Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+ARRL\s+Review\s+of\s+FT9000\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+ARRL\s+Review\s+of\s+FT9000\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: Al Baker <w5iz@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:28:17 -0700 (PDT); Interesting ARRL review posted to Member's site...will appear in August QST. Does not appear to be worth 3.5 Orions. 73 de Al W5IZ ____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo!; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00141.html (8,389 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: John L Merrill <jmerrill1@adelphia.net>; Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:31:24 -0400; Or 7 MkV Fields :-). N1JM _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00142.html (8,637 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: Barry Gross <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 02:28:41 +0000; Huh? Does not appear to be worth 1.0 Orions. Immediate headscratchers for me was inability to assign both receivers to same vfo (no diversity reception capability) and limited ssb rx audio bandwith,; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00144.html (8,565 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 22:56:37 -0500; When I was a youngster of about 13, deciding what receiver I wanted to put with my DX-40 when I graduated up from the BC-455 I started out with, I used to go through the Allied catalog and count kno; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00146.html (9,582 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 06:42:38 -0400; NQ5T: and it will take someone who isn't dependent on advertising revenue to test/publish those Grant, this seems to be a common misconception since someone on the Yahoo FT-9000 reflector made almost; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00150.html (7,656 bytes)
6. [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:05:18 -0400; particularly impressive given the fairly high MDS compared to most other radios without the preamp on. Sort of a "desense the radio and all the other specs will look better" approach. This is a very; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00152.html (7,266 bytes)
7. [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:01:47 -0400; From ARRL's recent review: "The differences are in the details. The ?9000D has three choices for roofing filter bandwidth at 3, 6 and 15 kHz, while the ?7800 has two?6 and 15 kHz. The 3 kHz roofing f; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00153.html (8,409 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:43:01 -0500; You're right -- I wasn't thinking about the swept results in the Expanded Report. Wouldn't be a bad thing if narrower spaced numbers were included in the main report, too, though, since 2Khz spacing; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00154.html (7,300 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: "Tracy, Michael, KC1SX" <mtracy@arrl.org>(by way of Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>); Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:17:34 -0400; (I forwarded Michels' response since he is not a member of this list...de W4ZV) Hi Bill, I have to disagree, as this would mislead folks even more. There never has been a *single* number that defines; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00155.html (8,305 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: "NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 07:32:36 -0700; OK, but then they should NOT make statements like "the best we've ever seen" because they mislead people to believe the entire rig is the best they've ever seen. --Original Message-- From: tentec-bou; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00156.html (8,985 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: Curt <k3ey@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 07:38:58 -0700 (PDT); For the price they have every right to such claims. I guess you guys burned out on the Orion and now chewing up the Rice burners--You Got It T_O_Y_O_T_A ______________________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00157.html (9,817 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: "Richard Donovan" <n5xm@cox.net>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:08:42 -0500; I love numbers as much as anyone. On the other hand, I've often wondered what real world use has to do with technical information once you get to a certain level of performance. My Orion does everyth; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00158.html (8,561 bytes)
13. [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:49:13 -0400; numbers if our ears are only 70% as good when we were young? Speak for yourself...mine are still excellent at age 60. I've taken care of them by using earplugs riding motorcycles, shooting or using l; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00159.html (7,583 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: "Joseph Trombino Jr" <w2kj@bellsouth.net>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:49:24 -0400; Fellow Ten Tec'ers: I rarely post to this list but I do have some thoughts I'd like to air publicly. Numbers in themselves don't mean much when equipment performance rises to previously unheard level; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00160.html (9,956 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: "James Duffer" <dufferjames@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 06:02:37 -0500; snip snip I guess I am still a youngster at heart as I prefer a dedicated control (knob or button/switch) versus menu driven functions. But then again, I also prefer a radio that does not require a c; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00171.html (8,915 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: K4IA@aol.com; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:37:10 EDT; Now that reply confuses me even more. I think the original request was for a level playing field, i.e.. normalize the results for a given MDS sensitivity. I would think the results are worthless (for; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00172.html (8,058 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: Sinisa Hristov <shristov@ptt.yu>; Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:37:39 -0400; Adding attenuation has no influence on dynamic range. 73, Sinisa YT1NT, VE3EA _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mai; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00175.html (7,763 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:48:20 -0500; Well in the ensuing 47 years my views have changed regarding that particular measure of goodness :-) A couple of HQ-170's and an HT-37 will solve those problems :-) I'd say the jury is out on the 90; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00183.html (8,568 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:13:12 -0400; Theoretically true Sinisa, but perhaps not if the range is improperly positioned. Let's look at actual measurements made by W8JI on arguably the worst band for dynamic range...160 meters. There you h; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00190.html (10,139 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Review of FT9000 (score: 1): Author: "Tommy-W4BQF" <aldermant@alltel.net>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:10:49 -0400; After a frustrating two years with firmware updates and firmware beta testing, I got rid of my 'problem' radio and went back to two Omni 6 Plus rigs and based on this experience, I have to say that m; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00212.html (9,982 bytes)

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