Arthur Trampler wrote:
> I should have been more clear...that diversity
rx with idential receivers is
> Maybe in the real world it doesn't make a
difference (whether it's the Orion
primary/sub RX or two identical K3 receivers).
> I'll have to go listen...
Speaking as a former Orion owner for 4
years, it does make a difference. Try listening
in a large pileup or in a crowded
contest. Orion's Main RX is on a par with the
K3's, but its Sub is extremely poor...to the
point of being unusable with any strong signals
around. On Sherwood's table, the Orion Sub-RX's
IMD performance (measured by ARRL at 59 dB for 5
kHz spacing) would rank near the bottom of his list.
If Orion had delivered "true diversity",
meaning two phase-locked receivers with good RF
performance, I would probably still have mine
today. Unfortunately, due to the way the
synthesizer frequencies were derived, there is a
constant 2-6 Hz offset (audible warble) between
the receivers. And of course you also have the
strong signal performance issues mentioned above.
In reading reviews by anyone, you should
always "consider the source". G4ILO is not at
the top of the list of people whose opinions I
respect. His liking of the TS-2000 speaks
volumes to me. Personally I would rate reviews
by W8JI, ON4UN, 5B4AGN and a few others as being
much more meaningful for my style of operating
(low band DX-ing, contesting, etc).
Orion still has one of the finest Main
receivers available today. In fact in several
respects I actually prefer it to the K3. With a
few changes, it could be a viable competitor
offering true diversity that would compete very
favorably with the K3 or Flex 5000 (today's only
rigs offering true diversity). I hope some day
Ten-Tec will revisit Orion and address some of
the issues mentioned above. I would like not to
believe 5B4AGN's summary comment: "Enormous potential ? squandered".
73, Bill W4ZV
TenTec mailing list