Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+\$1000\s+receiver\s+performance\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: "Scott R." <w4pa@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 06:05:19 -0800 (PST)
Ten-Tec Omni-VI does. These can be had in the used in the $1000-$1100 range. Plenty of independent test data available on the Internet about the Omni-VI vs. other transceivers for contest RX perform
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00057.html (8,759 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:04:10 -0500
As I read it, the TS-850 has better Blocking dynamic range (130-140 dB), which is noise-limited on the Omni-VI (123 dB). The TS-850 also has better IMDDR (99-100 dB) than the Omni-VI (97-98 dB). Thes
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00072.html (9,076 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: "David Hachadorian" <K6LL@adelphia.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:44:01 -0700
The only thing I remember about the receiver measurements on the 850 in QST was that, with the AIP turned on, the ARRL had to apply so much RF to the antenna terminals to make it overload, that they
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00074.html (9,430 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: "Scott R." <w4pa@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:32:50 -0800 (PST)
At 20 kHz spacing - which isn't useful as a determiner of "contest grade" receiver performance or anything else real-world. There has been endless discussion of this over the past few years. For a p
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00079.html (10,233 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: "Bill Turner" <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:32:46 -0800
At that power level input, you will have serious leakage around the '850's filters. When I was using it for contesting, I could hear a strong station well before it was actually in the bandpass. The
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00084.html (9,670 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:23:20 +0000
W4PA added: Omni-VI's EMC makes it hard to use in "warm" RF environment. Absence of bypass caps on rear panel connectors is hard to understand. DSP makes birdies that vary with PBT & degrades with te
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00102.html (9,072 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:21:00 EST
exceptions to comments posted here on a number of radios.<< More like unfinished designs by Ten-Tec. N1EU tried to fix all the problems with insufficient bypassing, etc. info on his web site http://n
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00105.html (8,823 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: "Ken K7ZUM" <Ken.Knopp@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:39:16 -0800
Speaking of unfinished designs, what ever happened to "Dream Radio One" ?? or is that all it is ?? a "Dream" ?? 73 de K7ZUM Ken in Gres"HAM" Ore _______________________________________________ CQ-Co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00111.html (8,514 bytes)

9. [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: "Scott R." <w4pa@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:52:01 -0800 (PST)
There are days I come to work and pinch myself, because I have one of the best jobs on the face of the earth. Four years ago this week I had a draftsperson lay out a picture of what I thought a new
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00139.html (9,146 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:35:39 +0000
K3BU added: That's unfortunate. I liked the OMNI-VI's divided-down-from-VHF VFO, crystal LOs & approach to SWR protection (limit current). How mine was bought back & no interest in fixing it (to exte
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00146.html (10,024 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:32:09 EST
There are days I come to work and pinch myself, because I have one of the best jobs on the face of the earth. Four years ago this week I had a draftsperson lay out a picture of what I thought a new t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00149.html (11,265 bytes)

12. [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: "Scott R." <w4pa@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 06:11:20 -0800 (PST)
I'm sure if you look hard enough (scratch that - it won't take much looking at all...) you'll find that every contest-grade transceiver ever created has taken a beating from dissatisfied users. It d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00160.html (9,208 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] $1000 receiver performance (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:06:44 EST
from comments posted here... such as 850-vs-870 as noted by W6WRT.<< The TS 870 becomes whole different radio if modified by replacing stock filters (especially 455 kHz Murata ceramic joke) by Inrad
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00163.html (9,371 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu