Mail Archive Search: <+from:jt@w6cfo.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:jt@w6cfo.net: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Receivers (score: 1): Author: JT Croteau <jt@w6cfo.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:15:59 -0800; Is the Drake R-4C still a preferred receiver for "topband" and 80M? I've come across one that I am thinking of buying. Serial number is above 18000 and it has a few mods already done to it; PS-4 upgr; /archives//html/Topband/2004-11/msg00086.html (6,989 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: Receivers (score: 1): Author: JT Croteau <jt@w6cfo.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:44:01 -0800; Tom Rauch wrote: I think the Drake R4C is a good receiver, but it is nowhere near as good as an Orion (if you can stand the AGC in the Orion) or my FT1000D. Tom, do you have any opinions on how a Ten; /archives//html/Topband/2004-11/msg00089.html (7,971 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: Receivers (score: 1): Author: JT Croteau <jt@w6cfo.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:05:18 -0800; Thanks to everyone who replied. So what's the verdict on a weak signal 160M/80M capable receiver when one has a budget of about $1000.00 and can't go out and get an Orion? -- JT Croteau Wilmington, C; /archives//html/Topband/2004-11/msg00103.html (9,181 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: Receivers (score: 1): Author: JT Croteau <jt@w6cfo.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:13:39 -0800; Dave NØRQ (lists) wrote: K6SE did some receiver comparisons: Note the top spot -- the Icom IC-746PRO -- go figure. And the Orion on the very bottom, dead last. Umm. Hmm. -- JT Croteau Wilmingt; /archives//html/Topband/2004-11/msg00112.html (9,652 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]