[TenTec] Re: Orion Expanded Report

[Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>]

> Bill Tippett 
<<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec>btippett at 
alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> BTW, I went back and looked carefully at the FT-1000MP,
> but I honestly cannot tell if the measurements were at
> 1 or 5 kHz.

KC1SX wrote:
>The innermost points of the swept graphs has been 1 kHz
as long as I have been doing the testing (since May 1997).
A couple of the very earliest tests used slightly
different frequencies - the innermost points on the `MP
were somewhat oddball - the BDR was about (but not
exactly) 500 Hz spacing and the IMD was 2 kHz spacing.
This is not the case for the Mark V or Field, both of
which I tested.
>
>Contrary to a couple of posts, the points shown are
*never* inside the passband of the filters - just inside
the skirts.

        Thanks for the clarification Mike...maybe senility hasn't set in
here after all...YET!  ;-)  I believe this means the data I posted
previously is correct, with the exception of the MP data which I noted
below).  Please check a few data points (e.g. the K2) and correct me
if I made mistakes (quite likely!)

"Contest grade" radios only listed in order of 1 kHz IMDDR3 results:

Radio           IMDDR3  BDR (interfering signals at 1 kHz)

TT Orion                84 dB           119 dB
FT-1000MP               78              108   (IMD @ 2 kHz, BDR @ ~500 Hz)
IC-756PRO               75              104
IC-775DSP               73              103
TT Omni VI+     71              85
IC-746PRO               70              92
IC-746          70              88
IC-756PRO2              69              92
FT-1000MkV              69              100
Elecraft K2     66              115
TS-870          63              87
FT-1000Field    60              88
JRC NRD-535     50              86
IC-756          50              85

http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/tentec/2003-December/040048.html

        You may have also noticed the 77/73 IP2 numbers initially posted 
in the ETR were
incorrect.  Apparently these were transposed with some FM measurements just 
below
IP2 in the original QST article, but were subsequently corrected to 63/63 
in a revised
post of the ETR which is now consistent with the QST article.

http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/tentec/2003-December/040085.html

        Thanks for all the work you and ARRL put into these Extended 
Product Tests Mike!
I believe they are THE most valuable source of actual performance data on 
new radios if
we all simply take the time to read them and understand what they mean.

                                        73,  Bill  W4ZV
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec