John... what mods did you do to the FT-920? CW --I found that the sidetone
on the 920, which has little to do with what is actually being transmitted
drove me nuts. I ended up using another rx to monitor what I was sending
(cumbersome). I found the 920's qsk unusable (clipped very badly), and it's
keying too soft. I wonder if you dealt with any of these problems in your
modded version?
I still have the 920; it holds up the Jupe -- now if I could put the Jupe's
qsk in that 920 box...
Best,
Jerome - VA7VV
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rippey" <w3uls@3n.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:20 AM
Subject: [TenTec] Re: Post Sweepstakes: FWIW
FWIW, my experience in the CQ SSB and the ARRL SS was as follows. A
barefoot OMNI VI gave me everything I needed and more in the CQ SSB.
Amazing performance on both receive and transmit. A modified FT-920 and
the OMNI VI tied in the SS for CW receiver performance. On CW, I find the
FT-920 generally easier to use--more amenities--but the OMNI VI is always
there to step in if/when needed.
How strange that after four years of diddling with a bunch of transceivers
(not including the PRO II or the Orion) I end up with the Omni VI and the
(modified) FT-920 sitting side by side and the others either sold or up
for sale.
I use two Carolina Windoms up about 45 feet from a QTH 150 feet over the
Potomac River, about half a mile inshore on the Virginia side across from
St. Clement's Island. Based on my experience, I think there is something
to the notion of location, location, . . .
73,
John, W3ULS
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|