Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Why\s+is\s+the\s+Jupiter\s+Better\?\s*$/: 43 ]

Total 43 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: Sinisa Hristov <shristov@ptt.yu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:50:17 -0400
At at price of only ~10% of TX power being actually radiated. Which may or may not be objectionable. 73, Sinisa YT1NT, VA3TTN _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTe
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00147.html (8,659 bytes)

22. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX <RMcGraw@Blomand.Net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:45:54 -0500
I have a test data sheet from Sherwood Engineering that shows the IC-746 having 20KHz (99dB) and 2KHz (70 dB) Dynamic Range Data. Also there is the IC-746Pro data which 20KHz is 97dB and 2 KHz is 70d
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00151.html (9,730 bytes)

23. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: WB3LGC@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:20:02 EDT
The thing I find impressive in the Sherwood report is that 50 year old technology (AKA R-390A) does better then most of the current rigs... 73, Steve FYI the Omni VI+ 20KHz test data is 97 dB and 2 K
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00152.html (8,085 bytes)

24. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: Kc9cdt@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:29:19 EDT
R390A, Drake R-4C etc, etc. and of course Orion It is my beleif that all manufacturers (By Now!) know well .. how to build a superb radio. Especially when it comes to RCVR performance. They just don'
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00154.html (7,982 bytes)

25. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:46:14 -0500
Unfortunately, the R-4C as it came from Drake was not a very good receiver in almost every measure we now consider important. Downright awful actually. Which isn't to say that I don't love mine dear
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00157.html (7,773 bytes)

26. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: Kc9cdt@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:01:28 EDT
Aaaahhhhh! But do you have a full Sherwood modified R-4C (By Sherwood himself)??? It's wonderfull.... ;-) Lee _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00158.html (7,726 bytes)

27. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: Don Rasmussen <wb8yqj@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Sinista, you are suggesting feedline losses, not tuner losses - right? ! Just to clarify LDG is not causing the attenuation! ;-) My 2 cents, I am a "fit and finish" guy but the way the Icoms and MPs
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00159.html (8,573 bytes)

28. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: "Steve N4LQ" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:53:06 -0400
The IC-746 PRO does not allow for installation of any extra filters. It's last IF stage is DSP just like the Jupiter although I suspect it has a more modern processor. In fact, it's processor is newe
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00164.html (11,903 bytes)

29. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX <RMcGraw@Blomand.Net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:02:38 -0500
Yea, noticed that too. The top 10 rigs, in order of 2kHz Dynamic Range Data, as per this report on receiver performance are: Orion (1kHz roofing filter) = 92 dB Drake R-4C (600 Hz roofing filter) = 8
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00166.html (9,670 bytes)

30. [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter Better? (score: 1)
Author: John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 19:25:42 -0400
Re: firmware updates. A Ten-Tec rep told me some time ago that the Argonaut is a finished product and no further updates will be forthcoming. I don't know whether this injunction applies to the Jupit
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00173.html (8,747 bytes)

31. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: Dennis Healy <dennis68@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:28:37 -0400
I suppose its resale value will drop substantially the day you unpack it.>> -- I wasn't aware that iCom announced a 746ProII. Is that a non-U.S. market only for the time being? I haven't seen any adv
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00178.html (10,257 bytes)

32. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter Better? (score: 1)
Author: "Dennis, NC2F" <nc2f@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 19:56:21 -0400
Wow, is this true about Ten-Tec cutting off firmware updates after a period of time? If that is indeed the case, it certainly detracts from the "value" of the impression that these radios are never r
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00180.html (10,733 bytes)

33. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter Better? (score: 1)
Author: "Stuart Rohre" <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:13:26 -0500
Dennis, You cannot make firmware updates forever, after you exceed the available memory for such. The microprocessors regularly go out of date, and semiconductor manufacturers discontinue their avail
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00183.html (10,379 bytes)

34. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter Better? (score: 1)
Author: "Dennis, NC2F" <nc2f@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:29:35 -0400
Stuart, All good points you make, and yes, a radio with such limitations as you point out can't take endless amounts of updates, which makes me wonder about the first poster's point of the the Jupite
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00184.html (9,312 bytes)

35. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter Better? (score: 1)
Author: "Stuart Rohre" <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:34:41 -0500
Dennis, A practical reality for companies of limited size such as ham radio companies, is that the resources of the company must swing to other product lines, and there are not unlimited software res
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00185.html (9,360 bytes)

36. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter Better? (score: 1)
Author: doc <kd4e@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:49:56 -0400
Dennis, NC2F wrote: Stuart, All good points you make, and yes, a radio with such limitations as you point out can't take endless amounts of updates, which makes me wonder about the first poster's poi
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00187.html (10,595 bytes)

37. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter Better? (score: 1)
Author: ac5e@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 00:53:35 +0000
There's a vast difference between a given radios "update lifespan" and the radio's actual lifespan. The first easily described, when the firmware is acceptable to as many users as possible within the
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00188.html (9,240 bytes)

38. RE: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: "EDWARD CRAWFORD" <w4wvw@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:56:06 +0000
Thirty day return policy. One year parts and labor warranty. FAST service turnaround. Not 6 or 8 weeks. Service support via telephone or email. Keeps jobs at home instead of abroad. 73. Ed,w4wvw From
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00194.html (9,308 bytes)

39. RE: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:24:31 -0500
I bought a used 746 from a local ham who had loaded it with filters. I'm VERY happy with the 746 on 6 meters, but don't use it on the low bands because I have other radios that are better. I tried to
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00209.html (9,796 bytes)

40. Re: [TenTec] Why is the Jupiter better? (score: 1)
Author: Charles Greene <W1CG@QSL.NET>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 09:18:48 -0400
Jim, There is a big debate over Jupiter vs ICOM 746PRO, and as it is the Ten Tec reflector, it is obviously biased toward the Jupiter. I am coming more to think the Jupiter would be a good rig for th
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-07/msg00261.html (11,006 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu