Mail Archive Search: <+from:W3ULS@3n.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:W3ULS@3n.net: 162 ]

Total 162 documents matching your query.

121. [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:23:25 -0400; My experience with a couple of DSP rigs--a 746PRO and a TS-870S--is that the key to hearing a signal in the free and clear (or eliminating nearby signal artifacts) involves very careful manipulation; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00525.html (8,273 bytes)
122. [TenTec] Follow up (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:07:38 -0400; The OMNI VI is shining in WAE CW. Only problem is, there isn't much variety in the Euro contest stations--mostly Germans (at least what I can hear with antennas at half mast due to Charley). No need; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00657.html (7,077 bytes)
123. [TenTec] Alas, not for me (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:22:59 -0400; If, as has been speculated, Ten-Tec may come out with a successor to the Pegasus, there's no doubt that such a product would be able to do all kinds of neat digital things. One example of where thing; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg01182.html (7,201 bytes)
124. [TenTec] Re: [Ten-Tec] Alas, not for me (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:39:51 -0400; Well, Ron and Duane, I remain medieval, I guess. A. I want a radio, not a computer. I enjoy using computers about as much as I do cutting grass, i.e., not much. B. A well-designed, attractive front p; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-09/msg00022.html (8,121 bytes)
125. [TenTec] Re; [Ten-Tec] Alas, not for me (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:38:08 -0400; Hi Ken: Take a look at W8JI's web site. He has stats for a before/after TS-870S. Can't go further--in over my head :-) 73, John, W3ULS _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing l; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-09/msg00029.html (6,539 bytes)
126. [TenTec] Re: [Ten-Tec] Alas, not for me (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:48:01 -0400; In re the analog/DSP circuitry in the TS-870: The INRAD mod is an imaginative exercise in making a good radio perform better; it certainly is not what one would do if you were designing a new TS-870; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-09/msg00054.html (9,073 bytes)
127. [TenTec] No good deed . . . (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:10:32 -0400; Scott wrote: . . . when I heard _____ on 80 CW on Sunday night, (the) signal sounded bad. I knew (the) email address so I sent . . . a private email (stating I'd heard) a pronounced thump on the lead; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-09/msg00854.html (7,336 bytes)
128. [TenTec] OT-W3UIO (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:05:59 -0400; Hello, Larry: Do you know what month you got your ticket in 1952? I've been unable to remember what year I got mine--W3ULS, but we must have been pretty close. So at least now I know it was 1952 or 1; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-10/msg00209.html (6,471 bytes)
129. [TenTec] OT: QRM @ 28.6! (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:58:14 -0500; Can you believe 10 meters (13:57 Z)? QRM at 28.6 MHZ! 73, John, W3ULS _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/lis; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-10/msg00398.html (6,329 bytes)
130. [TenTec] Re: Post Sweepstakes: FWIW (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:20:50 -0500; 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 F; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-11/msg00170.html (7,805 bytes)
131. [TenTec] Re: True QSK? (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:48:11 -0500; Allow me also to say "thanks," Doug. The professionalism on display in your posting is awesome. My father at one point was a landline telegrapher, so I heard similar stories of professional competenc; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-11/msg00278.html (6,701 bytes)
132. [TenTec] scratch pad feature in OMNI VI (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:08:28 -0500; Paul, I believe Peter (NO2D) is on to something as a way of illustrating the interplay between the "Band Registers" and the "Scratch Pad" functions in the OMNI VIs. They do not seem to offer much as; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-11/msg00694.html (7,421 bytes)
133. [TenTec] 961 vs 962 ps (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:17:19 -0500; Jerry: The 961 was designed for the OMNI VI, I believe. The 961 was, I believe, replaced by the 962 when a power transformer became unavailable. Some people prefer the 961 (myself included). Older ha; /archives//html/TenTec/2004-12/msg01034.html (7,139 bytes)
134. [TenTec] Re; Adding 2.8 kHz filters to OMNI VI (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:39:54 -0500; I have just installed an INRAD 2.8 kHz filter in the first IF of my OMNI VI and have gotten some improvement in the high frequency response. There is virtually no lower frequency output, however, and; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00210.html (7,469 bytes)
135. [TenTec] Re: Adding 2.8 kHz filters to OMNI VI (score: 1): Author: John <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:52:20 -0500; Thanks to all respondents. I'm certainly not seeking "high fidelity" from the OMNI in SSB. Far from it. Just tweaking the audio, which I find competent on SSB but not praiseworthy. Excellent on CW, t; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00220.html (7,182 bytes)
136. [TenTec] OMNI VI Non-Confusion (score: 1): Author: John <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:59:18 -0500; In a very interesting post, Steve, N4LQ, wrote: "Personally, I would much prefer the old Omni VI 563 with all the upgrades I could get. Yes, you still have to contend with the IF boards being SMD but; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00314.html (7,997 bytes)
137. [TenTec] Looking backward? (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:00:16 -0500; Even as I am considering getting the new INRAD "roofing" filter setup for my OMNI VI, I can't help wondering: doesn't this improvement represent a step backward in terms of technology? Adding analog; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00428.html (7,470 bytes)
138. [TenTec] Re; Looking Backward (score: 1): Author: John <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:16:31 -0500; Ironically, I posted my querulous asservations on the same day Steve Jobs delivered a two-hour (sic!) presentation at a Mac event on the west coast. I wish Jobs would get a ham license :-) Thanks for; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00457.html (6,625 bytes)
139. [TenTec] V. 1.08? (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:04:08 -0500; I have seen references on the internet to firmware v. 1.08 for the Argonaut V. One reviewer on eHam.net says his Argonaut, purchased in December, came with v. 1.08. The RFSquared web site lists v. 1.; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg01199.html (6,574 bytes)
140. [TenTec] Getting My Argo Back--pronto (score: 1): Author: John <w3uls@3n.net>; Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:14:13 -0500; I sent my Argo V to T-T for the 1.08 upgrade stuff on Feb. 4. On the llth, I got a bill in the mail--the work was completed and done free under warranty. In terms of all-around design/performance/cos; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-02/msg00322.html (6,856 bytes)

Current List: 121 - 140
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]