Hi, Reid, and everyone else,
> I also question the need for the extra 50 watts. I believe it takes a
> 3dB increase to be detectable by the human ear, and about 6 dB to
> equal one 'S' unit increase. So, 150 vs 100 watts is mostly
> marketing/advertising hype with virtually no benefit to the user - but
> a slight benefit to the power company :-).
Thank you. That verifies what I thought I knew to be true.
>
> It takes far less than the 100 watts that is available from my Omni
> VI/3 to drive my Heath SB-1000 (a single 3-500) to full power output
> on any band. I usually have it "coasting" along at about 50 watts
> when I use the amp.
This is the class of amplifier others are claiming needs the extra
drive, is it not?
Oh, for the gentleman who asked why we don't accept a 1.7db reduction in
power (to 67W on a 100W rig), I have two answers:
1) I think it is perfectly reasonable to demand that a radio meet the
published specifications 2) Those of us who bought a Scout, an Argosy,
or a Triton I clearly were willing to accept 3db less :)
>
> At this point If Ten Tec has already designed the output circuitry and
> power supply for 100 watts, it may not be a trivial effort to make the
> increase to 150 watts.
I would also prefer to see the devices run conservatively to insure
maximum longevity, so even if the can handle 150W, 100W may be a much
better idea.
Personally, I'm more interested in the 516 than the Orion, but that's me
:)
73,
Caity
KU4QD
|