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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Paragon\s+vs\s+Paragon\s+II\s+\-\s+PLL\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Paragon vs Paragon II - PLL (score: 1): Author: k7mks@comcast.net; Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:12:48 +0000 (UTC); Did Ten Tec make any performance improvements (ie soldered board conections, etc) in the later #586 PLL over the earlier #585 PLL's ? Thank you. joe k7mks ____________________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2016-01/msg00370.html (7,350 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] Paragon vs Paragon II - PLL (score: 1): Author: steve jobes via TenTec <tentec@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:17:18 -0500; I have not had any problems with my paragon 2, and can't recall hearing of any issues with them. 73, Steve W1DXH --Original Message-- From: k7mks <k7mks@comcast.net> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipme; /archives//html/TenTec/2016-01/msg00371.html (7,903 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] Paragon vs Paragon II - PLL (score: 1): Author: Gary J FollettDukes HiFi <dukeshifi@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:29:05 -0600; I cant speak insider facts here but I have had many Paragon 2 radios and none of them had PLL issues. Gary _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com ht; /archives//html/TenTec/2016-01/msg00375.html (8,760 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] Paragon vs Paragon II - PLL (score: 1): Author: k7mks@comcast.net; Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:45:09 +0000 (UTC); Thanks Gary Joe -- Original Message -- I cant speak insider facts here but I have had many Paragon 2 radios and none of them had PLL issues. Gary _______________________________________________ TenTe; /archives//html/TenTec/2016-01/msg00376.html (9,473 bytes)
5. [TenTec] Paragon vs Paragon II - PLL (score: 1): Author: Fred <n8yx@neo.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:17:00 -0500; I have two Paragon-IIs in my HF lineup. Each are used continuously (they're the only rigs featuring general-coverage HF receivers inline at the moment) and apart from having to replace the RTC chips; /archives//html/TenTec/2016-01/msg00378.html (7,218 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] Paragon vs Paragon II - PLL (score: 1): Author: Bwana Bob <wb2vuf@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:43:56 -0500; I believe that they redesigned the PLLs for the Paragon II. The main issue with the PLL boards in the original Paragon was poor tinning of the component leads and the PWB. 73, Bob WB2VUF Gary I have; /archives//html/TenTec/2016-01/msg00384.html (9,778 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] Paragon vs Paragon II - PLL (score: 1): Author: Gary J FollettDukes HiFi <dukeshifi@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:53:02 -0600; AND they nipped the through hole leads on the parts too short Gary W0DVN _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/; /archives//html/TenTec/2016-01/msg00385.html (10,784 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] Paragon vs Paragon II - PLL (score: 1): Author: k7mks@comcast.net; Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:48:22 +0000 (UTC); Thank you Bob joe k7mks -- Original Message -- AND they nipped the through hole leads on the parts too short Gary W0DVN _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@cont; /archives//html/TenTec/2016-01/msg00388.html (11,461 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]