[Top] [All Lists]

[TenTec] Re: INRAD vs. TenTec - Yes Please

To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: [TenTec] Re: INRAD vs. TenTec - Yes Please
From: GeneN8KUA@aol.com (GeneN8KUA@aol.com)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 13:13:50 EST
In a message dated 12/5/98 8:49:47 AM CST, darwin@together.net writes:

> Boy Gene, a scientific comparison would be great, but right now I'd settle
>  for someone who says "I used to have the TT filters and now I have the
>  INRAD filters and here's my impression".  I'm guessing someone already has
>  an impression but hasn't posted it to the reflector.
>  Just call me mister curious :)
>  Keith Darwin
>  AA5AC
>  Ferrisburg, VT

Keith (and Ten-Tecnophiles)

Since about June of this year, at least for the 6 MHz IF, there have been
happy reports on this reflector from folks who replaced their T-T/NS filters
with INRADS.  That made me feel lots better about spending the extra $20 or so
per filter.  I don't think I've seen anyone's comparison of the (relatively
new) 9 MHz filters.   The difference has been described as being readily
detectable, though not "night and day."

I was of course teasing about the scientific study (though it might be fun),
but I do wonder how much one's ears listen to that extra $20 compared to the
actual difference.   And those of us who've liked putting INRAD/IRC filters
into Kenwood rigs 
may come to the problem with even more faith in the product.

But, all told, I'd recommend saving the real serious scientific questions for
folks like the doc who wants to "just do this simple blood test for your
prostate" when you turn 50.  But that's not a topic for this reflector...



FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions:              tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm

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