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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+ARRL\s+Reviews\s*$/: 71 ]

Total 71 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:26:26 -0400; KO7I: screen in the past few months. And possibly the most misleading. ARRL changed their methodology for measuring IMD around 2007 by using a 3 Hz BW spectrum analyzer to separate IMD effects from p; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-08/msg00220.html (7,852 bytes)
22. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Kimberly Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:31:21 -0700 (PDT); A beautiful summary! I wonder what the cost per dB of 2 kHz 3rd order dynamic range is for each of these? Would have to base it on MSRP along with certain accessories as tested, but it would be an in; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-08/msg00221.html (8,679 bytes)
23. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:34:06 +0000; Interesting - I had the exact opposite response (assuming this wasn't a facetious remark). 73, Barry N1EU _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com htt; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-08/msg00222.html (7,678 bytes)
24. [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls73@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:38:04 -0400; I can remember years ago when the this topic elicited reams of verbiage on [in] several discussion groups. With the changes ARRL has made in reporting IMD3 for receivers, all you have to do is subtra; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-08/msg00224.html (8,674 bytes)
25. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:03 -0400 (EDT); John, I, too, can cut Rick some slack personally, but he was the reviewer of the Orion II who said he had difficulty with its operation because he was used to Icom. Rick was honest in his review; the; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-08/msg00225.html (9,376 bytes)
26. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Jose F Ballester <jfballester@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:18:24 -0400; All, Japan used either to subsidize exports or gave exporters preferential currency exchange rates. In any case Kenwood is a large company, makes many other products and can subsidize some of their o; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-08/msg00226.html (9,857 bytes)
27. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Jerry Haigwood" <jerry@w5jh.net>; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:42:35 -0500; Pepe, Elecraft is small company also, maybe smaller than TenTec. So what is their excuse? None, they don't need any. They beat the Japanese quite well. Jerry W5JH All, Japan used either to subsidize; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-08/msg00227.html (10,400 bytes)
28. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Joel Hallas <jrhallas@optonline.net>; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:59:47 -0400; Amen! Regards, Joel Hallas, W1ZR Westport, CT Pepe, Elecraft is small company also, maybe smaller than TenTec. So what is their excuse? None, they don't need any. They beat the Japanese quite well. J; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-08/msg00228.html (11,493 bytes)
29. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Jose F Ballester <jfballester@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:25:08 -0400; I referred to a comment by Jerry,W5JH regarding Kenwood's TS590S. I'm in no position, nor is it fair -I don't think- to pit Ten-Tec against Elecraft, both excellent manufacturers of US built ham equi; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-08/msg00230.html (11,891 bytes)
30. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:37:06 -0400; to do is subtract 8-10 dB to get very close to Rob Sherwood's findings. No biggie. The actual IMD difference is ~12 dB which is the difference in noise bandwidth between 3 Hz (spectrum analyzer) and; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00001.html (8,604 bytes)
31. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:43:27 -0700; Yes, this is a very big deal, because many of us would like to compare equipment of different vintages. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contest; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00002.html (6,998 bytes)
32. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: jrhallas@optonline.net; Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:05:53 +0000 (GMT); Folks, To get the definitive information on this topic, please go to www.arrl.org/forum. Look for the Technology category and then scroll down to Equipment Testing. Look for the three postings fro; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00003.html (10,016 bytes)
33. [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls73@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 19:35:10 -0400; Thanks for the links, Joel. These postings close the subject for me. 73, John, W3ULS _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00004.html (6,835 bytes)
34. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Don Jones" <ko7i@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 21:53:48 -0700; RE: 3kHz RBW... That is pretty freaking stupid. Here is a dark little secret about spec an's - most of them have 3dB RBW slopes - not 6dB. I doubt the ARRL spent the $$ for a Agilent PSA or Rhode & S; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00005.html (8,384 bytes)
35. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:22:46 +0200; Yes John, Joel's link certainly shed light on this confusing subject. But I was not satisfied to let the subject die with that. There was still the issue of Hans putting a lot of work into his list,; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00006.html (8,918 bytes)
36. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Joel Hallas <jrhallas@optonline.net>; Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 08:12:07 -0400; Rick, et al, Once again, radios tested earlier than 2007 can be directly compared unless they were noted as being "noise limited," meaning that we were unable to take the data at that point. Obviousl; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00007.html (10,303 bytes)
37. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:10:18 +0200; Joel, Unfortunately the chart Hans posted online does not indicate if a radio was noise limited or not. In the case of the Orion 2, which is far down the list, I believe it was noise limited. the Eag; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00008.html (12,004 bytes)
38. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:24:57 -0400; How do you read the articles if you're not an ARRL member? Don't intend on joining, certainly not to browse them. My point: Are you allowed to copy or even refer them to non-ARRL members? Just a thou; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00009.html (12,802 bytes)
39. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:47:46 +0200; Phil, it doesn't help much to refer someone to the site with the reviews. If you're not a member, you can't log in. I don't know if you are allowed to make a copy (download) and then pass it on. Prob; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00010.html (13,954 bytes)
40. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Duane Calvin" <ac5aa1@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 08:55:06 -0500; Just another reason to become a member. I would think that, like QST, the articles are copyrighted. 73, Duane Duane Calvin, AC5AA Austin, Texas www.ac5aa.com --Original Message-- From: tentec-bounces; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00011.html (13,483 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]