Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:n1eu@netscape.net: 64 ]

Total 64 documents matching your query.

41. [TenTec] RE: [Orion] Orion subreceiver (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 05:56:54 -0500
I use the subrx a large percentage of the time for stereo diversity reception with a second antenna. On the low bands, I'll feed the subrx with either a 2nd Beverage antenna or the TX antenna. I do e
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00126.html (7,980 bytes)

42. Re: [TenTec] RE: [Orion] Orion subreceiver (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 07:53:42 -0500
The subreceiver has a 1st i.f. of 45Mhz and a 2nd i.f. of 450Khz and lacks the provision for a narrow roofing filter. It was never intended to be a competition grade receiver. I wish there was an ext
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00128.html (7,657 bytes)

43. Re: [TenTec] RE: [Orion] Orion subreceiver (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 10:17:16 -0500
Yes, and the 4Khz wide filter showed no improvement in the MP's close-in cw performance. The Omni VI and Orion fitted with the 600hz (9Mhz) roofing filter performs so far above the nearest competitio
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00137.html (8,542 bytes)

44. Re: [TenTec] RE: [Orion] Orion subreceiver (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:03:41 -0500
I looked at this briefly and believe there are off-the-shelf 4khz wide 450Khz i.f. ceramic filters that could just be dropped in where the 15khz filter is. Perhaps some experimenter might try this on
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00140.html (11,234 bytes)

45. RE: [TenTec] RE: [Orion] Orion subreceiver (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:32:43 -0500
There might be a mode-specific control signal that could be tapped and used to trigger a relay if you wanted the filter switched out for wider modes. Personally, I don't mind losing FM on the subrece
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00143.html (14,389 bytes)

46. RE: [TenTec] Adding the 2.8khz filters to Omni VI (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:20:45 -0500
I believe Inrad includes instructions with the filter and it is probably also in the Omni manual. I did this about 5 years ago and it wasn't difficult. I can't remember if I used a general coverage r
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00186.html (8,349 bytes)

47. 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)

48. RE: [TenTec] Omni VI confusion (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:15:02 -0500
You're correct Ken. Any Omni 6 with an option upgrade is not an Omni 6+. Some owners/sellers improperly refer to their upgraded sixes as pluses. 73, Barry N1EU _______________________________________
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00284.html (7,835 bytes)

49. RE: [TenTec] Omni VI confusion (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:17:40 -0500
Rick, I don't think this is correct. I think Steve N4LQ described it accurately. To the best of my knowledge, Ten-Tec never called a 563 of any ilk an Omni VI+. 73, Barry N1EU _______________________
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00291.html (8,625 bytes)

50. RE: [TenTec] Omni VI confusion (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:06:26 -0500
Same here (owned 2 opt 3's). There was a factory sticker on the rear that indicated the option 3 was installed but I don't think that is what Rick is referring to. 73, Barry N1EU ____________________
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00306.html (11,963 bytes)

51. Re: [TenTec] Omni VI roofing filter JPG (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:08:06 -0500
http://www.qth.com/inrad/roofing-filters.pdf __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http:/
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00379.html (8,613 bytes)

52. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:22:41 -0500
as in, next to useless? Barry N1EU __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netsc
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00447.html (10,738 bytes)

53. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:13:22 -0500
I do a fair amount of contesting and 99.9% of the time listen for callers with a wide bandwith on my receiver. Unless two callers are on exactly the same frequency or there's an AGC issue, I just don
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00453.html (11,123 bytes)

54. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:05:19 -0500
500hz is fine IMHO. If you go any wider, you risk the rx getting clobbered by the neighboring running station. 73, Barry N1EU __________________________________________________________________ Switch
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00456.html (12,702 bytes)

55. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:39:36 -0500
Rick, this isn't my first brush with binaural "magic". I got the latest and greatest DSP599ZX when it came out several years ago because of the binaural hype and it just didn't do much for me then or
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00462.html (13,809 bytes)

56. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:35:48 -0500
Apologies, but I really should have qualified this statement. I've posted before about my own comparisons that showed the Orion gives up nothing to the FT-1000D in this regard. The Orion is as good a
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00468.html (9,157 bytes)

57. RE: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Omni's (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:07:56 -0500
No, the Omni C IS the D series C, but it was called the Omni C. 73, Barry N1EU __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00573.html (8,291 bytes)

58. Re: [TenTec] Omni VI confusion & Birdies? (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:17:41 -0500
I used to collect info on the birdy reducing mods and still have some info up on my Web site at http://n1eu.tripod.com/Mods/birdiesmod.htm - I've never tried any of them myself, so don't ask me, etc.
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00594.html (7,823 bytes)

59. RE: [TenTec] Orion/2000A Arc Fault (was RE:Firmware upgradeandCW/ACOM2000A issue again) (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:49:17 -0500
Two comments Dick: 1. SM7YEA's rig is an Omni VI+, not an Orion. I was in communication with Piotr throughout his troubleshooting work with his Acom amplifier which was a couple of years ago I believ
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00640.html (7,764 bytes)

60. RE: [TenTec] Orion reset (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:24:24 -0500
Sorry to hear about the muting prob John, but surprised at your reboot cycle time. My Orion completes a boot up with Master Reset and User1 restore and is operational in 30 seconds total. 73, Barry N
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00765.html (7,902 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu