TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Rig Comparisons

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Rig Comparisons
From: "Charles P. Steinmetz" <charles_steinmetz@lavabit.com>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 15:27:24 -0400
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Mike wrote:

Everyone seems to have their own opinion about this, but I agree with
you, Barry. I vary the receive bandwidth to compensate for changes in
QRM and QRN , as well as to accommodate and enhance the frequency
response characteristics of the station I am trying to copy. It's
amazing how sometimes a small tweak can have a huge impact on
intelligibility.  Having this flexibility reduces listening fatigue for
me, whether it's a rag chew, contest or weak signal DX situation.

IME this is very sensitive to implementation -- I find I'm often wanting to tweak DSP and mechanical filters, but with a well-chosen set of LC filters (Drake R8 series, for example) I'm content not to have further adjustments. I think it is a function of group delay and ringing, because DSP filters seem (to me) to need less tweaking if they are set for rounder corners/less ringing/better phase response than if they are screwed down tight.

Also IME, the LC implementations are far superior to any mechanical or DSP filter in terms of fidelity and lack of listening fatigue. Listen to an R390 and R390A side by side (where there are few material differences besides the filters) for a very graphic demonstration.

Best regards,

Charles










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