Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Contest\s+Rig\s*$/: 41 ]

Total 41 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "W4ZW" <w4zw@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:19:42 -0400
Yes. Had both and there was no contest. The FT-1000MP was clearly superior, especially on CW which is my preferred mode. I did like the band scope feature, but that's about the only advantage in my
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00021.html (8,997 bytes)

22. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "David Hachadorian" <k6ll@adelphia.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 03:42:12 -0000
With roofing filters, 250Hz filters, DSP, etc. I think it is possible to totally lose situational awareness of the band. What you, in your expensive high-tech bubble, think is a clear run frequency,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00024.html (8,888 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 20:51:05 -0700
I wouldn't call it crucial, but it can come in handy. When I was running WPX CW over the weekend, I found that running cascaded 250's in my Omni 6+ was at times over constrained (easy to miss callers
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00025.html (9,508 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: k3bu@optonline.net
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 23:51:38 -0400
Especially on the Memorial Day (WPX) weekend! :-( I have been trying to be "patriotic" and forgiving and patient and eager to keep upgrading this software upgradeable contest wunder. Much of the comi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00026.html (13,226 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: PaulKB8N@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:25:50 EDT
If you are a CW contester only, I think the Omni VI is still a very viable contest radio. I've used just about every type of contest radio (albeit short-term) but I can't find anything that provides
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00036.html (8,285 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:18:21 -0700
That thought crossed my mind more than once during the WPX CW contest. The problem is that everyone seems to have tight filters, so keeping a run frequency clear enough for picking out weak ones with
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00041.html (9,999 bytes)

27. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: k3bu@optonline.net
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:20:33 -0400
With INRAD roofing filter and IF filters mod, I would put it right there with workhorses FT1000D and IC781. Another beauty is that you can have three or four filters cascaded. I also find AN or DSP o
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00043.html (10,188 bytes)

28. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "PA5MW" <pa5mw@amsat.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 17:11:13 +0200
American patriotism - buy Orion :-) 73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU Hello Mario, You don't need that american patriotism. You need to lighten up and try one ! I looked beyond its ugly looks and screaming sup
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00047.html (9,252 bytes)

29. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "Keith Dutson" <kdutson@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 14:33:09 -0500
The new Yaesu 9000 has a nifty feature called ACM (Adjacent Channel Monitor) for situations such as this. Below are a couple of excerpts from the manual: -- While operating on CW on the Main (VFO-A)
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00049.html (11,216 bytes)

30. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:49:57 -0400
73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU Also keep an eye on Flex-Radio. The new SDR-X promises some very innovative solutions to QRM, (such as totally eliminating an offending station including in-band splatter). Th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00051.html (8,633 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>
Date: 03 Jun 2006 08:20:31 -0500
Good point; I don't think current DSP firmware (in any radio) comes anywhere near reaching DSP's potential. I just bought a HD radio. (USA version of DAB - editorial comments in private email on requ
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00058.html (8,987 bytes)

32. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "Mario" <s56a@bit.si>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:54:44 +0200
W4ZV: Not American patriotism...American innovation. Nobody mentioned innovative Patriot radio "made in USA"!? Others are 1970 technology with "roofing" filters backtracking to 9 and 4 MHz respective
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00074.html (8,745 bytes)

33. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:21:54 -0400
S56A: also reached the hardware limit. Not so. The present limit is determined by the Delta 44 soundcard rather than the QSD, and BTW it's Dan Tayloe N7VE (not Taylor). The HPSDR Janus project is a h
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00081.html (8,781 bytes)

34. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "Mario" <s56a@bit.si>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:34:42 +0200
W4ZV: The 16 bit A/D you mentioned would not even allow the current dynamic range of the Delta 44 (24-bit) Minor difference being whole 60 MHz input range instead of 96 kHz VFO DC translation! 73 de
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00090.html (8,024 bytes)

35. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:47:30 -0400
W4ZV: The 16 bit A/D you mentioned would not even allow the current dynamic range of the Delta 44 (24-bit) S56A: Minor difference being whole 60 MHz input range instead of 96 kHz VFO DC translation!
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00093.html (8,506 bytes)

36. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "Mario" <s56a@bit.si>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:43:44 +0200
W4ZV: Close-spaced strong signal performance, phase noise, etc. in a single RX version should be better than we can imagine today. That good "single RX" has multiple frequency conversions inside! Eve
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00101.html (8,603 bytes)

37. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 22:01:25 -0400
I always thought you judged a frequency by the rate that it produced, not by how it sounded. One year, I showed up at a local club Field Day at 11 pm. They put me on 40m SSB, which wasn't apparently
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00107.html (10,125 bytes)

38. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "Scott Johns" <foxrun@velocity.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 23:22:25 -0400
It's great that we have these megabuck radios to play with. In the big picture, though, it would be better to have an Elecraft K2 plus 12k of antennas than a 13k radio and a dipole in the tree. Or 24
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00108.html (9,645 bytes)

39. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:33:34 -0700
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I think there is a lot of difference between S9 noise and very few signals, and 3 signals crammed into a 600 cycle portion of the spectrum I don't see w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00109.html (10,074 bytes)

40. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 06:59:59 -0400
Along these same lines, it's better to have 2 radios that cost $5000 than one radio that costs $10000. You can't make QSOs if your only radio breaks. 73 - Jim AD1C -- Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont C
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00112.html (10,093 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]
This search system is powered by Namazu