Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:n4lq@iglou.com: 866 ]

Total 866 documents matching your query.

381. RE: [TenTec] dit choppers non tentecs (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:06:49 -0400
Actually ICOM went to some effort to incorporate QSK on their rigs plus they also added many features that are useful to cw operators. It isn't completely fair to say the don't care. It's just this o
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00417.html (15,584 bytes)

382. Re: [TenTec] dit chopper IC-7800 (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:11:09 -0400
Tom: Too many dits per second causes buffer overrun in the newer firmware. Hows that for a guess? Steve N4LQ -- Original Message -- From: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net> To: <tentec@contesting.com> Se
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00460.html (21,137 bytes)

383. Re: [TenTec] Jupiter or Omni (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:02:48 -0400
Bill. If you like to fiddle with computers then get the Jupiter. It's half computer anyway. If you prefer just pure radio, get an Omni VI+. Keep in mind that the Omni's are not general coverage rigs
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00464.html (9,371 bytes)

384. Re: [TenTec] Difference Between Omni VI+ and Paragon II (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:36:32 -0400
P2 has no filter options in the first IF stage, no sidetone/off-set compensation, display reads center freq. instead of offset forcing you to mentally calculate actual freq (this needs verfying) No k
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00484.html (10,151 bytes)

385. Re: [TenTec] Difference Between Omni VI+ and Paragon II (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:16:04 -0400
Great...I wasn't sure if they had progressed that far or not at the time. The P2 is a wonderful rig. The only thing you need to watch out for is not letting your supply voltage slip down much below 1
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00504.html (12,535 bytes)

386. [TenTec] QST? (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:40:58 -0400
Not exactly on topic but QST does have TenTec ads in it. I got my new SEPT QST today and on the front cover it says "A high quality speaker system". I can't find the article. Maybe I'm loosing it. Ca
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00509.html (6,639 bytes)

387. Re: [TenTec] Difference Between Omni VI+ and Paragon II (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:40:35 -0400
Seems like the dashes are too short on the 6's internal keyer. Throws off my timming and sound jerky on the air. Maybe it's not exactly 3:1 or maybe the rest of them are all off, dunno. Steve N4LQ --
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00514.html (9,692 bytes)

388. Re: [TenTec] Where do the filters go? (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:47:18 -0400
Box and all will fit under the lid.
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00515.html (8,111 bytes)

389. Re: [TenTec] re QST? (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:14:26 -0400
But the cover said "High quality speaker". That audio panel is not a speaker. Something is missing.
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00520.html (8,651 bytes)

390. Re: [TenTec] Re: Orion qsk and 425 (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:04:04 -0400
Be careful with that Ameritron QSK5. It can blow the front end right out of a modern rig. I know. I found out the hard way! I've talked to other that had the same bad experience. Steve
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00522.html (10,429 bytes)

391. [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:03:49 -0400
Here's the results of a little experiment I did. Recently I acquired a digital sound level meter and have conducted some very revealing test. My first experiment was to investigate the effect of cw c
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00523.html (9,565 bytes)

392. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:05:15 -0400
Omni 6+ agc set for fast. ProII's agc set for 1.2 decay time. Changing the agc setting on the Pro makes no difference in the click artifacts.
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00528.html (9,028 bytes)

393. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:36:46 -0400
It didn't matter. I was comparing receivers and they were set up equally. Same antenna. Same speaker etc. It didn't matter what caused the clicks then. Sure we can blame it on the 930's spurious prod
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00530.html (9,900 bytes)

394. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:51:50 -0400
Ok but somehow I got the idea that the clicks were actually generated within the DSP stage. When using headphones I can hear what sounds like a bit of AGC overshoot on the PRO. A thumpy sound on cw.
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00532.html (11,970 bytes)

395. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:23:42 -0400
Not actually. First of all....The clicks aren't necessairly really there. The Icom is producing the noise on it's own. Second...The clicks can either distract, confuse or cover up a desired signal. D
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00537.html (9,468 bytes)

396. Re: [TenTec] Where do the filters go (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:31:56 -0400
Tom: Just to get some clarification on the QSK issue; When you say a rig won't run QSK above a certain speed, are you saying it won't key that fast or that you can't hear between the characters or bo
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00549.html (13,347 bytes)

397. Re: [TenTec] Re: Orion qsk and 425 (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:34:38 -0400
My QSK 5 was the outboard version. The instruction manual was rather vague on how to hook the thing up. I believe it backfired some RF into the rig's front end. After that experience I decided not to
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00550.html (8,393 bytes)

398. Re: [TenTec] DSP in CW transmit? (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:44:05 -0400
In many modern rigs the DSP is used to generate the cw and provide wave shaping which is adjustable in the menu. It can also provide sidetone and function as the keyer. Steve
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00564.html (8,682 bytes)

399. Re: [TenTec] DSP in CW transmit? (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:11:26 -0400
Have you ever checked out a Kenwood's QSK Tom? What about the TS-950sdx? I've never tried one. My 930 has great sounding qsk but I do prefer the sound of the Omni 6's receiver. Maybe we can combine t
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00566.html (10,770 bytes)

400. Re: [TenTec] ICOM PROII vs 6+ experiment (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:30:20 -0400
Possibly but it would be difficult to get the RF gain of both rigs set the same. There are probably many ways of comparing rigs that the ARRL never though of. My point here is to demonstrate that som
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00577.html (10,700 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu