Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+ICOM\s+PROII\s+vs\s+6\+\s+experiment\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+ICOM\s+PROII\s+vs\s+6\+\s+experiment\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:03:49 -0400; Here's the results of a little experiment I did. Recently I acquired a digital sound level meter and have conducted some very revealing test. My first experiment was to investigate the effect of cw c; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00523.html (8,508 bytes)
2. [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:23:25 -0400; My experience with a couple of DSP rigs--a 746PRO and a TS-870S--is that the key to hearing a signal in the free and clear (or eliminating nearby signal artifacts) involves very careful manipulation; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00525.html (8,273 bytes)
3. [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "Marijan Miletic, S56A" <s56a@bit.si>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:35:57 +0200; What were AGC setings on tested radios? 73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00526.html (7,102 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:05:15 -0400; Omni 6+ agc set for fast. ProII's agc set for 1.2 decay time. Changing the agc setting on the Pro makes no difference in the click artifacts. _______________________________________________ TenTec ma; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00528.html (8,463 bytes)
5. [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <n1eu@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:30:22 -0700 (PDT); N4LQ reported "Both the Omni 6+ and PROII were set for 250hz bandwidth and equal audio output then tuned off frequency by 500hz." If you tuned 500hz off the fundamental xmit freq, how do you know you; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00529.html (8,222 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:36:46 -0400; It didn't matter. I was comparing receivers and they were set up equally. Same antenna. Same speaker etc. It didn't matter what caused the clicks then. Sure we can blame it on the 930's spurious prod; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00530.html (9,316 bytes)
7. RE: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: <al_lorona@agilent.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:42:49 -0600; Steve, It tells you that the phase noise of the Icom is 6 dB higher. This phase noise causes something called "reciprocal mixing". That's what you're hearing. But nobody cares about phase noise here.; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00531.html (10,603 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:51:50 -0400; Ok but somehow I got the idea that the clicks were actually generated within the DSP stage. When using headphones I can hear what sounds like a bit of AGC overshoot on the PRO. A thumpy sound on cw.; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00532.html (11,122 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "Alfred Lorona" <w6wqc@dslextreme.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:11:51 -0700; Steve: It tells you that, everything being equal, the Omni is superior. AL, w6wqc _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00534.html (8,225 bytes)
10. RE: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "Barry Merrill" <barry@mxg.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:50:19 -0500; Couldn't be that the ICOM is just able to hear better? Loud is good, louder is better? Barry, W5GN _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lis; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00535.html (8,007 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:23:42 -0400; Not actually. First of all....The clicks aren't necessairly really there. The Icom is producing the noise on it's own. Second...The clicks can either distract, confuse or cover up a desired signal. D; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00537.html (9,075 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "Marijan Miletic, S56A" <s56a@bit.si>; Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:31:33 +0200; the Omni tells me something. Question is: What did it tell me? PRO has very fast AGC attack in order to prevent DSP ADC overflow. It also recovers more RX gain between dot pauses and therefore signa; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00557.html (8,796 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "Dave Edwards" <kd2e@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 06:43:19 -0400; Would it be a better test to turn the AGC's off?? ...Dave -- Original Message -- From: "Marijan Miletic, S56A" <s56a@bit.si> To: <tentec@contesting.com> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 6:31 AM Subject:; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00575.html (9,689 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>; Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:30:20 -0400; Possibly but it would be difficult to get the RF gain of both rigs set the same. There are probably many ways of comparing rigs that the ARRL never though of. My point here is to demonstrate that som; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00577.html (10,874 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]