TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] Roof filters (N4PY and KC9CDT)

To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Roof filters (N4PY and KC9CDT)
From: "Barry Gross" <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:41:40 -0500
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Yes, the v1 audio response at 0dB was much flatter than v2.  There's also a
rolloff at low freq (<150hz) in v2 such that it can't be restored with the
EQ control to have the same low end extension as v1.

73, Barry N1EU

On 3/15/06, Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> >Everything looks (using Spectrogram) and sounds
> identical and PBT works correctly on both.
>
>          Well maybe not identical.  Bandwidth is
> identical but SSB audio response is not flat
> according to Spectrogram.  Also the audio
> response for Main RX is slightly different
> than for Sub RX.  Main seems to slope up
> slightly and Sub slopes down slightly.  With
> 0 dB RX EQ, both should be perfectly flat.
> You can also hear this in the character of
> the noise when you switch between the two.
> The same is true in CW mode also.  Maybe
> EQ needs a little more tweaking.  I'm not
> sure if this is a problem in V1 or not since
> I've never really checked it before.
>
>                                  73,  Bill  W4ZV
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>