cheesh. I don't have time to read all of this rant right now. I'm at
work. Maybe later
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ten-Tec Inc. Amateur Radio Sales" <sales@tentec.com>
To: tentec@contesting.com
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:06:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Re Please tell me about the TT Omni VI+
>
>
> At 07:51 PM 9/29/04 -0400, you wrote:
> >Rob:
> >I think your comments about the Omni VI are helpful, objective and
> fair.
> >That is why they don't go over well with Scott. Factory reps will
> seldom
> >admit the shortcomings of their products. They will almost always
> blame
> >the user, not the product and they will never admit that a competitor
> has
> >a better product.
>
> Steve - where in any of my comments did blame the user for problems or
> issues that
> they are having with the Omni-VI and RF? We were discussing RF in the
> audio for the
> Omni-VI. The original poster said that this could be a problem
> depending
> on the
> installation and could be corrected by the user at their installation.
> I
> didn't point that out;
> it was pointed out by K5UJ in a 2003 message and I stated that I
> agreed. This
> also is not commonly something we see with the Omni-VI. Do a Google
> search
> with
> "Omni VI" and various combinations of words like "RF feedback"
> "grounding"
> "RF in
> audio" etc. and see how much data was posted to the Internet over the
> past
> several
> years. I can save you the trouble by telling you the answer is very
> little. I also pointed
> out that this is NOT commonly an issue we see with the Omni-VI.
>
> Ten-Tec is an engineering-driven company. We like facts, and
> numbers. When our numbers are significantly better
> for receiver performance than other transceivers are - then we have
> accomplished our primary goal. Anyone is
> free to disagree with us on design philosophy, screen color, the
> company
> itself, etc. The discussion about the
> Omni-VI started with KC9CDT asking about SSB DXing and the Omni-VI.
> For
> DXing, receiver performance
> is paramount. Our receiver performance in the Omni-VI is better than
> most
> every rig created to date. That's
> a fact, backed up by plenty of independent test data. If someone else
> thinks the usability of the radio isn't as
> good because they don't like the features on the radio - that's
> fine. That's why there are a host of other
> companies out there building amateur radio equipment besides us.
>
>
> >Scott has now stooped to the point of tuning the bands, listening for
> key
> >clicks from Icom rigs and sending email from the company's mail server
> to
> >the "offending" station, being sure to mention the brand and model of
> the
> >Icom rig. I know this because I got one of his emails. I will not
> bother
> >denying that the rig has clicks
>
> Steve - I don't tune the bands listening for anything. I don't have
> enough
> free time to even get on the air and work people, much less tune around
> looking for trashy signals. And when I heard you on 80 CW on Sunday
> night,
> your signal sounded
> bad. I knew your email address so I sent you a private email telling
> you
> that you have a pronounced thump on the leading edge of your signal and
> key
> clicks extending above that. If I recall correctly, your QSO with
> W1AAX on
> Sunday consisted of discussing CW keying problems you were having with
> your
> current transceiver and a new amplifier you had purchased. What I
> didn't
> do was get onto a public forum and point that out - you did. And
> you've
> said above that you're aware the rig has key clicks. If you're aware
> of
> it, and I sent you a private email pointing it out - what exactly is
> the
> issue? Shouldn't the response have been a return email saying "I'm
> aware
> of it and I'm figuring out how to solve it"?
>
> >but will point out that if you make too many negative comments about
> "his
> >products" you can expect a response. Do they have a right to respond?
> Of
> >course but most corporations tend to avoid public conflict and I think
> >Scott sometimes goes over the line of good policy.
>
> We are in a much different, much smaller industry where personal
> relationships form the backbone of what we do. You'll note that I do
> not
> get on here and debate the merits and demerits of our equipment on a
> regular basis. I don't get on here and rebut the long discussions
> about
> the Orion firmware - I leave it all aside. There is a long stream of
> critical comments about our equipment along with the good stuff on the
> Ten-Tec reflector - how often do I argue with people about the critical
> commentary? The answer is - not very often at all.
>
> When the conversation turns to facts - I am going to pop up every time
> and
> defend us when factual information is called into doubt. When a
> statement
> is made that the "Omni-VI is prone to RF in the audio" and I know that
> to
> not be the case, it is my duty to say so. You are free to disagree
> with
> me. I work here, I've been here for 9 years and I tend to be very
> aware of
> what are, and what are not, issues with our transceivers and whether or
> not
> they have been discussed in public forums on the 'net. Search the
> Internet
> for relevant discussion on the topic - that's always helpful.
> Discussion
> over not liking features on the radio, the display, anything that tends
> to
> be opinion I am going to let go. When someone comes along and says
> "the
> receiver in X is better than this Ten-Tec, I don't believe the numbers,
> it's not real-world radio use" - that is going to get a response each
> time.
>
>
> >As for the INRAD kit I mentioned. My intent was to simply use the fact
> >that INRAD makes a kit to correct the problem to substantiate that
> there
> >is indeed a problem.
>
> If that was your intention, it would have better to simply state that.
> The
> Inrad kit for the Omni-VI makes the overall SSB audio response of the
> radio
> a little bit more uniform. We feel that the receiver audio in the
> Omni-VI
> was adequate and we never changed it. Inrad felt they could do
> something
> low cost to slightly improve the radio. There is a difference between
> doing a modification to slightly improve something and a service issue
> for
> poor audio quality inherent to the radio.
>
>
> >And as for RFI shielding. I've had almost every rig TenTec ever made
> and
> >they often fall short in this area. It's almost like the engineers
> invited
> >RFI problems by putting plastic washers under the top and bottom cover
> >screws and as you mentioned, little if any bypassing. I remember some
> mods
> >for the Omni V that involved redressing wires to prevent audio
> transients
> >when keying and power supplies that couldn't be placed on one side of
> the
> >rig due to magnetic coupling. These things we just put up with or
> modify
> >them ourselves since we like other things about the rig so much that
> we
> >just overlook the faults.
> >So Rob, we may get some flames because of our apparent lack of
> company
> >loyalty but truth must prevail.
> >
> >
> >Steve N4LQ
>
> As I said - everyone is entitled to their opinion. And I completely
> disagree with you.
>
> Scott Robbins
> W4PA
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Ten-Tec, Inc., 1185 Dolly Parton Pkwy, Sevierville, TN 37862 USA
> Contact Mon-Fri Eastern: Office/Tech (865) 453-7172 9 am-5 pm.
> Repair (865) 428-0364 8-4. Sales (800) 833-7373 9 am-5:30 pm.
> Fax (865) 428-4483 24 hrs. Visit us at <http://www.tentec.com>
> Email: New product sales/product info sales@tentec.com
> Service department
> service@tentec.com
> While we make every effort to answer email in an expedient manner,
> the telephone is a much more efficient tool for getting a quicker
> and
> more complete answer to your inquiries. Thanks!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|