Well that contradicts the QST review on the Pro2. Something isn't right. Did
Icom change the keyer in the Pro2 to have a real weight control or is it
still the odd "ratio" type control.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George, W5YR" <email@example.com>
To: "Roy Koeppe" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Ten Tec Reflector" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII
> Roy, I don't know what you are looking at, but when I look on a scope at
> the output r-f envelope of my PRO sending continuous dots, I see textbook
> perfect dots and spaces of equal lengths.
> Not saying TT gear is not great, but the PRO is not bad either. I work
> QSK at all times on CW and have never had a comment on shortened first
> nor have I ever been able to see one of the scope.
> Remember that in the PRO and PRO II, the keying is controlled, in fact
> actually generated, digitally, so there is no practical reason for the
> element lengths and time relationships not being very nearly perfect.
> Just a couple of cents from a very satisfied and old-time CW brasspounder.
> 72/73/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
> Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina #91900556 IC-765 #02437
> All outgoing email virus-checked by Norton Anti-Virus 2002
> Roy Koeppe wrote:
> > Haven't you seen the Feb. QST Review of the 756? Look at the CW keying
> > waveform 'scope trace. The 756 truncates the CW dots by about 60%!! Ugh.
> > No comparison to TT gear.
> TenTec mailing list