I also would like to add that a speech unit be added or developped so that
those of us who can't read the freq etc. will have this ability to use the
rig.
How's about it Tentec. You guys did good with the Omnis and other rigs so
dont' stop there.
Also, I hope the DSP is if and not af. Af dsp isn't all that good in my
opinion, but this of course iss my opinion.
73 de Scott/n3byy
Fists #5030
At 04:00 PM 02/10/1999 -0800, Peter A. Klein wrote:
>
>Eric Rosenburg wrote:
>
>>Ten-Tec Model 526 All-Mode VHF Transceiver. . .
>>It also will be Amateur Radio's first IF-DSP VHF all-mode transceiver. . .
>>
>>The 526 will cover 6 and 2 meters with 20 W on each band variable to less
>>than 1 W via a front-panel control. . .
>>CW/SSB/FM modes
>>Separate SO-239 ports for each band
>>DSP-based filtering, with approximately 30 filters selectable, 250 Hz to 1
>>kHz in 50-Hz steps and 1 to 2.8 kHz in 100-Hz steps
>
>If Scott Robbins or any of the other folks at Ten-Tec are listening, I have
>a suggestion for the 526's DSP filtering. Rather than stopping at 250 Hz
>for the tightest selectivity, I would suggest extending the range down to
>50 Hz.
>
>Why? Because using slow CW and *very* tight filtering (100 Hz or less) is
>a great way to copy very weak signals. Such as the kind you often get in
>VHF "beyond line of sight." Many weak-signal VHF operators know this
>trick, as do satellite and moonbounce folks. Even HF CW DXers can benefit
>from it under some conditions. I've been using this ultra-low bandwidth
>trick for years, starting with a Heathkit Q-Multiplier in the late 1960s,
>later using an Autek active audio filter, and now a Timewave DSP box.
>
>If the 526's selectivity is all done in software with an optical encoder or
>plus/minus "clicker" of some sort controlling the selectivity (rather than
>a switch with dedicated, hard-coded positions), then it shouldn't be too
>expensive to add a little extra code to the DSP. No expensive hardware
>changes needed.
>
>Extending the range down to 50 Hz would mean that even the most demanding
>VHFer would not need an external DSP box for the 526. Especially if it
>includes noise reduction similar to what's in the Omni VI (upgraded or
>Plus), and has close-in strong signal handling like an Omni. All this
>could make it very attractive to East Coast "RF-Alley" VHF contesters.
>
>73 from KD7MW,
>----
> : -----==3== --- ---
> - Peter - : | | | | | | | |
> : @| @| @| @| @| @| @| @|
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
--
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
|