Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Yaesu\s+comparison\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Yaesu\s+comparison\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: k4elo@fastmail.fm; Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:46:47 -0600; Has anyone on the list had the chance to do an A/B comparison between the Orion II and the Yaesu FTdx5000? Particularly in terms of ssb selectivity. I used to have an Orion II and sold it (bad move!); /archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00203.html (7,062 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: "Dan Thompson" <w4uh@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:05:19 -0500; Here is a You Tube comparing the K3, Orion II, & FT5000. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SqVBkA535o 73, Dan W4UH Has anyone on the list had the chance to do an A/B comparison between the Orion II and; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00208.html (8,340 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Dan Thompson <w4uh@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:53:22 -0500; There is a comparison on You Tube. Search Orion II vs FT5000. If I send the link it will be blocked. 73, Dan W4UH Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00214.html (8,313 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:06:13 -0600; First I'd say that a roofing filter has little to do with actual receiver IF selectivity. In other words, the roofing filter is pre the DSP selectivity which would typically be less than the BW of th; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00220.html (10,493 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:53:02 +0000; Sorry, but IMHO that test is meaningless, standing on its own. DSP filtering at "1800hz" on radio A may actually be equivalent to "1600hz" on radio B. DSP filter slope may be set up very differently; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00223.html (9,988 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:40:16 +0100; Dan, Without knowing which filters are in the K3 or how any of the rigs are set up, there is no way to judge what we really heard. My guess is, I could make whichever rig I wanted sound the best. and; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00228.html (10,132 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Billy Cox <aa4nu@ix.netcom.com>; Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:49:37 -0600 (GMT-06:00); Bob, I believe you are discounting how well the "roofing filter" really protects the actual "IF" chain? Given today's platforms, the line is rather blurred as many would consider the "roofing filter"; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-01/msg00235.html (12,602 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:48:41 -0600; The operative description was "SSB selectivity". The roofing filter has little to do with that aspect in as much as it only protects the IF portion which is outside of the DSP BW value. Therefore the; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00001.html (12,560 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Billy Cox <aa4nu@ix.netcom.com>; Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:12:15 -0600 (GMT-06:00); Sorry, I disagree, as the ability of the Orion platform to switch in the 1.8 verses ~3.0 of the FT5K, would ADD value to the overall chain. The narrower 1.8 would reduce even more of the other non-de; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00002.html (15,371 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:33:28 +0000; The dsp filtering slopes are normally much steeper than the roofing filter slopes. What we should be looking at in that video is purely the dsp filtering, assuming the user hasn't somehow enabled sha; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00006.html (13,415 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 20:30:13 +0000; Bob, you were looking at the subreceiver. The main rx is 1800hz 73, Barry N1EU _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/ma; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00011.html (8,268 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Billy Cox <aa4nu@ix.netcom.com>; Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:15:14 -0500 (EST); Exactly Barry, the 1.8 is NOT going to produce a crystal clear SSB bandpass, however what it may allow is to copy that S2 or S3 signal surrounded by other S9 signals and not be as impacted as if we w; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00012.html (9,866 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 20:51:02 +0000; I agree, but only for signals that are s9+. The threshold for adc overload depends on the circuit but is typically 15 to 35dB above s9. Any signal less than that is easily handled by dsp alone. I thi; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00013.html (9,438 bytes)
14. [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Floyd Sense <floyd@k8ac.net>; Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:05:54 -0500; I've nothing to add to the FT5K - O2 roofing filter discussion, but currently have an O2 which replaced an FT5K I had for a short time. If you're a CW operator contemplating an FT5K replacement for y; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00014.html (8,304 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 00:15:04 +0100; Rob Sherwood and the ARRL have had a long standing dispute (for about 3 years now) on how to best measure receiver performance of a transceiver. During those three years, I have fully supported Rob's; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00015.html (16,579 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: "Rodney" <w3krq@dejazzd.com>; Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:35:10 -0500; QST CHANGE SO THAT JAPAN RADIOS TEST BETTER Rob Sherwood and the ARRL have had a long standing dispute (for about 3 years now) on how to best measure receiver performance of a transceiver. During tho; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00017.html (16,587 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: k4elo@fastmail.fm; Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 08:05:39 -0600; Wow, this has generated a very interesting discussion with lots of good points. I do find it hard to believe that a 1.8 kHz roofing filter won't be better than a 3 kHz one with a strong, clean, signa; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00022.html (9,145 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 22:13:24 +0100; You guys are forgetting one very important point. Radios behave different in the real world, on the air, than they do in the lab with just two signals injected. The roofing filter is there to protect; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00030.html (12,355 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:33:25 -0600; Rick is exactly right, its one thing to be working with two (A+B) frequencies, with four different sum and difference products in the lab , and entirely different for three (A+B+C) frequencies, with; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00044.html (13,650 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] Yaesu comparison (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:25:07 -0500; So on a given day, you might clearly see that a radio with a 3kHz roofing filter sounds better than ... You some good points, and this particular comment raises a different, but closely related, aspe; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-02/msg00052.html (16,858 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]