Well, I wouldn't call it "user vicious!" Actually, I forwarded this idea
to Scott a while back and he seemed receptive to it. As Pete mentioned,
if the menu setting is set for tracking, then A>B and dial up - not too
bad. Of course, one must play with the audio setting to get the ears
right, but I currently have RX A to both ears, and RX B to right ear -
that way I can pick up the DX station more easily (I definitely want the
DX stn on Rx A because that's the guy I *have* to hear. The pileup is
more easily managed in the lesser RX. Anyway, I think a solution along
these lines provides what we DXers need for quick QSK offsets. I can't
tell you how many times I have bagged a DX station when he first
announces an offset and with my Omni I could get there very quickly while
others were figuring out how to copy VFO's, dial in offset, hit the
"Split" button, etc.
I've also found Gary to be fairly receptive to thoughtful input to
'ditsnbits.'
For what it's worth....
73, Duane
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:33:34 -0500 "Phil Howlett" <w9xx@earthlink.net>
writes:
> We certainly do need something along these lines as the way the radio
> is now
> it is user vicious. Apparently no one at T-T is a serious DXer who
> has ever
> had the occasion to actually work DX with the various methods of DX
> operating. As far as I'm concerned, T-T has really missed the boat
> with
> their present user interface scheme. It would be so easy to correct
> if some
> minds could be changed. I've mentioned my feelings on this subject
> to Scott,
> Jack, and others and all I get is a response very similar to the one
> others
> received when the CW MOX issue ran rampant several months ago. It
> would
> appear an act of God will be necessary to have anything done about
> the user
> vicious split issue with this radio. Thank goodness I don't need any
> DX
> entity on SSB or CW or this radio would be on the floor and the
> Paragon put
> back on line. That radio was a pleasure to use in pileups, far
> superior to
> the Omni 6+ I had for several years and an order of magnitude
> superior to
> the Orion.
>
> Duane, thanks for your earlier post. Now I feel better even though
> we both
> have a better chance of flying to the moon than seeing this split
> issue
> corrected.
>
> 73,
> Phil, W9XX
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Duane A Calvin" <ac5aa@juno.com>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] An example of changing Orion firmware to
> meetexpectations of the operator.
>
>
> > I appreciate the design point of having two receivers, not two
> VFO's, and
> > the potential flexibility that this provides us as users. This
> does
> > bring up the difficulty of how to manage the added complexity.
> For
> > example, as a DX'er, the thing I need in a rig to have an edge
> when the
> > DX suddenly says "up 5" is the ability to be there and be the
> first guy
> > he works there. With my Omni VI+, that meant punching in XIT and
> dialing
> > up 5 - very easy and fast. With the Orion, however, if I want to
> make
> > use of the 2nd RX for listening to the pile, it's more of a
> problem. I
> > punch A>B, then I have to remember to set TX to B, then I dial up
> 5 on
> > the B VFO/receiver. Hopefully the mode, PBT and BW follow since
> I'll
> > also be listening on B to see where I am in the pileup (after all,
> it had
> > been set to a shortware AM broadcast station).
> >
> > I'd like to see a "quick split" function that is definable by the
> user to
> > do multiple things (perhaps activated by a 'long push' on the A>B
> > button). It might do the following:
> >
> > - Copy A settings to B (user selectable as to which
> additional
> > settings besides freq/mode)
> > - Set TX to B
> > - Optionally reset the headphone audio to a user defined
> > preference
> >
> > There could be a complementary function that works the other way
> -
> > copying from B>A on a long push and doing all the same functions
> but in
> > the other order (TX to A, etc.)
> >
> > What's important is how it will be used, and how to implement in a
> way
> > that brings an advantage to the user.
> >
> > 73, Duane
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:19:49 -0500 "Grant Youngman"
> <nq5t@comcast.net>
> > writes:
> > > > -- VFO's are not receivers --
> > >
> > I suspect that not everyone buys into the traditionalist
> > > view of
> > > what switching VFOs ... uh .. receivers ... uh .. VFOs? what?
> I'm
> > >
> > > confused just thinking about it. :-)
> > >
> > > (It was good the way it was)
> > >
> > > Grant/NQ5T
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Duane Calvin, AC5AA
> > Austin, Texas
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
--------------------------------------
Duane Calvin, AC5AA
Austin, Texas
http://home.austin.rr.com/ac5aa
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|