[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] LDG tuner install/first impressions

To: <k4qo@earthlink.net>,"Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] LDG tuner install/first impressions
From: "Ron Castro" <ronc@sonic.net>
Reply-to: Ron Castro <ronc@sonic.net>,Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:39:45 -0800
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Is it possible that the LDG is using its own internal SWR bridge and that 
might not be in agreement with the TT?  IOW the LDG 'thinks' it has nearly a 
1:1 match, but the TT is showing something different?  It wouldn't be the 
first time two SWR bridges showed different readings!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy K4QO" <k4qo@earthlink.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:50 PM
Subject: [TenTec] LDG tuner install/first impressions

> I spent most of today (Sunday) removing the TenTec supplied auto-tuner
> and putting the LDG in its place.  ( a couple of times actually - not
> fun!) For now, I'm keeping the TenTec model.  Here's why...
> Basically, I like the way the TenTec one works now.  When the TT one
> tunes and you don't like that it came up with 1.8 or 1.4:1 or whatever,
> you can re-tune with two pushes - one to turn off the tuner and then
> again to bring it back on and do a "re-tune".  The TT tuner seems to
> "start" at the last tune setting and it usually improves on the match.
> The LDG model does not allow this.  Whatever you get from the tune cycle
> is what you get - no refinements- if you invoke another tune it either
> will select a memory one (like the last one it just did) or if you force
> it to fully re-tune it starts from scratch and then stops where it did
> before.
> Another reason for keeping the TT model for now is sort of alluded to in
> the last paragraph.  It doesn't match as well as the TT version.  Using
> the same antenna for a run through all the bands, the TT would give an
> average of 1.1:1 (on the first tune) while the LDG model only got to
> 1.4:1 on 3 bands and most bands were 1.8:1 or as much as 2.0:1 on 10
> meters.  I use a 500 foot loop at 50 feet fed with 450 window line.  The
> TT model has no trouble with it.  I'm pretty sure the LDG match would
> improve if it would allow a "refine" second tune, starting from the last
> known match.  But it didn't "first tune" as well as the TT model.  I
> thought my other LDG tuners did better on the first stab at a match, but
> its been a while since I used them.
> I'm an LDG fan as I have a few of their tuners for other situations.
> This one missed the mark for me.  Perhaps they will read this and look
> at modifying the firmware to allow the "refine" tune.  200 memories
> aren't useful if they are all at 1.8:1 or so.
> In looking closer at the TT model, I noticed a lot more circuitry -
> perhaps mostly unused.  Not sure.  BUT, it looks like it is capable of
> receiving band information via a communication port on the board that is
> presently not hooked up.  Wouldn't it be great if TT was able to someday
> have the tuner remember tune settings per band  so that when you change
> bands with the tuner enabled, it would automatically change the tuner
> settings.  (oh yeah..., like my $800 K2!)
> One the topic of hardware, the LDG model has 7 inductors and the TT
> model has eight.  The TT model has a lot more (tuning) capacitors but I
> suspect they are paralleled to make the values they need. Not sure but I
> think they both have at least eight actual tuning capacitor values.  I'm
> looking for the schematic of the TT tuner if anyone knows where to find 
> it.
> Installation note:  If you already have the TT tuner installed, the LDG
> directions ignore this.  I found myself wishing they had allowed for
> guys like me who already have wires run throughout the radio and only
> need to change the board.  Some female jacks on their tuner board (just
> like the TT one!) would have been really handy.  As it comes from LDG,
> they solder the In and Out cables to the board and force you to replace
> the TT ones.  A real pain and waste of effort.
> And while I'm whining about the install - some kind of mating connector
> for the control wires coming from the front panel would be nice too.  I
> fabricated a way to mate them so I wouldn't have to dig into the front
> panel. Bottom line:  Looks like the LDG tuner is not ready for prime
> time but not far from being all it is supposed to be.  I'm keeping the
> TT model installed for now.
> (Epilog:   I had posted this on the Orion reflector and there enusued a
> "whats wrong with 1.8:1?" kind of exchange.  Whats wrong with it is I'm
> used to seeing (for bad or for worse) 1.0:1's with the TenTec tuner.  I
> didn't expect to go backwards with the new tuner.  I'm investigating
> some technical aspects to determine why the matches aren't as good.
> Until then its on the bench and not in the radio.)
> 73,
> Randy
> K4QO
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

TenTec mailing list

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