Kenwood TS-480HX - Manual (Page 4)

4
Standalone control panel
For mobile operations, a separate control panel is ideal, but what if the transceiver is also to be
used as a base station? This was the problem we faced. With a large desktop rig, it is no easy
matter to shift things around to find the best position, so perhaps it would be a good idea to have a
separate control panel that could be moved easily. Also, a desktop unit has various kinds of cables
connected to it. What with the heat the main unit produces and the noise of the fan, etc., and
considering that it does not have to be on the desk in front of you, it would surely be better to
separate the control panel and place the main unit elsewhere.
With the appearance of computers in today’s shacks, it is certainly desirable to tidy up the desktop
as much as possible. We felt that we could contribute to this evolutionary process. By opting for a
completely separate panel, we could ensure that it would be large enough to offer sufficient
operating ease, since its dimensions would not be dictated by those of the compact main unit. This
was how we arrived at the idea of a standalone control panel that is slightly larger than the main
unit.
Focus on basic performance
The appeal of HF lies in DX’ing those places near and far. For this reason, we put a priority on
operating ease and basic performance. At this point the project team had already excluded any
idea of incorporating the V/UHF bands. Our approach was this: “Rather than spending
development money on the V/UHF bands, let’s spend money on HF performance.” “If someone
needs the V/UHF bands, then they can buy another product that is tailored for these bands.” This
meant we had confidence that our product would offer more than enough punch to perform well
even on grueling DX’peditions.
The 200W challenge
As explained, our initial starting point was a desire to create a transceiver like no other. But we
would not have succeeded in meeting this objective with just a standalone control panel and an
emphasis on basic performance. We needed something more if we were to make the product truly
special and stand out from the crowd.
The answer was to be found in the realization that DX operations depend on basic performance
and power. Real “power” in a transceiver is something that many people look for. So a radical
proposal was made: “Rather than making the output 100 watts, let’s go all out for 200 watts!” But in
fact the only transceivers on the market with 200W output were the expensive high-end models.
What we were developing was a compact transceiver.
We seemed to have run up against a wall: Did this mean that in terms of size and cost we would
inevitably end up creating a high-end transceiver? After long discussions, we made a
straightforward decision to challenge the status quo: If conventional wisdom dictated that a 200W
output was only available from a high-end transceiver, then we would change that dynamic.
At this point we could not see how this could be possible, but we stuck to our conviction that a
200W transceiver did not have to be expensive. We were determined to provide the customer with
a 200W transceiver at a reasonable price. As a result of our single-mindedness, we were
eventually able to achieve our goal, creating a product of about the same size as the TS-50 and, of
course, it had heavy-duty specs.