Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+TS830S\s+Vs\s+FT\-102\s+and\s+TS930S\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+TS830S\s+Vs\s+FT\-102\s+and\s+TS930S\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] TS830S Vs FT-102 and TS930S (score: 1): Author: salers@hamal.freemail.ne.jp (Xu); Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:17:18 +0800; Hi! Which is better in TS-830S, FT-102 and TS-930S 73 de BD2RH -- Original Message -- -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative requests: amps-; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00057.html (8,998 bytes)
2. [AMPS] TS830S Vs FT-102 and TS930S (score: 1): Author: W5gi@aol.com (W5gi@aol.com); Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:19:36 EDT; The 830 is the best performing radio; however, The 930 is more fun to use and a superb performer. If you want brut output power go with the 102. I've had at least 6 of each and enjoyed operating them; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00058.html (7,291 bytes)
3. [AMPS] TS830S Vs FT-102 and TS930S (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (2); Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 20:15:13 -0700; // The 830 has the lowest IM distortion I have ever measured, and it has a RF speech processor that does not sound muddy. cheers - R. L. Measures, 805.386.3734,AG6K, www.vcnet.com/measures. end -- F; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00060.html (8,043 bytes)
4. [AMPS] TS830S Vs FT-102 and TS930S (score: 1): Author: Jim" <w7ry@earthlink.net (Jim); Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:11:51 -0700; What is the difference in the 830 Vs the Kenwood TS-530 ? Same radio ? Thanks Jim W7RY -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative requests: amps; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00061.html (9,214 bytes)
5. [AMPS] TS830S Vs FT-102 and TS930S (score: 1): Author: Peter.Chadwick@zarlink.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:59:05 +0100; The FT102 is quite a good rig BUT........ 1. The key clicks on most of the various production series are such that it is unfit for human consumption. That can be cured. Yaesu's mod for this still lea; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00064.html (9,465 bytes)
6. [AMPS] TS830S Vs FT-102 and TS930S (score: 1): Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it); Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:21:30 +0200; In the early 80', just after the 21st cycle peak, I had two TS830. Incidentally one had sometimes a problem in the PLL that was fixed following Kenwood directions (ground contact). I never tried on 1; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00065.html (8,243 bytes)
7. [AMPS] TS830S Vs FT-102 and TS930S (score: 1): Author: Peter.Chadwick@zarlink.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:30:52 +0100; Maybe you needed to fix those 'minor' points I listed, Mauri. Some, like the spurs on receive, took around 24 hours of effort with test gear borrowed from work that cost more than my house was worth; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00067.html (7,515 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]