Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Rigblaster\-\s+worth\s+the\s+money\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Rigblaster\-\s+worth\s+the\s+money\?\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Rigblaster- worth the money? (score: 1): Author: "Mike Wood" <mike.wood@acsalaska.net>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 07:31:21 -0800; Been looking at the rigblasters and am wondering if they are worth the money. I am currently using a Buxcomm Rascal, but all the features of the Rigblaster make it very attractive. Was wondering what; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00013.html (6,426 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] Rigblaster- worth the money? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:16:39 -0400; How handy are you with building electronic projects? The commercial adapters certainly look nice and have good features -- but it really isn't hard to build your own interface. All it takes is a coup; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00016.html (7,326 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] Rigblaster- worth the money? (score: 1): Author: "Mike Wood" <mike.wood@acsalaska.net>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 20:51:30 -0800; My main interest with a rigblaster or similar interface is the fact that you can have multiple features in one box. The way my setup is now, I can either use CAT or digital modes, but not both. Lack; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00017.html (9,034 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] Rigblaster- worth the money? (score: 1): Author: "ON4ADZ" <on4adz@pro.tiscali.be>; Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 10:39:52 +0200; Dear Bill I am using a homebrew soundcard interface, using audio transfosrmators for in and out, using optocouplers to switch the ptt and sending cw. I use this interface also for ssb contesting, via; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00018.html (8,714 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] Rigblaster- worth the money? (score: 1): Author: "Andrew J. O'Brien" <obrienaj@netsync.net>; Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:04:36 -0400; I can't say much about Rig Blaster since I have never owned one. I can say that you are correct that it is much easier to have a multiple feature box. I just obtained a Microkeyer which controls my r; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00019.html (11,152 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] Rigblaster- worth the money? (score: 1): Author: "Army Curtis" <acurtis@andersoft.com>; Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 06:55:21 -0500; Mike, The multiple features in one box concept is what led me to purchase the MicroHam MicroKeyer http://www.microham.com/mk.html I love it! It does exactly what you are looking for, giving you a com; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00020.html (10,976 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] Rigblaster- worth the money? (score: 1): Author: Tom Norris <r390a@bellsouth.net>; Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 11:42:21 -0500; Bill and the group. I use a Signal Link SL-1+ Not only did it cost less, but it doesn't use up a com port. It has it's own "vox" circuit built in, just connect to your rig, hook up audio in/out, and; /archives//html/RTTY/2005-05/msg00025.html (8,251 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]