Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Orion\s+V1\s+vs\.\s+V2\s+Audio\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Orion\s+V1\s+vs\.\s+V2\s+Audio\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Orion V1 vs. V2 Audio (score: 1): Author: Mike Gorniak <mgorniak@genesiswireless.us>; Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:19:12 -0500; Here is the frequency response data measured on my Orion (original) with both V1 (1.373b5) and V2 (2.056) software. The responses are significantly dissimilar and should be helpful to those trying to; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-04/msg00266.html (9,015 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] Orion V1 vs. V2 Audio (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>; Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:24:43 -0500; In my view, for COMMUNICATIONS, either response curve is too broad. The guttural basso profundo sounds get filtered in MOST receiver filters and just waste RF power and spectrum, while the voice scre; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-04/msg00269.html (10,339 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] Orion V1 vs. V2 Audio (score: 1): Author: Ralph Matheny <mathenyr@marietta.edu>; Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:07:45 -0400 (EDT); Thanks...very helpfull. Have not changed to V2 yet--and for a variety of reasons may not for a while. Ralph Matheny K8RYU 207 Gibbons Place Marietta Ohio 45750 _______________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-04/msg00273.html (7,660 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] Orion V1 vs. V2 Audio (score: 1): Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:23:06 -0500; Seems to me perhaps QRZ.com or eham might be a more appropriate place for bandwidth wars. We're talking here about performance, not whether anyone happens to think we all ought to talk through a str; /archives//html/TenTec/2006-04/msg00282.html (7,884 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]