based on that websites continuing character attacks on at least one popular transmitter and its manufacturer.

And then there's Rich Powers: "I know others have expressed that the SSTran 5000 can outperform even the Rangemaster providing a eleborate antenna system is engineered along with complicated (evidently) tuning proceedure requiring advance equipment and methods."

That is a biased remark and completely contrived... not supported by facts.

Rich Powers, in the comments above you have responded to everything said except one thing.

You have not replied to the several mentions of the continual assault made on PhilB and the SSTran which I myself saw, and it was ugly.

By not acknowledging this important part of the dialogue, your position is weakened and your place in this tale clouded.

If this had been a model train race I would wonder if you were cheering for airplanes.

Contrived??!

I don't feel like searching right now, but later I'll take the time to find the numerous post on this forum on which my comment about the AMT5000 are based.

I personally know next to nothing about the unit, but I do know what I've read right here at Part15.us several times. I certainly did not make it up. It is what others here have said. I can only assume that those past post by others were based on accurate knowledge... it is those comments which I echoed.

If I'm incorrect about it, then I guess I'll eat my words, but I know others here have claimed the 5000 could outperform the Rangemaster, but that the average individual does not posses the equipment needed to properly tune a class E(?) transmitter in order to accomplish it.

As for comment on the need to build an elaborate antenna system for the AMT5000 for increased range - is based on the AMT3000 needs.. It was just my assumption that the AMT5000 would require such an antenna as well. Does it not?

I didn't contrive nothing.

Perhaps I'm just missinformed

You have not replied to the several mentions of the continual assault made on PhilB and the SSTran which I myself saw, and it was ugly.

By not acknowledging this important part of the dialogue, your position is weakened and your place in this tale clouded.

Carl, I recall seeing several post complaining about Phil over the last few years, mostly that he was poor to respond when trying to contact him. Other than that, I really don't recall any out and out attacks against him.

I would hate to beleive that the test were somehow rigged just because Bill don't like Phil and wouldn't loan him a transmitter to test.. The request to Rangemaster, Ramsey, and SStran all were declined and/or went unanswered.

I'm not sure what your asking me to acknowledge.

This isn't a trial and no one is on the stand, nor is anyone accused of anything.

Frankly, since you brought the other website's business over to this website, I was talking about my several casual visits over there and seeing an ongoing string of untrue and undeserved stings toward Phil seemingly because of one issue:

The issue was Phil's choice of not participating in the so-called "challenge," as if small transmitters could have their own olympics.

In normal society if a man is given a choice, and takes one of those choices, in this case saying "no," the polite response would be "thanks anyway." Instead there were frequent ad hominems like "he probably knows the SSTRan would not show well in a real competition," and worse, "he's involved in illegal activity on the side." I won't distinquish that accusation by repeating it here.

In fact, ironically, it is my opinion that Phil could not legally have participated in the challenge because he'd have had to supply a pre-built transmitter, which would indeed have crossed the line with the federal rules. If a kit had been "donated" then we would have questions as to whether the kit was assembeled correctly by the challenge team and the "competition" would have been unequally weighted.

As to performance reports on the AMT5000, my reports found that it works astonishingly well, but I don't have a Rangemaster for comparison. Somebody send me one and I'll do the test.

In fact, NO ONE has every posted a comparison between the two transmitters on this website and the opportunity remains open.

I was able to tune mine without any special test equipment and have only a 2-wire ground radial.

Anyway, nobody can afford those certified transmitters. The FCC requirement for certification is not needed since 15.219 specifies operating conditions that can be controlled by the ordinary user. The pre-built transmitter makers would sell a lot more units if they were relieved of the costly certification obligation, then we'd have a fair and reasonable playing field.

Soon as I saw this was published I thought "let the bashing begin".  As a broadcast engineer of 30+ years and the owner of a Procaster let me make a few observations:

First of all, the FIM-41 is one of the standards of the industry, although so are units from Nems-Clarke, RCA and others.  In fact Potomac calibrated the RCA and Nems-Clarke units for years.  Potomac BOUGHT Nems Clark and sold those units under their name for years. the FIM-41 has some capabilities the Nems-Clarke units do not, but for field strength work they're equals.I've used a Nems Clarke FIM for 30 years, including at 4 inspections while accompanied by an FCC inspector to demonstrate compliance of directional commercial AM stations.  Calibration is no longer required on a time basis by the FCC, but you have to be able to demonstrate your device is accurate should it's accuracy be brought into question.  My vintage Nems Clarke was right on the money compared to an inspectors FIM-4100 a year ago.  As it applies to this test calibration is moot anyway.  As long as the same machine was used in the same way at each test, the relative readings would be valid as far as ranking field strength.  A unit way out of calibration would not work for an FCC specification/compliance test as you actually need the numbers.  In this test, you don't.  It's a relative comparison. 

I noted the Procaster shown in the photos of the Challenge looks nothing like my Procaster, making me wonder if it's the current model. Mine has a different case and has a built in, somewhat obviously located actual meter inside that you use to facilitate maximum output. You tune for maximum meter reading  I do not see that built in meter in the Procaster used in the test.  I don't know anything about the other transmitters, so I can't comment on that. But the procaster does not look like the one I bought in July of last year and does not look like the ones they have on their website today.

Testing and comparing field strength is all well and good, but FS is a small part of the story.  That would be like testing 5 different automobiles for horsepower output and choosing the one with the most as the best or fastest. 50 more horsepower doesn't help if the car weighs 1200 pounds more, or that power isn't getting to the wheels. Choosing a transmitter based on this test alone would be foolish.  What the transmitter can do with that signal is a key factor.  The ability to modulate well is a HUGE factor in range.  I did plenty of these experiments when I first installed my Procaster.  With no actual indicator of modulation, I set my audio level based on sound quality over the air.  Being me, I'm rather conservative and went to the edge of distortion and backed down a bit. By testing -- both by observing audio quality driving around in the car, and by testing with my Nems Clarke FIM, it was extremely clear that lower than peak modulation made a HUGE difference in range, clarity, and field strength.  I think a more involved test of this nature should include some sort of modulated test.  Granted this would have greatly increased the complexity of the test, but standards for this do exist and using a signal generator and the onboard transmitters audio circuits only, it would be very interesting to see which device could best use that signal wave.  Even if just the same audio feed (music, etc) was used on each device with a modulation monitor used to determine mod levels would have made a huge difference in useable information.  How far can you modulate before distortion?

An example -- at the commercial AM I engineer for we just replaced out 40 year old Harris MW5 5000 watt transmitter with a new Nautel 5000 watt transmitter. Both were delivering the same base current to the tower (7.7 amps) The new transmitter allows modulation to 125% positive with ease, the old one did not.  We have dramatically increased our coverage with increased modulation, and the installation of a new processor increased it even further.  Even with the same field strength, same current to the antenna, it's readily apparent that we can be heard many miles further.  I won't go into all the details but this involved 3 engineers with a combined experience of over 100 years with access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment, and a fleet of employees all of 20+ years experience working for us who knew from where they could hear the signal previously.  Peak modulation and "denser" (for lack of a better word) modulation greatly increased range. 

Further, the way in each different transmitter would interact with the ground can also make a difference.  As well as other little variables, like where a tool box might be sitting near the transmitter, where people might be standing, etc.  In a small scale low power situation like this these things DO matter.  On a larger scale, the site where our AM commercial transmitter is, pine trees grow randomly (this is northern Minnesota after all) and every few years we hire a guy to chop 'em all down at the base near the ground, pile 'em up and burn 'em. That near to the transmitter they actually absorb signal and channel it to ground before it ever gets out of the site boundaries.  It makes a difference, confirmed with field strength tests at our designated directional monitoring points.  Hence, on a small scale little things in the near field can make a difference. 

But I maintain a well modulated signal with a lower field strength can have greater range than a less modulated signal with a better field strength.  In a test situation like this modulation with onboard electronics only and the same audio input would be critical information.

I'm a relatively new member over at the other website and there is indeed a vast amount of useful information over there.  However I have already observed quite the "what I say is gospel and what you say is wrong even if you have evidence to the contrary" attitude, and I won't go into specifics beyond that. 

So, that's my initial reaction anyway.

Tim in Bovey

If someone happens to have a brand new, current model Rangemaster sitting around, I'd be glad to do a test vs my Procaster.  My current install is perfect to be able to simply facilitate switching out the Procaster for a Rangemaster.  Same setting, same ground, workingat the same height, sending the same audio. I can grab a modulation monitor and set the modulation the same for each, and use my Nems-Clark field strength meter for real in the field readings.  My installation would probably never be the same as yours, both for a direct compareson it woujld be valid. Naturally I'd return the unit as received.  When selecting my transmitter last summer I was down to chosing between Rangemaster and Procaster, so I'd be curious to see how they compare in my situation.  I'd do the test myself, but I just don't have $800 to drop on an experiment.  I could even use a scope and check for distorted audio at various mod levels, etc. Of course just comparing the two I can be more indepth than the challenge, but it would be under my installation, so it would be relative, but it would still be accurate data. I have the equipment and ability, just not the unit. 

Tim in Bovey

I've been a 2-way radio bench tech for 20 yrs. and I've seen many of the exact same models of radios across my bench. None of them are exactly the same. Some with more power out, some with a better RX sensitivity. Every one is a little different. Not by much but.. We ain't talking much, according to their numbers..

If they would have had 10 of the same models and made a general consencess of each model and then compared the numbers, then I would respect the showdown. The differences they show could be the difference between two of the same models out of the box..

Just my opinion..

I think the Transmitter Shoot Out was to do what is doing right now.

Causing issues for the people of Part 15 , Getting people upset with the false tests and then having the two sides going at each other .. That is what people who want to destroy other people do .. Divide and you know the deal.