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.

41. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Ray Sills <raysills@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:12:17 -0400; Hi Duane: Yes.. another good reason. Of course, there are hams who, for their own reasons, do not wish to be a member. I think that's a shame, but it is -their- choice, and I respect that. I think th; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00012.html (9,951 bytes)
42. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Rodney" <w3krq@dejazzd.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:17:14 -0400; why all the fuss on the way radios are tested most hams buy radios that look good they do not care about spec. w3krq Just another reason to become a member. I would think that, like QST, the articles; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00013.html (14,829 bytes)
43. [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls73@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:23:52 -0400; Re Rick, et al: I also had an earlier article (http://www.eham.net/articles/13502) in which I described ARRL Lab's considerable improvements in testing as of April 2006, all of which had been describ; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00014.html (9,057 bytes)
44. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:32:25 -0700; Let's see if I have this right. You want to BENEFIT from the work that you are too cheap to pay for? 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00016.html (9,209 bytes)
45. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:51:19 +0200; Simple; those that fuss are not buying on looks... why all the fuss on the way radios are tested most hams buy radios that look good they do not care about spec. w3krq _______________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00017.html (9,453 bytes)
46. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:56:09 -0400; Rick, I agree. The ARRL may have been more member oriented years ago. Today their lobby efforts have become so political as to sidestep their original mandate of supporting ham radio and ALL hams. To; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00018.html (16,099 bytes)
47. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:56:27 -0400 (EDT); Not only that, but the radios themselves are (in some respects) a moving target. Most modern radios are SDRs, and the firmware keeps changing. The Orion II DSP noise reduction, for example, has chang; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00019.html (11,145 bytes)
48. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:04:54 -0400 (EDT); Yes, it was noise limited. 73 Ray W2RS In a message dated 9/2/2011 1:46:45 P.M. GMT Standard Time, Rick@DJ0IP.de writes: Phil, it doesn't help much to refer someone to the site with the reviews. If y; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00020.html (13,904 bytes)
49. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 00:31:09 +0200; I have had some interesting private emails sent to me regarding this thread. They will remain private. THERE IS A VERY SIMPLE WAY TO CONCLUDE THIS THREAD AND MAKE "EVERYBODY" HAPPY. REALITY CHECK: SO; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00031.html (10,809 bytes)
50. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: kc9cdt@aol.com; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 19:09:34 -0400 (EDT); It's a matter of principal for me... If ARRL does not re-do the OII test using the new rules, I will not be re-newing my subscription. If they want to re-do the others that would be the right thing t; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00032.html (11,757 bytes)
51. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rohre <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>; Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:26:15 -0500; Well Lee, I think we can all agree, It is not reasonable to expect ARRL to continually redo tests, if the radios are no longer being produced. But, it is probably something they should do with new SD; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00033.html (9,742 bytes)
52. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: george fritkin <georgefritkin@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:28:52 -0700 (PDT); Why is everybody fretting about these tests. I have the following...Elecraft K3, TS590, ORION ll, OMNI Vll, Eagle, YAESU 5000......and in the real world I can not tell the difference. Lab tests are; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00034.html (10,405 bytes)
53. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Keith Hamilton <tuner@zoominternet.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 20:43:47 -0400; Wow! That's just what I was going to say! Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/te; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00036.html (11,613 bytes)
54. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Ron Castro" <ronc@sonic.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 20:49:49 -0700; How true! There is no scientific correlation between numbers published on the page of a magazine and what is actually coming out of your speaker or headphones. If they correct the numbers it won't im; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00038.html (12,473 bytes)
55. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 00:34:46 -0400; Sidebar to George... The reason some hams place such importance on charted specifications, is because they cannot afford to personally own and test all the leading contenders in order to make their o; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00039.html (10,036 bytes)
56. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: george fritkin <georgefritkin@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:43:56 -0700 (PDT); Richard, then you are just counting on unbiased testing procedures George, W6GF _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/m; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00040.html (7,980 bytes)
57. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 11:43:25 +0200; George, Maybe you are looking at it backwards. I think we will all agree that all of your radios are good, or even great radios. I have owned a lot of what I call "One Contest Radios". I bought them; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00041.html (10,683 bytes)
58. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 06:59:19 -0400; I offer two personal observations on the new radio - receiver list debate: 1) As new radios come to market, they may (should) be expected to perform better than older models. This sort of quality att; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00113.html (12,380 bytes)
59. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:00:43 -0400; Er... please make that 3 observations... proof reading is not my strongest suit. -- Happy Trails. == Richards / K8JHR == -- _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00114.html (9,442 bytes)
60. Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews (score: 1): Author: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:38:55 -0500; Perfect! Absolutely perfect. Kudos to you, good Sir! Kim N5OP _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/te; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-09/msg00115.html (13,291 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]