Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Re\;\s+Adding\s+2\.8\s+kHz\s+filters\s+to\s+OMNI\s+VI\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [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)

2. RE: [TenTec] Re; Adding 2.8 kHz filters to OMNI VI (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:28:07 -0500
Without drastic surgery, you'll only see modest improvements in the audio response, especially at the bass end of the spectrum. The Omni was never intended to do hi-fi ssb. 73, Barry N1EU ___________
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00211.html (7,805 bytes)

3. RE: [TenTec] Re; Adding 2.8 kHz filters to OMNI VI (score: 1)
Author: <al_lorona@agilent.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:06:49 -0700
That's right. The bottom line is that in the Omni VI, the audio is always routed to the DSP, which acts as a high pass filter to roll off everything below about 300 Hz. You can't turn this function
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00216.html (8,681 bytes)

4. Re: [TenTec] Re; Adding 2.8 kHz filters to OMNI VI (score: 1)
Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:26:07 -1000
Question: what are the practical effects of an "unbalanced" SSB signal? As Barry has noted, there is an enclosure with the 2.8 kHz filter that says the carrier "may have to be balanced." I haven't do
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00218.html (8,427 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu