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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Receiver\s+performance\s*$/: 42 ]

Total 42 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: cgroen@image.dk (Carsten Groen); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:18:59 +0100; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF8CDD.EDD985A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Regarding "Mission impossible" thre; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00616.html (8,832 bytes)
2. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:03:02 -0600; Someone mentioned these tests on another reflector I am on. I don't think they are at all accurate. They show an FT-1000D with about the same performance as an FT-847. Trust me, I have both and the F; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00620.html (8,721 bytes)
3. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:12:02 -0000; 1. Unless the tests are done the same way, they may be measuring different things. 2.It can be quite frightening to measure the differences between equipments off the line and see the variations in p; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00621.html (8,411 bytes)
4. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:46:03 +0100; Some of that numbers effectively doesn't fit, expecially for the tests performed with SSB filters @ 3k spacing. A spacing that's practically useless in a real SSB traffic because of the inherent SSB; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00622.html (10,148 bytes)
5. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: RichyRusso@aol.com (RichyRusso@aol.com); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:12:17 EST; << Someone mentioned these tests on another reflector I am on. I don't think they are at all accurate. They show an FT-1000D with about the same performance as an FT-847. Trust me, I have both and th; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00624.html (9,814 bytes)
6. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:23:37 -0000; Somehow, Richy, I rather figure that you are by no means alone with that fear! Me too. 73 Peter G3RZP -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administra; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00628.html (8,478 bytes)
7. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:22:10 -0500; DSP systems will make the mediocre rigs worse, not better. At present price levels, it is impossible to get a quality low-noise high dynamic range A/D converter that is fast enough to do any good pr; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00630.html (9,533 bytes)
8. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:35:15 -0000; I'm not sure price comes into it......I don't think they exist with enough bits at enough accuracy. The only real advantage I can see is the controlled group delay for data modes. But I don't see why; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00631.html (9,684 bytes)
9. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: W4EF@pacbell.net (Michael Tope); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:46:35 -0800; Has anyone had a chance to play with the ICOM 756-PRO?? They are claiming a 24 bit A/D ahead of the DSP, but I don't know what its effective number of bits is. If its truly 24 bits, then it would hav; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00632.html (10,690 bytes)
10. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:09:23 -0000; I'm told it's good. How good, I don't know. 24 bits sounds good, but I guess it's at low frequency. Figure you want one bit toggling on internal noise, and two bits at the top end to handle the fact; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00633.html (9,903 bytes)
11. [AMPS] Receiver Performance (score: 1): Author: dhearn@ix.netcom.com (dan hearn); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:09:37 -0800; The recent posting of receiver test results was very interesting to me. I have been testing receiver performance for more than 10 years using a home built test set consisting of 2 filtered,shielded x; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00641.html (10,766 bytes)
12. [AMPS] Receiver Performance (score: 1): Author: k1ta@contesting.com (Bob Marston); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:18:09 -0800; Hey Carsten forget that receiver stuff it's off on a tangent and doesn't belong here. What we want to know is how the YC-156 project is coming ? -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00645.html (8,993 bytes)
13. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:24:07 -0600; Agreed. The FT-847 is a nice rig for what you pay for. However, its DSP certainly introduces digital noise that you don't get with real filters. And seeing as how those numbers that were posted show; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00648.html (9,543 bytes)
14. FW: [AMPS] Receiver Performance (score: 1): Author: cgroen@image.dk (Carsten Groen); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:59:47 +0100; Hi Bob, and all others asking about my YC156 project :-) (Warning off topic follows :) This project has been VERY slow going lately ! The amp is sitting on the table in my workshop, begging me to put; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00652.html (10,590 bytes)
15. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:14:38 -0500; I'd guess about the IF frequency technology of a Hallicrafters SX- 101. I'd want more than one bit toggling on noise. I don't know about you, but I (like most CW DX ops) can copy signals below noise; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00659.html (11,066 bytes)
16. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:29:21 -0000; In which case, one might ask what the point of the DSP is! Desirably, it could well be argued that the first IF should be low enough (1.4 - 10MHz) that the first mixer is followed by the 500 (or 250H; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00661.html (10,009 bytes)
17. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: itr@nanoteq.co.za (Ian Roberts); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:05:31 +0200; Is this not the classical definition of diff gain? Or did you mean the wave phase? Is group delay not automatically "differential"? Ciao. Ian ZS6BTE -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.h; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00662.html (9,206 bytes)
18. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: ki7rw@arrl.net (Lee Roberts); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:12:31 -0700; Heh, heh. The automatic notch filter that comes with DSP is great for reducing those pesky CW beeps. :-O -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Adminis; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00663.html (9,246 bytes)
19. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:12:52 -0000; Yes. To be precise, the phase of the waves making up the flattened envelope are shifted relative to each other, thus modifying the resultant envelope. A bit like the effects of FM through a bandpass; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00664.html (9,357 bytes)
20. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:15:39 -0000; It's also really good for removing the heterodynes from the tuner uppers! Why does the DXpedition transmit frequency always automatically become the international tune up frequency? 73 Peter G3RZP --; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00665.html (9,220 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]