tnx fer the bandwidth es 73, john
From looking at the schematic and the radio, it looks like the change
permitted them to simplify the wiring to the filter switches on the front
panel and thus save money in fabrication. For whatever reason they made the
change, it is really too bad because they sorta messed up a good thing.
But the problem is not with the filter, itself. The problem is with where
the AGC sampling is done. If one of you technical gurus can tell me how to
modify my Argosy II so that the AGC sampling is done AFTER the audio filter,
I'd sure appreciate it.
73, Mike N4NT@chartertn.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Crips" <w7itc@hotmail.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 3:48 PM
Subject: [TenTec] Audio filters
> I have the stock audio filter on my Argosy, and in a word it sucks.
> I went to the Embedded research site the link to the 244 filter is
> broken, darn!
> Ken de W7ITC
From instruction sheet:
"The Model AC5 is a low power antenna tuner designed to
match random length wire antennas or antennas with tuned
feeders. The maximum power is 10 watts."
Included is schematic and operating instructions.
$40
Steve, N4EY
From what I can see I think you can break the HARDWARE
lineage?s for the TT DSP IF radios into 5 basic
groups.
1. RX-320, ADSP2101 DSP processor, designed for
aggressive price point.
2. Pegasus/Jupiter ADSP2181 DSP, processor, designed
for aggressive price point.
3. RX-350. ADSP 2181?, processor, designed for
aggressive price point.
4. RX-330/331/340 ADSP2181 ADSP processor, designed
for high performance.
5. 526/516? ADSP2181, designed for aggressive price
point.
I don?t have any schematics other than the one for the
RX-320, so I can?t really speculate too much about the
DSP processors used or the clock speeds. However I
have seen references to the specific DSP processor
used for most of the models listed above, the ones
with ??? are not for sure/educated guesses.
As for the SOFTWARE/FIRMWARE lineage, it gets a bit
murkier, though I think it can be broken down into
about 3 different groups.
1. RX-320, Pegasus/Jupiter, RX-350. I would estimate
that on a DSP code level they are within 70-80% of
each other.
2. RX-330/331/340 again 70-80% commonality.
3. 526/516 the same 70-80% between the two.
Now for even more fun consider what the DSP IF code
difference is likely to be between any two radios in
the above two sets of groupings. I would estimate that
there is not more than 50% difference between any of
them in terms of core DSP code. Once again these
estimates are only for the signal processing parts of
the designs not for any front panel control
software/firmware that there may be.
N9DG
--- Jim FitzSimons <cherry@getnet.net> wrote:
> Rick, the RX-350 is a better receiver than the
> RX-320.
> I have the RX-320 and the Pegasus. I also have the
> schematics
> for the RX-320, the Pegasus, and RX-330. The RX-340
> is also
> similar, but it is a much better receiver than the
> Pegasus.
> Jim W7ANF
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Williams" <ve7asr@telus.net>
> To: "TenTec List" <TenTec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 16:46 PM
> Subject: [TenTec] RX-350??
>
>
> > There was a discussion on the TenTec users net
> today concerning the RX-350
> > vs the Jupiter.
> >
> > The consensus was that the RX-350 receiver is the
> same as the Jupiter
> > receiver. It's my understanding that the Jupiter
> is a Pegasus in a box
> > without the need for computer and with a power
> supply. Finally, isn't the
> > Pegasus receiver an really an RX-320 receiver?
> >
> > So if my logic is correct (and I've been wrong
> before -- just ask Jay)
> then
> > isn't the RX-350 receiver an RX-320 receiver in a
> box without the need for
> a
> > computer and with a built in power supply?
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Rick
> > VE7ASR
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
From QST, Oct. 1995, page 145.
Full page TenTec ad for the Scout.
"The SCOUT is the smallest HF rig in the industry (excluding QRP) measuring
only 2.5" X 7.25" X 9.75....."
"If the SCOUT won't fit in your car, nothing will"
From same QST page 16. Full page ad for IC-706.
"Super compact at 6 9/16(w) X 2 1/4 (h) X 7 7/8 (d).
It was nice for both companies to publish the measurements.
Steve Ellington
N4LQ
----- Original Message -----
From: "W2AGN" <w2agn@pobox.com>
To: <tentec@mailman.qth.net>; <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: [TenTec] Fwd:Response from Kenwood
> Thought you might be interested....
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Subject: FW: Literature Request from John Sielke
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:28:21 -0700
> From: Paul Middleton <PaulEM@kenwoodusa.com>
> To: w2agn@pobox.com
>
>
> Dear John,
>
> guess we goofed.....since we don't work with dealers about TenTec too
much,
> we don't always think about them like we should. We appreciate your
heads-up
> and professional manner of contacting us.
> 73's
>
>
>
>
> To The Kenwood Amateur Radio Division:
> The following request for literature was generated from John Sielke:
>
> Name: John Sielke
> Email: w2agn@pobox.com
>
> SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR AMATEUR RADIO LITERATURE:
> I simply wonder how you can make a statement, as in your
> advertisement for the TS-2000 in February QSIT, that it is the "first" HF
> radio to use Flash ROM, so you can download upgrades. Ten Tec Radio has
had
> this with their Pegasus and Jupiter HF radios for some time, well before
the
> TS-2000 is introduced.
> Don't get me wrong, I like Kenwood products. I disapprove, however, of
false
> advertising.
>
>
> -- Kenwood Communications Corporation
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> --------------------------
> John L Sielke W2AGN
> w2agn@pobox.com
> http://www.qsl.net/w2agn
> Trustee: W3IYQ
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
From the "what ever it's worth dept." I've always had a fondness for the
sound of 6"x9" oval speakers. In single or small arrays, they just seem to
have a nice warm sound and typically perform better than a round speaker.
Of course round speakers are easier to build, much easier to keep the voice
coil from rubbing the pole piece and are more efficient in terms of audio
power to acoustic power. Something about the law of physics as I recall.
73 to all
Bob K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ten-Tec Inc Amateur Radio Sales" <sales@tentec.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec External Speaker
> Hi Folks:
>
> Relevant to the discussion on external speakers - we're working now
> on a line of quality external speakers for use with our amateur radio
> equipment and communications receivers. I don't have pictures,
> descriptions, or specs, but these should be out and available shortly
> likely in at least a couple of different colors to match our various HF
> equipment. Stay tuned. They'll be available this spring.
>
> Scott Robbins, W4PA
> Amateur Radio Product Manager
>
>
>
> At 10:03 PM 1/20/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dave/wa6ccqj wrote----
> >
> >I would like to know if any has found a really good sounding external
> >speaker for the Ten Tec Jupiter.
> >
> >Dave when I had my Jupiter I used an old Heathkit SB-600 speaker. It
gave
> >great audio, I now use it on my Omni VI Plus. The Drake MS 4 has been
> >reported to have good audio with Ten-Tec rigs however I have not tried
it.
> >
> >I traded the Jupiter for a Pegasus and use the LINE OUT to the computer
> >sound card with great results. I think the Jupiter has the LINE OUT on
it
> >and you may want to try the computer sound card. So far that gives me
the
> >best audio.
> >
> >On my Omni C I use the MFJ 281 CLEAR TONE Speaker with good results
however
> >if I could find a good Heathkit SB-600 Speaker I would put it on the old
> >Omni C.
> >
> >Good luck on this, it is the only complaint I have with Ten-Tec
> >transceivers.
> >
> >Ken/w8keb
> >Flushing, Ohio
> >w8keb@arrl.net
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >TenTec mailing list
> >TenTec@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
> --->--->---> Please note: E-mail <sales@tentec.com> for sales
> and general product info only. We presently do not offer
> repair, parts, or kit building tech support by electronic mail,
> please telephone (865) 428-0364 or (865) 453-7172.
>
> Ten-Tec manufactures amateur radio equipment, military and com-
> mercial use HF radio equipment, custom aluminum and steel
> enclosures and has an on-premises, fully equipped tool and die
> facility supplying metal and plastic injection mold industries.
> Potential tool and die, custom enclosure or communications
> electronics customer? Contact us with your needs.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
From Mark Weiss:
They're both correct, but in different contexts.
K4TAX (he must really be popular around 4/15) is correct from a
communications standpoint. His discussion of filtering noise when listening
to communication radio has merit because such systems deal with non-hi-fi
audio. The point is to represent the range of frequencies containing the
most intelligence (ie., the range in which we best discern phoenems and
consonant sounds); there is no need to amplify hiss and static and hum and
thumps.
OTOH, in a different context, KB1LG makes a point that is valid with hi-fi
speakers built in the 1950s and '60s--that efficiency was mutually exclusive
to quality. In the early days of speaker design, little was known about the
interaction between magnet flux density and frequency response. There is an
optimum match between flux density and moving mass of the diaphragm. Too
much flux results in excessive electrical Q; the result is a peaky midrange.
Newer designs strike a better balance between these parameters to achieve
high efficiencies while retaining smoother response. Innovative magnet/pole
piece gap designs, intended to increase the depth of the magnetic field
across a greater in/out range along the gap have resulted in vast
improvements in quality, while increasing efficiency and reducing
compression losses due to the voice coil moving outside of the optimum
magnetic field.
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
See our Philippine Photo Album at:
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/iceland/618/
Hobbies page: http://basspig.tripod.com/
Business sites at:
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
From my own experience, I know that I can copy harder keyed waveforms in MDS
conditions at relatively high CW speed, than softer waveforms. Clearly, my
own error-free reception is a function of 1) CW transmission speed and 2)
the keyed waveform shaping. I do not believe you can have this discussion
without addressing these two factors together. For example, if the
transmission speed is ~ 5 WPM (traditional, non Farnsworth), I would expect
that little difference would be detected in the copyability between hard and
soft keyed waveforms.
Another interesting source is found in my 1998 ARRL Handbook on page 15.7:
"It so happens that we always need to hear one or more harmonics of the
fundamental keying waveform for the code to sound sufficiently crisp. If
the transmitted signal will be subjected to propagation fading - a safe
asumption for any long-distance radio communication - we harden our keying
by making the transmitter's output rise and fall more quickly. This puts
more energy into more keying sidebands and makes the signal more copiable in
the presence of fading - in particular, selective fading, which linearly
distorts a modulated signal's complex waveform and randomly changes the
sidebands' strenght and phase relative to the carrier of each other. The
appropriate keying hardness also depends on the keying speed (W9AC: there it
is...). The faster the keying in WPM, the faster the on and off times - the
harder the keying must be for the signal to remain ear-readable through
noise and fading...A transmitter's CW waveshaping is therefore usually
hardwired to values appropriate for reasonabley high-speed sending (35 to 55
WPM or so) in the presence of fading. As a result, we generally cannot vary
keying hardness at will as we might vary a voice transmitter's modulation
with a front panel control (W9AC: two notable exceptions include Kachina and
Kenwood's menu-selectable DSP-based CW waveform generator). Rise and fall
times of 1ms to 5ms (5ms rise and fall times equate to a keying speed of
36WPM in the presence of fading and 60WPM if fading is absent) are common."
Arguably, perhaps the best solution allows: 1) variable control of the keyed
rise/fall time from a front panel control, or 2) a circuit in which the
speed of the waveshape changes as a function of keying speed. In order to
accomodate hand keys and external keyers, the keying input would require
analyzing...which may result in additional delay from the time of the keying
until RF is generated. In contest conditions, the front panel control can
be set to "soft" and for other band conditions, depending on propagation and
crowded condition, the control could be set between the hard and soft
extremes.
73,
-Paul, W9AC
From ARRL news:
"QCWA honors K4FW: The Quarter Century Wireless Association has honored Al
Kahn, K4FW, of Cassopolis, Michigan, on his 80th anniversary as an Amateur
Radio licensee. Kahn, who turns 96 in July, was president of Electro-Voice
and, after retirement, went on to co-found Ten-Tec. He's also a member of
the ARRL, the First-Class CW Operators Club and the A-1 Operator Club. The
Quarter Century Wireless Association was organized to promote friendship and
cooperation among Amateur Radio operators licensed at least 25 years ago.
QCWA boasts nearly 200 active chapters and more than 10,000 active members
from Australia to Zimbabwe.--submitted by Dan Caesar, NI9Y "
de Larry Kozal K8PUJ
From Scott's 25 January post:
"Main receiver is amateur radio bands only, utilizing
both analog and IF-DSP stages, 10-160 meters. Sub
receiver is IF-DSP, general coverage."
Nothing in those two sentences implies that the main
RX will not be DSP based, in fact plainly says it will
have DSP. I interpreted his comment to reflect that
there will be a mix of analog elements and DSP in the
IF chain. Much the same as Ten Tec's DSP radios to
date already are. This makes good sense because 130+
dB dynamic range A/D devices are rather rare or at
least very expensive. I?m sure that much of the
top-notch performance will come from choosing more
capable analog devices in the RF/IF chain before the
signal gets digitized.
What I did get out of Scott's posting was that they
will likely have relatively narrow band pass filtering
for the ham band frequency ranges. Relay switched?
Perhaps combined with this will be a synthesizer
design that is similarly narrow (tuning range), again
a methodology that was already used in the Omni V and
up series. But I also doubt if it will be a crystal
mixed scheme like the later Omni's for cost reasons.
There are several really low phase noise synthesizer
chips out there already that rival crystals.
Did you realize that the K2 and Pegasus/Jupiter share
the same Motorola synthesizer chip? One has exemplary
phase noise specs and the other is mediocre by today?s
standards. The low phase noise K2 doesn't use a VHF up
conversion scheme whereas the Pegasus/Jupiter does.
The main reason up conversion became so appealing to
designers was to provide for continuous no gap HF
coverage. The main Orion RX will not do that, hmmmm.
Bottom line is that current crop of DSP IF radios
aren't being limited so much by the DSP design issues
themselves. They are instead mostly limited by other
architectural design issues that would/do impact
analog only designs equally.
73,
Duane
N9DG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
From Scott's 25 January post:
"Main receiver is amateur radio bands only, utilizing
both analog and IF-DSP stages, 10-160 meters. Sub
receiver is IF-DSP, general coverage."
Nothing in those two sentences implies that the main
RX will not be DSP based, in fact plainly says it will
have DSP. I interpreted his comment to reflect that
there will be a mix of analog elements and DSP in the
IF chain. Much the same as Ten Tec's DSP radios to
date already are. This makes good sense because 130+
dB dynamic range A/D devices are rather rare or at
least very expensive. Im sure that much of the
top-notch performance will come from choosing more
capable analog devices in the RF/IF chain before the
signal gets digitized.
What I did get out of Scott's posting was that they
will likely have relatively narrow band pass filtering
for the ham band frequency ranges. Relay switched?
Perhaps combined with this will be a synthesizer
design that is similarly narrow (tuning range), again
a methodology that was already used in the Omni V and
up series. But I also doubt if it will be a crystal
mixed scheme like the later Omni's for cost reasons.
There are several really low phase noise synthesizer
chips out there already that rival crystals.
Did you realize that the K2 and Pegasus/Jupiter share
the same Motorola synthesizer chip? One has exemplary
phase noise specs and the other is mediocre by todays
standards. The low phase noise K2 doesn't use a VHF up
conversion scheme whereas the Pegasus/Jupiter does.
The main reason up conversion became so appealing to
designers was to provide for continuous no gap HF
coverage. The main Orion RX will not do that, hmmmm.
Bottom line is that current crop of DSP IF radios
aren't being limited so much by the DSP design issues
themselves. They are instead mostly limited by other
architectural design issues that would/do impact
analog only designs equally.
73,
Duane
N9DG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
From Billy's description of the RF gain control -
guess you need to push that "RF Gain" button and then
use the "Multi" knob. It also looks like the AGC
control is a multi-push switch to get your setting.
It's not going to be easy to quickly turn off AGC and
ride the rf gain in order to pull out those weak ones
in crowded condx, or to make sense out of pileup mush.
Guess this is just the downside of computer-controlled
front panels . . .
73,
Barry N1EU
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
From what I can see on the Orion TT has struck a good
balance between the number of buttons and knobs needed
to get the job done and making a cluttered mess.
But I sure do hope that they make a no front panel
version though. A pair of RF identical radios, much
the same as the Pegasus/Jupiter. I would sure like a
similar 3/4 price ratio that the Pegasus/Jupiter have
too.
Duane
N9DG
Duane
N9DG
--- "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net> wrote:
> What is the count on the TS-2000 by Kenwood? Most
> crowded panel I have ever
> seen . . .
>
> 73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
>
> Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county
> EM13qe
> Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just
> keeps getting better!
> QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X
> 11771 I-LINK 11735
> Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556
> Icom IC-765 #02437
>
> All outgoing email virus-checked by Norton
> Anti-Virus 2002
>
>
> Dale L Martin wrote:
> >
> > 64 buttons and 8 knobs....Zowie!
> >
> > That's up 12 buttons and down 1 knob from the Omni
> VI (52 and 9).
> >
> > dale, kg5u
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
From my own somewhat lengthy experience in the ham shack, I notice that I
spend probably 95% of the time looking at the radio front panel and display
and the other 5% looking at the output monitoring scope, etc. If that panel
and display are cheap-looking and/or just plain ugly, I am going to regret
that I ever bought the radio every time I use it.
And to put things in perspective, I believe that it is highly unlikely that
the Orion is going to be an order of magnitude better in performance that
the top-line radios we have today. It should be better, of course, or there
is no reason for its being in the marketplace. So, an upgrade yes for many
of us, and a dazzling new high in radio experience for many others, but the
world's best radio that will obsolete everything else in the ham market?
Not very likely . . .
So, we get back to the point where we have to consider the look and feel of
the radio in addition to its performance. A personal case in point is my
Kachina 505DSP with it full (and only) computer control. It is a pretty
good radio in terms of specs and it has some really neat features. It is
exceptionally good for SSB and usable for CW though far from what a good CW
radio should be. The point is that although the performance is adequate or
better, the God-awful GUI computer program that you have to stare at for
hour after hour drives me up the wall.
When the Icom 756 PRO came out I got one as much as anything for the panel
layout (real knobs and switches!) and for the elegant color display. After
a year and a half, I still enjoy just watching that radio while I use it -
and I lost that feeling with the Kachina after about the first month I used
it.
Face it, looks do count, especially in a situation when you have to stare
at the thing for hours on end. If you like its looks, and it performs well,
you have a personal winner. But, if it is the world's best radio and you
hate its looks, and find its operation awkward due to the control layout,
etc. then happiness is not likely to be the result.
73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437
All outgoing email virus-checked by Norton Anti-Virus 2002
John Clifford wrote:
>
> Based upon the pictures, etc., I think the Orion is going to be a great rig
> (and I will probably buy one).
>
> However... I'd like to see some changes made before the rig is released.
> First and most important... HIRE A GRAPHIC DESIGNER TO HELP YOU WITH THE LCD
> DISPLAY! This has to be the worst-looking and most amateurish (in the worst
> sense) display I have ever seen. Why is it that Icom can have a
> decent-looking display on their $1200 746 and Ten-Tec doesn't have one on
> their $3300 killer rig? This criticism isn't meant to beat up Ten-Tec...
> it's meant to ensure that Ten-Tec has a fighting chance to compete with the
> other high end rigs. Seriously... a crummy LCD display appearance will
> probably mean 25% to 50% less sales for this unit which will be devastating
> for Ten-Tec. You HAVE to make the display as visually compelling as the 756
> PRO or you are not going to get the sales!
>
> Re the gold trim... I agree with the other posters who mentioned satin
> rather than gloss. I'm sitting here glancing over at my Omni VI and
> thinking how nice this rig STILL looks more than a decade after the original
> design. The two-tone knobs use color for function as well as appearance.
> It looks like a rugged piece of communications gear (as does the
> Paragon/Omni V). The secret of a good visual design is that the radio will
> not look dated a few years down the road. Timeless -- Omni. Dated --
> Kenwood TS-2000. Now THAT is a rig whose styling will go the way of the
> tail fin on an automobile.
>
> Hey, looks are important! How many of us wanted to date the ugly girl even
> if she was smart and nice? How many of us want to drive the ugly car even
> if it was fast and handled well? How many of us buy the ugly clothing even
> if it is well-made and durable? How many hams will get rid of their 756
> Pros and MkVs for a Ten-Tec Orion if the display is ugly and the front panel
> is garish? SOME... but not nearly as many as if the display was killer and
> the front panel looked elegant in a high-tech way.
>
> I worked at Msft when Windows was being refined into the killer OS. (Say
> what you will about Windows... version 3.0 enabled Microsoft to "overturn
> the chess board" and replace Lotus, Wordperfect, and Ashton-Tate as the
> number 1 software applications company, and that is a FACT.) Windows 3.0
> ruled for one major technical reason, and one major aesthetic reason...
> memory was no longer an issue AND the 3D color interface looked better than
> anything else out there. But looks are what sold Windows, because no one
> would have wanted to try an ugly but powerful OS... they already had things
> like OS/2 and Unix to choose from.
>
> Scott et al... you've got one chance with this rig. One big splash in QST,
> CQ, and the other mags. Sure... you can refine things but the excitement
> will pass to the next offering from Yaecomwood. Pick an LCD that supports
> grey scale. Spend the money to have a great LCD UI and make the front panel
> of the Orion look as elegantly utilitarian as the RX-340 even if you do keep
> it in black.
>
> One ham's opinion...
>
> - jgc
>
> John Clifford KD7KGX
>
> Heathkit HW-9 WARC/HFT-9/HM-9
> Elecraft K2 #1678 /KSB2/KIO2/KBT2/KAT2/KNB2/KAF2
> ...waiting _eagerly_ for KPA2!
> Ten-Tec Omni VI/Opt1
>
> email: kd7kgx@arrl.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
--
73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437
All outgoing email virus-checked by Norton Anti-Virus 2002
From the Jupiter to the Centaur then to the Autek then to the 238 tuner and
out. Maybe I should put meter between the tuner and the antenna?
jeff
ve3ios
Jeff
ve3ios
From a vendor's perspective, I suspect that a ceratin pre-launch "peek" of a
product can create an intolerable amount of turmoil.
What you and everyone else on this list has just experienced is an irrational
jumping to conclusions by many members of this group
and probably those who witnessed the Orion prototype in Charlotte.
Glad to hear there's no gold trim! Now, how about a light gray case in place
of the black :-)
73,
-Paul, W9AC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ten-Tec Inc. Amateur Radio Sales" <sales@tentec.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: [TenTec] Orion commentary
Wow, what a weekend. The Orion certainly got a terrific reception at
Charlotte.
After working the hamfest all day Sunday we drove back over to Tennessee and
I spent quite a while into the night reading the commentary on the Internet
at home
Sunday and all day Monday here at the factory.
I haven't addressed any feature or spec questions that have been brought up in
Internet commentary only because the only information we have out is publicly
posted to our web site and anything else is just speculation. There have been
some comments along the lines of "why didn't it do . . . . " or "will
it.." when
the radio possibly already does, or will. More information and tech specs
will
be coming over the next couple of months.
I wanted to clear up a few things about Orion that I have read on the 'net
already:
(paraphrasing):
>Gold trim. It has gold trim. Gold trim, good. Gold trim, bleech.
I read the comments on the Orion trim color with quite a bit of surprise, and
kept waiting for the message that said "Huh? I was at Charlotte. There's no
gold trim on that radio!"
There is no gold trim on the Orion. I don't know how this got started, but I
repeat: there is NO gold trim. If you saw a picture with gold trim, it
must have
just been weird lighting in the building. The trim on the Orion is
chrome-nickel.
It is shiny. It is also very SILVER in color. Not
gold. Silver. "Mirror" finish.
No gold trim. It is the same knob color that is in use on the RX-350
receiver.
The ORION nameplate on the front under the meter is also chrome-nickel
in color. The reason we elected to use these knobs is the uniformly positive
commentary we had about them vis a vis the RX-350 receiver.
(paraphrasing):
>Display this, display that. Color. Monochrome. Blue. Grey. Etc.
I posted a message to the reflector before we even left for Charlotte stating
that the display for the Orion was not done. Neither the physical screen in
use for the radio, nor anything that appears on it is final. That goes for
the
spectrum scope, freq display, literally everything. We have more screens to
test yet. We'll be putting in a lot of time on the layout/design aspect of
what's
on the screen in the coming weeks. I'd say, don't read anything into any
of the
comments - positive or negative - about the Orion screen and what is shown
on it. It's going to change.
(paraphrasing):
>The tuning knob feel was exactly like that on a boombox - no weight,
>impossible to "spin"
Both of the tuning knobs are weighted and are identical (except for the
chrome-nickel trim ring) to those used on the Omni-VI Plus. Just like the
Omni's, you cannot grab our knobs and spin them down the band until they
come to a stop. This is a combination of the adjustable drag feature on the
knob and mechanical resistance within the tuning encoders themselves.
Like the Omni's, you will have to place your hand on the tuning knob and turn
it to move up and down the band rather than just free spinning it.
K8VT wrote:
>I'm probably wrong, but I think many of us believed (or hoped) that at
>least part of the >reason for this "pre-introduction" release was done
exactly TO generate comments and >feedback before everything gets
>chiseled in stone.
No, you're absolutely right. We wanted feedback on the direction of the
radio.
See my comments at the bottom.
(paraphrasing):
>The AF knob is not on the bottom row of controls.
This is incorrect. Both the MAIN AF and SUB AF knobs are on the bottom
row of knobs, directly above the large tuning knob closest to the screen.
(paraphrasing):
>Ten-Tec didn't put a PS/2 keyboard connector on the Orion like on the Jupiter
True. We never used the connector on the Jupiter. We had anticipated
keyboard control of the Jupiter, but unfortunately another company has a
patent
on connecting a keyboard to a radio transceiver and we were never able to come
to an agreement to license it. This apparently won't be resolved, and we
left the
PS/2 connector off of the Orion. The PS/2 on the Jupiter has no function.
(paraphrasing):
>Ten-Tec better get it in gear if they're going to sell the Orion at Dayton.
We're not. We've said all along there is no anticipated delivery date for
Orion
and that's still the case. It will be available later in 2002. There is
a colossal
amount of programming to be done yet.
(paraphrasing):
>Are the Jupiter and Pegasus discontinued?
Not a chance!
I find it very interesting that much of the discussion of the radio has
centered
solely on cosmetics, as the Japanese manufacturers have done an excellent job
of selling various pieces equipment for many years that are cosmetically sharp
but performance wise may not have met up to what Ten-Tec was currently
offering at the time. We've taken the opposite route for a very long time
- performance and ergonomics first, 'look' second. Maybe even third or
fourth.
Unfortunately, it has not served us well and we must change to respond to the
demands of the marketplace. Performance is extremely important, but there is
also a very sizable proportion of the amateur population that is interested in
whether the radio looks appealing to them and the performance can be secondary
as long as it's within the same realm of other comparable rigs. Ten-Tec
MUST respond to that sentiment because we MUST have those hams as
customers if Orion is going to be a success for us. Presently, we don't!
Some of this sentiment has even been expressed by some of the Ten-Tec
'faithful' here on the reflector, in reverse. Comments like "I'm not going to
buy a Ten-Tec radio that looks like ...XYZ" of course, I'm disappointed by
that. And my reaction is to say, I'm sorry we can't come up with anything
performance-wise that's going to overcome the way you feel - but that just
proves my point above, that cosmetics are a serious issue and performance
often will take a back seat no matter how good the radio will operate!
We WILL have super high end performance and features that are superior to
the JA radios and cosmetics comparable to the fit and finish with the Orion.
Ten-Tec can't be 'as good' we have to be BETTER. There are some of you
reading this that are going to vehemently disagree with me on these points
(and already have) - and I understand.
The commentary from the Charlotte hamfest and the initial reaction over the
Internet this weekend has convinced me that for performance and cosmetics
that we are very much on the right track with the Orion to be a big winner
for the hobby.
Thanks again,
Scott Robbins, W4PA
Amateur Radio Product Manager
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--->--->---> Please note: E-mail <sales@tentec.com> for sales
and general product info only. We presently do not offer
repair, parts, or kit building tech support by electronic mail,
please telephone (865) 428-0364 or (865) 453-7172.
Ten-Tec manufactures amateur radio equipment, military and com-
mercial use HF radio equipment, custom aluminum and steel
enclosures and has an on-premises, fully equipped tool and die
facility supplying metal and plastic injection mold industries.
Potential tool and die, custom enclosure or communications
electronics customer? Contact us with your needs.
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
From what I've read. The original PRO had very steep skirts on the dsp cw
filters which caused a rather unpleasant sound. The filter's can be
modified in the menu. The Pro II comes with a menu choice of either soft
or hard filtering giving the user an easy way to choose between them. The
QST review addressed this pretty well.
As for the pops and crackles in the Pro. It's hard to interpret what you
mean but one of the characteristics of DSP receivers ie. TS870 and Pro is
that the skirts on the filters are so steep that you can be very close to
a strong signal and hear his key clicks but not hear his tone. This was
addressed in the QST review of the 870. Further testing proved that the
key clicks were really present but went unnoticed in other receivers
because they were blended or masked by the interfering tone which made
it's way through the filter. So the blame should be placed on the
transmitters and not on the dsp receivers.
I did own an early version TS-570 which has both xtal and audio dsp.
Being a cw only operator, I spend a few days doing A/B test between it
and the Omni V. During heavy QRN, the 570 was totally useless and I found
myself switching to the Omni V just to complete a QSO. Static crashes
would simply blip out cw characters. No matter what setting of AGC speed
I tried, the cw would be bliped out on each crash. It's as if the AGC
responded too quickly. I don't know if this was fixed in the newer 570g.
As for your RF gain....That's typical Icom. It's not really a problem but
just the way they work. The IC-706 is the same way. The RF gain control
seems to have a lag in it's response which is confusing.
Anyway. I'm expecting a pair of Conar Twins to arrive today. Hopefully I
can put these on the air tonight!
N4LQ
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim and Nancy Logan <cyr999@extremezone.com>
To: tentec reflector <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 06:54:08 -0700
Subject: [TenTec] Carl, Pmni, 756 etc
> Hi folks -
> I'm aiming this comment/question to Carl, but would like to share it
> with all. Carl has the benefit of owning a truly great TenTec DSP rig
> which he commented about yesterday as being the best receiver he's had.
> With that in mind I'd like to share some somewhat confusing
> observations
> and see if Carl has had similar experiences. Carl also still has, I
> believe, an OMNI V.9 (I could be wrong).
>
> After operating the 756PRO for a few weeks, I fired up my OMNI next to
> it last night. A/B testing is tuff with these rigs, but I THINK the
> following is about right (hard to know if I'm tricking myself:
>
> 1) - The OMNI has a smoother more pleasent sound to it's cw; the 756
> has
> a slighly more "percussive" sound to it. Normally not a huge issue but
> see number two.
>
> 2) - In high noise conditions the 756PRO seems to have a few pops and
> crackles associated with keying. The OMNI V.9 does not. I believe this
> may have something to do with AGC but I'm no techno wizard. A small
> percentage of the time it can be a bit quite annoying. It's possible it
> could be from RFI - but I'm still checking this out.
>
> 3) - If you want to tune out background noise by turning back the RF,
> you have a greater range and sensitivity to do this on the OMNI. The
> 756 has a much shorter range before the RF gain completely hides the
> signal as well as background noise.
>
> 4) - The 756 seems to be able to hear weaker signals a bit better.
>
> 5) - When there are a number of signals close together, the 756 seems
> to
> have a harder time sorting them out so that you just hear one. Part of
> this is getting used to being willing to use its tighter filters - so
> that for instance you might have the OMNI at 250 and the 756 at 150. It
> also might be that the 756 is hearing more signals than the OMNI -
> since
> sometimes I cannot locate these other signals on the OMNI. This is an
> area where it gets confusing. It is a no-mans land between
> understanding
> the noise floor, the best way to use DSP controls, selectivity, etc
> etc.
>
> I would be interested in hearing Carl's experiences and observations as
> he went from crystals to DSP. Did he have similar questions and
> solutions?
>
> As I say, when you try to be objective - and are not depending on lab
> tests - these are two different beasts and hard to compare. I thought
> you all might find this interesting and, if Carl has time to respond,
> his comments will likely be much more interesting!
>
> Have a good day all!
>
> 73/Tim Logan KB7OEX
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
From the suggestions I have seen about improving the Pegasus and other
digital radio capabilities, especially the processing of additional modes,
it would appear that there is a general misunderstanding of the
computationally intense burden that such operations imply. The reason that
TT shows no interest in modifying their firmware is that it simply cannot
be done that way and they realize that. Major changes would be required and
the result might have a new name - something like "Orion."
Most digital mode programs use a soundcard with its support chipset plus
the CPU plus a large amount of memory, etc. to develop the signals required
for SSTV, PSK31, etc. operation. To expect that the comparatively
low-powered "peanut" processor in a little rig like the Pegasus or Jupiter
could even begin to do all that is to overlook practical and feasible
limits.
This gets back to the notion and misinformation of "software-defined"
radios. You can never get the rig's processor(s) to do more than a certain
amount of work in a given time. If the designer did his job right and met
his price point goals, he used "just enough" processing capability to meet
his assigned specs. Done right, there is precious little capacity left for
getting more operations out of the processor. So much for the never-ending
series of upgrading rig capabilities through the magic of "firmware
updates." The firmware can never cause the processor(s) to do more than so
much, nor can it do all that some "upgrades" night demand of the
accompanying analog support circuitry.
When radios contain the equivalent of a Pentium IV with half a gig of RAM
and large mass storage, then we will start to see integrated functions in
the "radio" - or should we call it a computer with some r-f circuitry
tacked on?
73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437
All outgoing email virus-checked by Norton Anti-Virus 2002
Dave McClafferty wrote:
>
> > The place where DSP can earn its mettle is
> > processing signals other than just CW and SSB. There
> > is no good reason to not handle modes like SSTV,
> > PSK31, WSJT, PUA43 packet etc. natively in a DSP stage
> > of the radio, so far no one has done this in a
> > meaningful in the amateur radio market. Taking the
> > logic that having many stages between the antenna and
> > your intended output is a bad thing; it makes no sense
> > to take those kinds of signals all the way to audio to
> > only have to re-digitize them in the computer sound
> > card in order to process.
> > Duane
> > N9DG
> I am amazed that no one has modified the Pegasus firmware to do just that.
> It has been suggested to Tentec and they show no interest. I thought about
> doing it myself but I know it is beyond my capabilities. There must be some
> hams out there who have this capability I'm sure.
> Another plus for doing this with SSTV, that you have digital video, which
> suffers no generation loss. Hams could pass pictures on with no serious
> degradation.
>
> Dave, VE1ADH
From opening page of www.comteksystems.com
Thanks again to AA4NN for the photos.
73,
Jim Miller, K4SQR
http://www.comteksystems.com
4-Square Experts, Stack Yagi
& Remote Antenna Switching Systems
From having several other choices, I can work DX in spite of using
those receivers, not because of them.
Differences from location-to-location and operating styles are
probably why some are very happy with mediocre or poor IM and
blocking performance, and others are equally unhappy.
Radios should be getting better with improved technology, not
worse.
73, Tom W8JI
W8JI@contesting.com
From what I was told by the designers, one can configure 'their own'
antenna dimensions and save them in the controller's memory. They also
make the antenna available as a basic dipole, a basic 3-element, or even
more elements, if you wanna work with their guys to make it happen.
As far as not having adjustable spacings between the elements, the answer I
got was yes and no... you can configure the beam manually (like, when you
assemble it), but as far as having different element spacings later, well,
it's no different from your TH3 or TA33... it's the same a compromise
there. What you CAN do is retract an element to a non-functional length,
and just use it as a 2-el, or even as a dipole.
In all, it's a slick idea, and the mechanism worked very well at the
display. If I had a fountain of money, I'd dip some out and mount ten or
so of these elements on a 50-foot (Telrex-like) boom, network the
controller to my PCs, and spend some quality time with an antenna program
to make a bunch of configurations for everything up through 2m... take down
the 6-el 6m Telrex, and find a new home for the TH3SR... and start enjoying
massive monobanders...
DK :-)
73's from KW0D Dave in LeClaire, Iowa
From the FCC regulations, Part 97
Section 113 "Prohibited Transmissions"
5.e No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from any type
of radio
station other than an amateur station, except propagation and weather
forecast
information intended for use by the general public and originated from
United States
Government stations and communications, including incidental music,
originating on
United States Government frequencies between a space shuttle and its
associated Earth
stations.
Does a wireless mic or cordless telephone constitute a "radio station".
Food for thought / comments
73,
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dudley Hurry" <jhurry@austin.rr.com>
To: "Mark Erbaugh" <mark@microenh.com>; "Bill Ames" <bames@aob.com>;
<tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Remote Pegasus
> Guys,
>
> Do like I do and use a good quality wireless mic and wireless headphones
for
> the audio signals.. Works great for 100 feet thru walls..
>
> Thanks and 73's,
> Dudley
> WA5QPZ
> jhurry@austin.rr.com
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Erbaugh" <mark@microenh.com>
> To: "Bill Ames" <bames@aob.com>; <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Remote Pegasus
>
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion. However, the Pegasus does not have a line
> level
> > input. The input level on the ACCY jack is actually the same as for the
> Mic
> > input. Would it be good to boost the mic to line level at the mic end
and
> > then reduce it back to mic level at the Pegasus end?
> >
> > 73,
> > Mark
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Ames" <bames@aob.com>
> > To: "Mark Erbaugh" <mark@microenh.com>; <tentec@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:39 AM
> > Subject: RE: [TenTec] Remote Pegasus
> >
> >
> > > I would suggest that you use a mixer or some such device at the remote
> end
> > > and then you can have a line level signal to feed to the line input. I
> > think
> > > you will have problems with long runs of the low level mic signals.
> > >
> > > Bill Ames
> > > KB1LG
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tentec-admin@contesting.com
[mailto:tentec-admin@contesting.com]On
> > > Behalf Of Mark Erbaugh
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:24 AM
> > > To: tentec@contesting.com
> > > Subject: [TenTec] Remote Pegasus
> > >
> > >
> > > I would appreciate comments from anyone who has operated their Pegasus
> > from
> > > a distance. I'm considering trying to run my Pegasus in my basement
> shack
> > > (where the power, antenna and ground connections are) from the comfort
> my
> > > home office on the first floor above where it's not so dark and damp
> <g>.
> > >
> > > I figure the run will be around the 25 foot limit for RS232 (although
> I've
> > > seen it go much further), so I don't see a problem for the computer
> > control.
> > > I also don't think that there will be a problem with the keyer input.
I
> > have
> > > some 20 foot mini stereo extension cables that should work for that.
I'm
> > > mostly concerned with the audio both to and from. I don't run QRO and
> have
> > > never had a problem with RF, but with 25 feet of audio cabling, I may
be
> > > asking for trouble. Does anyone have a source for long 5 pin DIN to 5
> pin
> > > DIN cables suitable for the ACCY jack?
> > >
> > > 73,
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
From what I can see only DIM and CLK are not described as to do things
alternately when the buttons have been reassigned to PlusVer.1 functions.
I had to do a system reset and so now have the equivalent of a VCR's 1212
flashing from the olde days when VCRs had no memory!
Thanks.
Brien Pepperdine
Amateur Radio Station VE3VAW
-Information and comments herein are mine own and are separate and
independent of the electronic information gateways, pathways and
provider(s) utilized-
From today's ARRL Letter:
"New York's Long Island Mobile Amateur Radio Club--LIMARC
--reports its first "one-day Extra" licensing upgrade class was
such a success that it's scheduled additional sessions for later
this spring. LIMARC recently attracted two dozen students to its
first Extra class license study short course, and nearly all who
attended walked away with their Extra tickets.
"....the session involves seven hours of
intensive study. Five instructors taught the nine Extra examination
subelements, which include FCC rules, operating procedures, radio
propagation, Amateur Radio practices, electrical principles, circuit
components, practical circuits and antennas and feedlines.
When the session ended, 20 of the 24 applicants had passed
Element 4. "
All in a "one-day" short course.
Wow, I am impressed. Took me an entire semester in engineering
school to learn how to solve all those impedance, complex
plane, R+/- jX problems. And 20 of these guys learned how
to do those, along with all that other stuff, and STILL the same
day took and passed the Extra license exam????
Maybe what those five instructors "taught" was the answers
to the questions on the test to be given that day??? At least
one enquiring mind would like to know! I believe what is
being reported is not possible and still be legitimate, unless
those 20 guys had way above genius IQ's. Or maybe, they
all have "perfect recall" memories.
Guess I was a real slow learning; I was years getting the education,
experience and UNDERSTANDING under my belt before I went
for the Extra. Oh yes, also had to pass the 20 wpm CW test
that same day, but that isn't needed anymore. Maybe it was
getting to 20 wpm CW that took me all that time, no, don't
think so. Just took me awhile to learn/understand what the
meaning of the stuff on the Extra Class license was all about.
Yes, what does the Extra Class license mean anymore??
Just a bit disappointed,
73, Jim KH7M
From today's ARRL Letter:
"New York's Long Island Mobile Amateur Radio Club--LIMARC
--reports its first "one-day Extra" licensing upgrade class was
such a success that it's scheduled additional sessions for later
this spring. LIMARC recently attracted two dozen students to its
first Extra class license study short course, and nearly all who
attended walked away with their Extra tickets.
"....the session involves seven hours of
intensive study. Five instructors taught the nine Extra examination
subelements, which include FCC rules, operating procedures, radio
propagation, Amateur Radio practices, electrical principles, circuit
components, practical circuits and antennas and feedlines.
When the session ended, 20 of the 24 applicants had passed
Element 4. "
All in a "one-day" short course.
Wow, I am impressed. Took me an entire semester in engineering
school to learn how to solve all those impedance, complex
plane, R+/- jX problems. And 20 of these guys learned how
to do those, along with all that other stuff, and STILL the same
day took and passed the Extra license exam????
Maybe what those five instructors "taught" was the answers
to the questions on the test to be given that day??? At least
one enquiring mind would like to know! I believe what is
being reported is not possible and still be legitimate, unless
those 20 guys had way above genius IQ's. Or maybe, they
all have "perfect recall" memories.
Guess I was a real slow learning; I was years getting the education,
experience and UNDERSTANDING under my belt before I went
for the Extra. Oh yes, also had to pass the 20 wpm CW test
that same day, but that isn't needed anymore. Maybe it was
getting to 20 wpm CW that took me all that time, no, don't
think so. Just took me awhile to learn/understand what the
meaning of the stuff on the Extra Class license was all about.
Yes, what does the Extra Class license mean anymore??
Just a bit disappointed,
73, Jim KH7M
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email message to:
mailto:dx-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
From factory, original Omni 6 +, not a conversion, 10 electronically, =
9.5 cosmetically.
Non-smoking enviroment, stock 2.4 filters $1400 shipped Priority Mail =
and insured
in Conus. 73 and Thanks Richard
* Wife had a heart attack this past weekend=20
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
From the RON-LEE AGC brochure,
"In designing your Omni-B transceiver, Ten-Tec
provided an unusually effective
audio notch filter and placed it within an audio
derived AGC loop in order to
prevent AGC capture by the offending signals. It
provides a 30 DB deeper notch
than IF notch systems. Though the performance of the
Omni AGC represented the
state of the art in its day for audio derived systems,
an excessive delay in
AGC build-up existed along with other cost versus
performance compromises. As a
result, blasting, distortion, and limited ability to
follow rapid fades, and DX
pile-ups were present. In addition, the QSK was
compromised. Later, the Omni-C
was introduced; its hang AGC offered improvements.
Unfortunately, the hang
timer doesn't release or attack readily, and the slow
AGC attack and QSK
problems were not solved.
"Over three months have been spent engineering a
complete system of novel AGC
modifications that afford very rapid attack time and
enhanced hang AGC and QSK
behavior. This is done without degrading resistance to
noise capture. Ten-Tec
has evaluated the modified system and their review
comments can be seen in the
attached letter.
"Such performance was not easily attained. Indeed, the
addition of 5 op-amps, 4
transistors, 8 diodes, 30 resistors, 13 capacitors, a
DIP switch, 15 cross
connections to the Omni-C hang AGC board, and various
foil cuts and chassis
grounding and wiring changes were all necessary. A
complesx interplay of BFO
signal leakage, ground loops, gain distribution, loop
filter characteristics,
hang circuits anomalies, notch filter subtleties, and
attack dynamics had to be
identified and resolved in order to attain
improvements of such significance.
For example, the group delay of the audio SSB/CW
filter necessitated relocation
out of the AGC lop and BFO leakage required the
addition of a T/R gate and
buffering and decoupling on the IF board. BFO leakage
also required several
grounding changes. In addition to full wave detection,
augmentation by a
parallel rate sensitive amplifier was needed to
achieve high speed attack.
"All of the added circuitry is inside the equipment.
Inside, two PC boards were
added and four others are modified. No changes to the
front panel are made, nor
are any holes drilled in the chassis. However, if
external controls are
desired, they are available. If not, an on-board DIP
switch affords control of
key time constants. We have named the resulting system
of fixes the Ron-Lee Agc
System.
"Here are a few typical observations:
Before modification:
* 15 to 30 millisecond AGC attack time
(variable with signal level
and filter bandwidth)
* 15 DB blasting transient during AGC attack
or QSK recovery
* .2 to .6 second hang time (variable from
chassis to chassis) (.6 is
too slow for typical QSB)
* .7 second hang discharge time after hang
time-out (too slow for
typical QSB)
* inability of the hang timer to release at
high signal levels (18 DB
drop at s9+30 DB is required) (not optimum for fast
DX or contest
action)
* QSK Upper speed limit varies 20-40 WPM
chassis to chassis
* under damped S meter in some chassis
* excessive volume level with 8 ohm headphones
After modification:
* 3 millisecond attack time resulting in
almost total reduction of the
clicks and distortion seen previously during AGC
attack.
* Independently selectable hang and post hang
gain-recovery time
constants to optimize the system for band condition
and operating modes.
Hangtimes are .25 to .75 seconds, independently switch
selectable in
four steps each.
* reduced hang droop to minimize background
noise fill-in in brief
pauses
* reliable hang release. A signal drop of 2 DB
at s9+30 DB and less
than
6 DB from s9+40 through s3 will start the
hang timer. This
improves
the fade tracking for a given selection of hang time
and allows optimum
DX/contest tracking.
* 3 DB blasting transient during the AGC
attack (hardly audible)
* significantly smoother and quieter QSK
without loud clicks on strong
signals
* QSK speed increase to over a 55 WPM dot rate
(about 2x typical stock chassis) This was
hand written on the
brochure
* post detection audio noise filtering of 2.5
khz bandwidth to
match the
crystal filter. This reduces the hiss level
and high frequency
components of the hiss caused by post detection audio
stages.
* (optional) equalized headphone volume for 8
ohm phones
* improved S meter damping when needed
"Subjectively, the performance becomes smooth,
unobtrusive, and highly
responsive. In pile-ups, QSK, or local rag-chews, an
optimum response can be
had by selecting the appropriate combination of hang
time or recover rate and
the set becomes far less fatiguing to listen to. In
the standard Ron-Lee unit,
selection of speeds is made via an on-board DIP switch
that is accessed by
removing the top lid. External controls are available
as a low cost option.
Other options are also available and are described
below.
"Why trade in your present Omni equipment and then
spend $500 to $2,000 more
for a replacement that may have a different set of
deficiencies when you
already have a basically well engineered set? A set
that is modular and easy to
maintain with one of the best company service
attitudes we have seen. Why not
install the Ron-Lee AGC and eliminate the principal
cause of annoyance for much
less money?"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
From the RON-LEE AGC brochure,
"In designing your Omni-B transceiver, Ten-Tec
provided an unusually effective audio notch filter and
placed it within an audio derived AGC loop in order to
prevent AGC capture by the offending signals. It
provides a 30 DB deeper notch than IF notch systems.
Though the performance of the Omni AGC represented the
state of the art in its day for audio derived systems,
an excessive delay in AGC build-up existed along with
other cost versus performance compromises. As a
result, blasting, distortion, and limited ability to
follow rapid fades, and DX pile-ups were present. In
addition, the QSK was compromised. Later, the Omni-C
was introduced; its hang AGC offered improvements.
Unfortunately, the hang timer doesn't release or
attack readily, and the slow AGC attack and QSK
problems were not solved.
"Over three months have been spent engineering a
complete system of novel AGC modifications that afford
very rapid attack time and enhanced hang AGC and QSK
behavior. This is done without degrading resistance to
noise capture. Ten-Tec has evaluated the modified
system and their review comments can be seen in the
attached letter.
"Such performance was not easily attained. Indeed, the
addition of 5 op-amps, 4 transistors, 8 diodes, 30
resistors, 13 capacitors, a DIP switch, 15 cross
connections to the Omni-C hang AGC board, and various
foil cuts and chassis grounding and wiring changes
were all necessary. A complesx interplay of BFO signal
leakage, ground loops, gain distribution, loop filter
characteristics, hang circuits anomalies, notch filter
subtleties, and attack dynamics had to be identified
and resolved in order to attain improvements of such
significance. For example, the group delay of the
audio SSB/CW filter necessitated relocation out of the
AGC lop and BFO leakage required the addition of a T/R
gate and buffering and decoupling on the IF board. BFO
leakage also required several grounding changes. In
addition to full wave detection, augmentation by a
parallel rate sensitive amplifier was needed to
achieve high speed attack.
"All of the added circuitry is inside the equipment.
Inside, two PC boards were added and four others are
modified. No changes to the front panel are made, nor
are any holes drilled in the chassis. However, if
external controls are desired, they are available. If
not, an on-board DIP switch affords control of key
time constants. We have named the resulting system of
fixes the Ron-Lee Agc System.
"Here are a few typical observations:
Before modification:
* 15 to 30 millisecond AGC attack time
(variable with signal level and filter bandwidth)
* 15 DB blasting transient during AGC attack
or QSK recovery
* .2 to .6 second hang time (variable from
chassis to chassis) (.6 is too slow for typical QSB)
* .7 second hang discharge time after hang
time-out (too slow for typical QSB)
* inability of the hang timer to release at
high signal levels (18 DB drop at s9+30 DB is
required) (not optimum for fast DX or contest action)
* QSK Upper speed limit varies 20-40 WPM
chassis to chassis
* under damped S meter in some chassis
* excessive volume level with 8 ohm headphones
After modification:
* 3 millisecond attack time resulting in
almost total reduction of the clicks and distortion
seen previously during AGC attack.
* Independently selectable hang and post hang
gain-recovery time constants to optimize the system
for band condition and operating modes. Hangtimes are
.25 to .75 seconds, independently switch selectable in
four steps each.
* reduced hang droop to minimize background
noise fill-in in brief pauses
* reliable hang release. A signal drop of 2 DB
at s9+30 DB and less than 6 DB from s9+40 through s3
will start the hang timer. This improves the fade
tracking for a given selection of hang time and allows
optimum DX/contest tracking.
* 3 DB blasting transient during the AGC
attack (hardly audible)
* significantly smoother and quieter QSK
without loud clicks on strong signals
* QSK speed increase to over a 55 WPM dot rate
(about 2x typical stock chassis) This was
hand written on the brochure
* post detection audio noise filtering of 2.5
khz bandwidth to match the crystal filter. This
reduces the hiss level and high frequency components
of the hiss caused by post detection audio stages.
* (optional) equalized headphone volume for 8
ohm phones
* improved S meter damping when needed
"Subjectively, the performance becomes smooth,
unobtrusive, and highly responsive. In pile-ups, QSK,
or local rag-chews, an optimum response can be had by
selecting the appropriate combination of hang time or
recover rate and the set becomes far less fatiguing to
listen to. In the standard Ron-Lee unit, selection of
speeds is made via an on-board DIP switch that is
accessed by removing the top lid. External controls
are available as a low cost option. Other options are
also available and are described below.
"Why trade in your present Omni equipment and then
spend $500 to $2,000 more for a replacement that may
have a different set of deficiencies when you already
have a basically well engineered set? A set that is
modular and easy to maintain with one of the best
company service attitudes we have seen. Why not
install the Ron-Lee AGC and eliminate the principal
cause of annoyance for much less money?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
From TenTec's page you will find links to a page with the free software.
I have tried them all. Forget the free and spend a couple bucks on the N4PY
software. Nothing else (yet) compares. Just this hams humble opinion.
73
Rich
kd0zv
----- Original Message -----
From: "matthew martin" <w8mjm@yahoo.com>
To: <TenTec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: [TenTec] FREEWARE
> Okay, so I don't pay alot of attention but, where do I
> find the Freeware for my Peg. Thanks Matt
>
> =====
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
From the Heath Winter 1990 catalog number 219, page 27.
I am in search of: a 500 Hz (285), two 250 Hz(282), a 9MHz-500 Hz
(217) and maybe a 1.8KHz (288) How can we swap?
73 de dave in NH
From a hardware view, the Paragon I and Paragon II are almost
identical. However, the Paragon II has much more firmware function
in it than the paragon I. The PII user operation is much more like the
Omni VI than the PI. The PII has almost the same serial port commands as the
Omni VI
whereas the PI uses a very different unsupported command set.
This is the reason the PII is more expensive on the used market.
Carl Moreschi N4PY
Franklinton, NC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Travis Martin" <tmartin198@cox.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:53 PM
Subject: [TenTec] Paragon vs Paragon II
> I've never owned or operated either rig; would someone be kind enough to
> explain the differences in the two? If there is a website somewhere that
> details this, I'd sure appreciate a link. I didn't find much with a google
> search on either of them.
>
> I notice that the PII's are much less common and priced quite a bit
higher;
> is there a good reason for this or is it mostly the rarity? From what I've
> read of them, I think a Paragon will make me a good get-back-into-hamming
> rig; I'm about 98% cw and the other 2% swl...it looks like there is a lot
of
> bang for the buck in the Paragon at today's prices. I've had a couple of
> Corsair II's and loved them.
>
> All guidance will be appreciated!
>
> Thanks and 73,
>
> Travis N5AY
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
From a Tentec point of view, I also had a sampler and counter attached to
the error control indicator on the PK 232MBX. If no error requests were
detected on 3 consecutive Packet or AMTOR transmissions then the system
reduced power, by one step of 10, of my transmitter by feeding a DC voltage
to the ALC jack on the Paragon. If the error rate went up by the receiving
station the system increased transmitter power by reducing the ALC control
voltage. Most of the time I would see power output in the 2 to 5 watt
range. It's amazing what good antennas and a bit of technology can do.
73
Bob K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Mansey WA2PVK" <res0wsci@verizon.net>
To: <TenTec@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:51 PM
Subject: [TenTec] Even MORE on vertical antennas!
Hello,
I had a Hustler 6BTV antenna mounted in the side yard and was not
satisfied with the performance. I do NOT blame the antenna as it was not
the problem. The problem is that I do not have enough room to mount the
antenna clear of nearby objects nor was there sufficient room for proper
radials. This antenna is well made and probably would work well if properly
positioned.
My solution, to my limited space, was to try a Cushcraft MA5V, I put
this on the roof with a short (5') mast and a vent pipe mount. I set the
element lengths according to the instructions and only had to make two
adjustments later.
This antenna is only about half the length of the 6BTV because it is
made for 20, 17,15,12, and 10 meters. It has four 48" radials. I was
pleasantly surprised at the performance. I have two wire antennas. These
are an multi-band inverted V and a sloper. The received signal strengths
when using the MA5V are comparable to when I switch to either wire antenna.
In some cases the signals are actually stronger with the MA5V - probably due
to polarization. I would recommend this antenna for anyone who, like me,
has space limitations. I was skeptical of the antenna's performance and
actually expected mediocre performance due primarily to the small size of
the antenna. I am most pleasantly surprised with how this thing works! It
is quite good indeed. It has far exceeded my expectations.
See the reviews on Eham for more. I had none of the problems mentioned.
(metal burrs and other issues. These problems have obviously been
corrected)
I hope my comments do NOT cross the line that separates opinion from
advertising! I have nothing to gain from my testimonial.
To take care of the Ten-Tec connection to this post - - - I am using
this antenna with my Jupiter and will also be using it with my Orion.
73; Bill
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
From my over 40 years of hamming, I've found vertical antennas to be
effective radiators. There must be a few qualifications here.
First--what do you hope to work with your antenna? Are you a net QSO
person who is satisfied with QSOS up to 500 miles or so? Then you'd be
better off with a low horizontal antenna such as a dipole on bands such
as 40 or 80/75 meters. Are you a Dx'er? Then a horizontally polarized
antenna will be effective if you (theoretically) can get it up 1/2
wavelength (at a bare minimum) on the band of interest. Horizontally
polarized antennas are much more dependant on height above ground for
effective long distance communication due to proximity to near field
ground loss. With vertical antennas, basically a similar condition
applies. A vertical mounted AT ground level better be sitting on a very
low loss ground plane, such as salt water, salt marsh, ground screen
with lots of metal in it AND little in the way of near field objects
that can contribute to additional loss. An alternative to the ground
mounted vertical (called a monopole) would be one with an elevated feed
point. This may be accomplished in two ways. One way is what is commonly
called the ground plane antenna. Elevate the feed point, say a minimum
of 10 feet, use say 4 quarter wave radials on a single band antenna or 2
for each band on a multi band antenna. Simple, cheap, and they work well
as DX antennas. The other elevated feed point verticals are the ones we
see advertised that do not require ground planes. The reason for this,
is they are really half wave radiators. Picture a half wave dipole stood
up vertically, still being fed in the middle. The feeding is
accomplished with mechanically routing the coax up in the air to a
matching network or feedpoint that has been elevated. This somewhat
eliminates the counterpoise or radial necessity. The fact that there may
be lossy ground below this or any other antenna can be helped by placing
radials in or on the ground below the antenna in use.
As hams we have to learn to improvise, as few of us are blessed with
perfect locations for antenna placement. I've been using a 1/4 wave
INV-L (130 feet long) on 160 meters for some time. Due to space
limitations (my property is approx. 65x100 ft.), my feedpoint is at
ground level. I have little room for 130 ft. radials-though I have a
maybe 2 or 3 bent all over the place. I have around 30 radials of
various lengths and thicknesses, a couple of inches below the ground.
The antenna is about 50 or so feet vertical and the rest slopes down to
some convenient location. Feed with RG-213/U. With this antenna I've
managed to work 131 countries on 160 meters, including VK6, ZS6, etc.
from Long Island, NY that has probably the lowest ground conductivity in
the U.S. (averages 0.5 micro mho.)
For what it's worth!!
73,
Art, N2KA..
From what Dave said, there's a world of difference not
necessarily between a 563 and 564, but between an
early 564 and a late 564. Yikes . . .
73,
Barry N1EU
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
From estate--Nice Omni C with all filters. Far far better than average =
...$350 U ship... e mail direct or call Bill at 479-648-9667 for =
details
=
Bill N6CHA
=20
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
From the picture, the prototype looks like a PCI card. But no price shown,
and it won't be available until the end of the year at the earliest.
73, ron wn3vaw
"And they give you cash,
which is just as good as money!"
Yogi Berra, AFLAC Commercial, 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: Scanandoah, Alan <ascanand@harris.com>
To: 'R. Eric Sluder' <resluder@coserv.net>; TenTec List
<tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: RE: [TenTec] Stiff Competition Around The Corner For The RX-320/350
If it's still an ISA package, it'll be tough to sell to the owners of
late-model
computers.
Al, K2ZN
-----Original Message-----
From: R. Eric Sluder [mailto:resluder@coserv.net]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:41 PM
To: TenTec List
Subject: [TenTec] Stiff Competition Around The Corner For The RX-320/350
Just got wind of this via the rec.radio.shortwave list.
http://www.winradio.com/home/g303i.htm
Ouch!
73,
R. Eric Sluder
W5WLW
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
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
From the Tentec Omni VI+ manual:
FREQUENCY ACCURACY +/- 50 Hz @ 25 degrees C. (NOTE: the frequency will
shift noticeably for 1 - 2 minutes while the oven heats up when first
turned on. Leave DC power connected to the rear panel el eliminate this
turn-on drift).
And I see all the P'n and Moanin' over 10 Hz.
I use my Omni VI+ on 20M PSK31 and yes I see many signals in the 500 Hz
passband. Never have a problem finding my schedule or frequency. Guess my
tuning knob works and I know how to use it.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Hammond" <dhhdeh@concentric.net>
To: "tentec reflector" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:58 PM
Subject: [TenTec] Omni VI Plus freq. readout
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Once again I am compelled to comment on this thread having spent a lot of
> time seeking to improve this very specific Omni VI problem. It's real and
it
> does exist.
>
> After 5 1/2 years of Omni VI ownership (prior to selling it this past
> Spring), I chased improved frequency readout accuracy on this radio and
came
> up with the following conclusions. My Omni VI suffered from both frequency
> repeatability and accuracy problems considerably greater than other
> transceivers I have owned. In fairness to Ten Tec though, the Omni VI
and
> VI+ were never spec'ed to super-precise frequency accuracy. Nevertheless
> this problem bugged the heck out of me over time. So I embarked on a
series
> of modifications seeking an improvement. Funny, I thought that
> experimentation was in the true spirit of ham radio from days gone by.
> Anyway......
>
> The frequency repeatability problem was vastly improved if not solved
> outright by substituting the 2ppm TCXO for the original crystal oven in
the
> reference oscillator. A tremendous modification for older Omni VI's. About
> $40 and hours work. As I have said before, it is the best change Ten Tec
> has come up with for the Omni VI and VI+. While many crystals do exist in
> the radio's L/O circuit, unlike in the Omni V, the VI's L/O crystals are
> tied to the reference oscillator and cannot be individually trimmed per
se,
> for improved frequency accuracy. Small deviations do exist from band to
band
> but are not a real bother IMO.
>
> Th real culprits in the Omni VI are the BFO crystals located on the board
> directly under the in-board speaker. This circuit is subject to
significant
> thermal drift coming and going in response to rig-generated heat and even
> changes in ambient room or Wx temperature. Attempting to fix this problem
I
> first removed the speaker to allow for convective cooling up through the
> speaker grill. Good but not great results. Then I substituted higher
> quality ceramic trimmers for the USB and LSB trimmers. No real
improvement.
> Finally I ordered custom built USB and LSB BFO crystals from ICM in
> Oklahoma. About $70 and an hour's work later, I had them installed. This
> change removed about 99.5% of the thermal drift resulting in better than
> spec'ed display accuracy. The BFO circuit is the culprit in this rig
> causing the problem with frequency accuracy. It is noticeable in SSB over
> periods of extended TX activity. New custom crystals and its just about
> gone.
>
> I must join with Adam and George in telling you that my new IC 756 Pro II
> has provided me with amazing frequency accuracy and repeatability. And to
> those of you commenting that it does not matter I beg to differ. It
matters
> to many of us a whole lot. I simply got sick and tired of always being off
> everyone else's frequency. It also matters if you want to work MARS. Check
> out the MARS rig requirements of late.
>
> I will also add that some of the snide comments including "sell your Omni
> and keep you Jap rig then you won't be so stressed out" once again
> demonstrate to me the developing intolerance of some on this list.
> Regrettable.
>
> I have both ICOM and Ten Tec gear here now but hold no blind allegiance to
> any manufacturer. Competition breeds the best product for us all. To each
> his own. This specific problem was/is important to me and many others who
I
> have spoken with but who care not to comment on the reflector.
>
> And on a final unrelated note, I wish TT would put some good quality Orion
> photos on the TT Web site. It needs to be seen better than is being
shown.
>
> 73 de N1LQ-Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
From what I've experienced with my Omni V, I'd recommend that you get the 500 Hz
filter in the 9 MHz IF. Sometimes, the 250 Hz filter can be too narrow.
73 - Al, K2ZN
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Crit Harley, MD, C.Ht. [mailto:jcharley@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:19 PM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: [TenTec] Query about filters
Work CW and have an Omni V w/ 250hz filter in the 6.3 Mhz IF.
Works great most of the time.
Thinking of adding another filer. Is it worth it?
Which makes the best sense to go with next?
250 hz in the 9 Mhz IF
500 hz in the 9 Mhz IF
500 hz in the 6.3 Mhz IF
Tnx for your thghts.
73/Crit/K4BXN
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
From all I have heard, I think you would not let it go back!
From my perspective, UTC always causes confusion.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick White" <KS0M@ktis.net>
To: "Post Mail Ten Tec" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 9:18 PM
Subject: Fw: [TenTec] Ten Tec 20 meter net reminder
> Mike..........I don't understand why any amateur radio op would want
> anything but UTC time. With the time zones, some on daylight time and
others
> on standard time, the only thing that makes sense to use it UTC. We shouls
> all always use UTC to avoid confusion.
>
> Dick - KS0M
> At 0318z 17/11/02
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael A. Newell, WB4HUC" <mnewell1@austin.rr.com>
> To: "tentec" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 4:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten Tec 20 meter net reminder
>
>
> > I use UTC so that I don't have to
> > worry about time zones. Everyone
> > ought to be able to convert UTC
> > to his/her own time zone, and
> > vice versa.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Mike - WB4HUC
> > Austin, TX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
From what I can tell, the ARQ scheme absolutely will not give up until all data
is passed, regardless of how long it takes. Since this mode is frequently run
in an unattended manner, the QRM that's generated can get unbearable.
At least with DV, an operator would typically be sitting right there at the mic.
Al, K2ZN
From my experience with auto couplers, the circuitry that determines the VSWR
can be susceptible to stray RF during the tune cycle, which can be abundant due
to the opening/closing of relay contacts and the dance around the Smith Chart.
If the undesired RF in the box is at a high enough level, the sense circuit can
be fooled into believing that a good tune solution has been found.
I've never seen the internal coupler up-close and personal; is it in a shielded
enclosure?
Al, K2ZN
-----Original Message-----
From: John Clifford [mailto:johnclif@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:23 AM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [TenTec] Jupiter/LDG AT-11MP Tuner
Note also that the KAT2 automatically reduces power to no more than 3 watts
during the tuning cycle, both to protect itself and to protect the K2's finals.
From my perspective, the "out of the box" condition, be it pass or fail, is
something I'd like to know about. It says something about a company and
their quality position.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: <Wa9mxq@cs.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] I get nervous when . . .
> I don't think the "only ONE piece" rule always applies. Seems like I
recall
> that they did like three different radios some years back when they did
the
> Icom IC-751 as an example. Actually, I should check that to be sure but I
> know that has happened when they get a radio they have problems with. The
rub
> here is that this impacts the perception of the radio as a good/bad or
> dependable/undependable product. At the same time that is something we
want
> to know. As implied in this sting, however, there is a heck of a lot
resting
> on the outcome of tests on one early production radio.
>
> 73,
>
> - Bill, WA9MXQ
>
> In a message dated 1/9/2003 8:16:48 PM Central Standard Time,
> RMcGraw@Blomand.Net writes:
> > I've noticed that they evaluate only ONE piece.
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
From the Universal Radio Web Site (except the LL-5):
FT-1000D 4199.95
Digital Voice Recorder 209.95
RS-232 CAT interface 89.95
MD-100 Microphone 119.95
XF-455MC 600hz CW Filter 144.95
SP-8 external speaker 159.95
LL-5 internal phone patch 125.00 (trom Texas Towers)
-------------
5049.70
--
Mike - WB4HUC
Austin, TX
From my perspective, if one wishes to have and use a truly 1st class radio,
buy and use a Omni VI+ (not an upgrade). Anything else, any model, at any
price, any brand will be 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and etc. in terms of receiver
performance.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman@spacetech.com>
To: "Canuck" <ve1doug@netscape.net>; <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] OMNI V
> I have both a Pegasus and a Corsair. I use an external DSP filter.
> For crowded band conditions, the Corsair greatly outperforms the Pegasus.
>
> I imagine that the VI and its various plus models substantially outperform
> the Corsair, under difficult conditions. And, the new Orion will put them
> all to shame.
>
> 73 de Gary, AA2IZ
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Canuck" <ve1doug@netscape.net>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 7:29 AM
> Subject: [TenTec] OMNI V
>
>
> > Just a little question here for you Tentec people. Was The OmniV really
> > the best in the receiver line-up they ever had. Presently own a Pegasus;
> > works good. Have not been active last couple of years. Hope to hear some
> > replies to my query.
> > 73's & GL
> > PA1OW-Doug
> > --
> > Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
> > Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!
> > http://shopnow.netscape.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
|