I use an external DSP 9+ to do the job. I find that I can completely switch
the DSP hardware out of the audio chain using this system. Thus not having
to listen to the signal which passes through the DSP chain although DSP NR
or AUTO NOTCH not active. That I have found to be the source of the DSP
artifacts that I reference on the Omni VI Plus. For whatever reason the DSP
9+ does not create the same coloration to the audio that the Omni VI Plus
DSP adds.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denton" <denton@oregontrail.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] TenTec CW filters or Inrad?
>I concur...have both Paragon II and Omni 6 plus, Option 3. both rigs maxed
> out on TT filters.
> Paragon sounds a bit better on ssb plus gen coverage reciever...I use mine
> to keep track of the ssb nets 40, 80 and 160 plus some am stuff.
> But the Omni is my sweetie....use it on psk and other digitial modes. Sure
> is nice to be able to crank up the vfo dial and park a psk sig on 2000 hrz
> on the MixW waterfall...then click in the N2 filter and use the passband
> to
> exclude just about anything else! Now if only TT made a low insertion loss
> 50 hrz psk filter.......
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.Net>
> To: <roncasa@verizon.net>; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"
> <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 4:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] TenTec CW filters or Inrad?
>
>
>> Regarding the Paragon vs. the Omni 6 let me be a bit more specific as I
>> have
>> both. Both being a model 586 Paragon II and a model 564 Omni VI Plus.
>> If
>> you want a general coverage receiver buy the Paragon II. It will also
>> work
>> 60 meters. If you want a ham band only with built-in DSP, buy the Omni
>> VI
>> Plus.
>>
>> I must admit the Omni VI Plus with filters in the N-1 and N-2 positions
>> as
>> well as all three filters in the 6.3 MHz IF is a better receiver than the
>> Paragon II with the three filters in the 6.3 MHz IF. I personally prefer
>> the Paragon II receive audio which does not have DSP artifacts over the
>> Omni
>> VI Plus with its internal DSP.
>>
>> 73
>> Bob, K4TAX
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ron" <roncasa@verizon.net>
>> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 12:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] TenTec CW filters or Inrad?
>>
>>
>>> hello Keith
>>> I am not up on the technical side about those filters.
>>> I have a suggestion that might help you.
>>> Google search Inrad and I am sure they will display charts and specs to
>>> their filters. You may want to call TT themselves, I'm sure they can
>>> give you their specs as well.
>>> BTW: I'm trying to decide myself between a Paragon or Omni 6
>>> (smile)
>>> Good luck.
>>> Ron wb1hga
>>>
>>> Darwin, Keith wrote:
>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>
>>>> I got no response to the Omni V question so let me try this one thought
>>>> at a time. How good are the TenTec CW filters? Are they good or
>>>> should
>>>> I go with Inrad? TenTec 250 and 500 hz filters are both 6 pole. I
>>>> think Inrad's are 8. Makes me think the Inrad filters would be better
>>>> but ...
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|