[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] [FCG] CQWW 160

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [FCG] CQWW 160
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 22:53:27 -0500 (EST)
List-post: <">>
I'll throw my two cents in for the best rig.  My Lafayette  HE10 rx.  I 
could hear the whole band on 160 with that rx...all at  once.
In a message dated 2/3/2012 3:50:57 A.M. Greenwich Standard Time, writes:

Dont  mean to start another "which rig is best" war, but
Mark, Im glad it works  so well for you. I just personally
never cared for how any of the Orions I  have used sound in
SSB, and the receiver overloads so easily... Could be I  dont
know how to run it well...

Plus, my desk is not big enough to  take that huge box!  

Other than that, I like Coke, you like  Pepsi, lets leave it
at that.

This is a very subjective  issue.


----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Mark  Luhrman <>
Subject: Re: [FCG] CQWW 160
Date:  Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:35:41 -0800 (PST)

>Well today I downloaded the  newest firmware version for the
>Orion. And all I can say is the audio  on ssb is fantastic.
>It is some of the best sounding audio I have ever  heard on
>a radio. And now you can actually use the NR and  understand
>what they are saying. The new SAF feature was added. It  is
>like the old APF that was used in CW mode, but can be used
>in  all modes, is unbelievable. You can peak all signals
>now. They jump  right out of the mud. Mark
>W4SVO________________________________From:  Lu Romero
>n4ww@earthlink.netSent: Thu, February 2, 2012  4:29:58
>PMSubject: Re: [FCG] CQWW 160Doc, et. al:Its my  opinion
>that the FT5k and the K3, having  similararchitecture,
>behave similarly.  You *THINK* that the  radiosdont hear
>well as an older triple conversion high IFanalog  radio, but
>they do, just that the receiver noise isso  "different"
>sounding in these rigs that you mind thinksthat they  cant
>hear as well as what youre used to.I have not listened to  a
>FT5k much, b ut I have listened to aK3 a lot and in
>comparison  to a TS590 and a IC7700, I canhear everything
>the other two can hear,  but the band noiseis so much less
>and so different sounding (less  "white/pink"noise, more of
>a wideband "howl") that my brain,  accustomedto listening to
>analog rigs for years, thinks that since  Idont hear so much
>band noise, that the receiver must bedeaf.  It  has taken
>a while to adapt, and now when I usea rig like a FT1000  or
>a 7700/7800, they sound weird andreally noisy to me.
>(Orions  just never sounded right to myear, especially on
>phone, but that's just  another storyaltogether).At least in
>my experience these rigs hear as  well or attimes better
>than the triple conversion analog rigs do, butas  usual,
>your milage may vary .I did the last SS SSB with a 7700  and
>that crunchy, cracklyreceiver IMD on a busy phone band  that
>I remember so wellfrom years listening to a TS850 was  right
>there like Iremembered it.  I NEVER EVER heard that  on
>K3 in SS SSB2010, even in the same heavy QRM on the  same
>big antennas.  Note that a TS590 is *NOT* a low  IF
>downconverting rig on 10meters like the K3/FT5k/Orion...  it
>is a traditional high IFtriple superhetrodyne receiver  on
>that band; it uses thedownconverting low IF architecture  on
>15, 20, 40, 80 and 160only, therefore, it is more  like
>a7700/7800/FT1000/TS940/TS950/TS850 on 10 meters and  the
>WARCbands.  So on those bands, it sounds just like  a
>TS850/TS940to me. Kenwood, being the audio gods that they
>are,  havedone a masterful job of masking and smoothing out
>the"digital"  sound of the 590 on the downconverting bands
>andmaking it sound more  like an analog radio there.  It
>,frankly, much smoother and  less "edgy/nervous" sounding
>thana K3, even after installing the low  pass filter mod
>andappl ying the receiver EQ tricks that I play with on  my
>K3.-lu-w4lt------ Original Message Follows  -----From:
>K1to@aol.comTo: fcg@kkn.netSubject: Re: [FCG] CQWW  160Date:
>Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:39:38 -0500 (EST)>When using the MP  on
>10M, I always switch the preamp in,>using menu item   8-4
>from FLAT to TUNED.  > >No idea whether the  FT5000
>similarly.  > >We missed EW1WA @ W8JI --  nice job,
Doc!  >
>>73, Dan> > >In a message  dated 2/2/2012 10:19:21 A.M.
>Eastern Standard>Time, writes:>>I
>really bummed out last  year on 160 when it became>apparent
>that I  was not   hearing the weak european>stations
(due to
>local qrn) as well as  I  needed to  be>competitive
>calling cq.>>B  ut here I am back with another score,  but
>it took until>0500z  the first  night to get on the air.
>>>Really  funny  conditions, a few strong european sgnals
>for>30 minutes or so   the first  night and then they
>all>disappeared after 0600z.  Second night  much better
>with  a>peak around 0330. While  calling cq and working an
>>occasional european like  dl/ok I  still had very
>few>european mults. So at the peak  I tuned  my
>band>map and in succession from 0326-0359 I had  mostly 
>new>multipliers in  a   row--lz9w,hg1s,sk7dx,f5in,ei2cn>
>,sn7q.on9cc,co6lp,yo9hp.   What a hoot!!!>>Otherwise where
>were all the africans? Not even  an ea8  or>the always
>super  op from d44... bummer!  >>Went to bed at least by
>3-4  am. So no JA's in log.  Only>asian p33w if you  can
>call that an asian. Saw  spots  for>TA's but always barely
>copyable and  didnt feel  like>causing myself  pain by
>trying to qso them.>>The  ft500 worked well and I think I
>am  convinced it is>worth  the
> switch  from my old reliable ts940. It is of>course  a 
>pleasure to operate while  running with  all>newest
>stuff and dsp stuff  but I was still not  >convinced that
>the new technology doesnt take a db off the  >extremely weak
>160  signal. I tuned both radios on  weak>signal after
>signal and the ft5000 won  or  equaled>the value of weak
>signal 160 battle with  the ts940.  >>When I first got the
>ft500 I was a little freaked out on 10>  meters while 
>tuning a weak signal (vk0th) I thought the>ts940  was
>sensitive but I  could hear the signal  on>both radios
>sounded louder on  ts940. That is   one of>reasons I
>became a fan of ft1000d/mp because all  >weak signals on 
>94 0 were louder than ft1000 on  10>meters and in some
>cases  it was a  difference maker  I>felt.>>73 doc
>n4ww>>CQ160CW Score Summary  Sheet>>Start Date :
>2012-01-28>>CallSign Used :  N4WW>Operator(s) :
>N4WW>>Operator Category :   MULTI-ONE>Band :  ALL>Power
>HIGH>Mode :  CW>Default Exchange : FL>Gridsquare :
>EL98HQ>>Name : austin  regal>Address : 1425 foxfire
>dr>City/State/Zip : apopka   FL  32712>Country : 
>Section :  NFL>Club/Team : florida contest group>Software :
>N1MM Logger  V12.1.3>>Band  QSOs    Pts   StP 
>535    1889     55  51>Total      535   
1889   55 
>51>>>Score : 200,234>Rig : >>Antennas   : >>Soapbox :
>have observed all  competition rules as well as
>all>regulations established for amateur  radio in my
>country. My>report is correct  and true to the best  of my
>knowledge. I>agree to be bound by the  decisions of  the
>Contest>Committee.>>>>Date :  2012-01-29    
>mailing   list>Send mail ->Change/edit subsc
>ription info -  > FCG
>Web site -  > Facebook  -
>> DXCluster - telnet  to
>_______>FCG  mailing list>Send mail -
>>Change/edit subscription  info
>-> FCG Web  site
>->  Facebook
>-> DXCluster -  telnet
>_______________________________________________FCG  mailing
>listSend mail - FCG@kkn.netChange/edit subscription info  -
>htt p:// Web site  -
>www.floridacontestgroup.orgFacebook  -
> - telnet  to
FCG mailing  list
Send mail -
Change/edit subscription info -
FCG Web site -
Facebook -
DXCluster - telnet to

TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [TowerTalk] [FCG] CQWW 160, Cqtestk4xs <=