Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Binaural\s+\(Stereo\)\s+CW\s+Redux\!\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: Jerry Volpe <kg6tt@tomorrowsweb.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:04:39 -0800
Here is a replay of the essential info I placed on this reflector or sent to individuals who asked for more information (If you don't find what you are thinking about here look a few weeks back in th
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00434.html (13,589 bytes)

2. [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:15:38 -0500
KG6TT: useful in notion give it a try. I assume most know Binaural RX is included in Orion. Text and .wav example below: http://www.tentec.com/panoramic.htm 73, Bill W4ZV ____________________________
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00436.html (7,469 bytes)

3. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:44:01 -0500
Yep. I turned it on, listened, tuned around, said "ok that's cool", turned it off and never bothered with it again. I don't see the point. To use it, you must open your filters wide. So you hear high
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00443.html (8,470 bytes)

4. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: "NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:55:21 -0800
Steve, When you are running stations in a contest, you have to open your filters wide anyway because many callers don't exactly hit your frequency. If you keep the Orion's filters pretty tight, as I
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00444.html (9,309 bytes)

5. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: "John L Merrill" <jmerrill1@adelphia.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:57:21 -0500
you were polite. don't you mean a sales gimmick? HI John N1JM Yep. I turned it on, listened, tuned around, said "ok that's cool", turned it off and never bothered with it again. I don't see the point
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00445.html (9,549 bytes)

6. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:22:41 -0500
as in, next to useless? Barry N1EU __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netsc
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00447.html (10,738 bytes)

7. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: "John L Merrill" <jmerrill1@adelphia.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:25:39 -0500
Well, I like it but I guess Steve doesn't. John N1JM as in, next to useless? Barry N1EU __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00448.html (11,228 bytes)

8. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: Duane A Calvin <ac5aa@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:03:26 -0600
I think the purpose is to allow better readability during contesting where you must run with filters open (if you're running on a frequency). The idea is that any help you can get in separating signa
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00449.html (10,344 bytes)

9. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: "n4lq" <n4lq@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:21:02 -0500
Duane: This makes some sense. I guess if you had a woman talking on your left and a man on the right it would be easier to distinguish what they are saying then if they were both in front of you. Sam
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00450.html (11,485 bytes)

10. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: Jerry Volpe <kg6tt@tomorrowsweb.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:40:10 -0800
John L Merrill wrote: you were polite. don't you mean a sales gimmick? HI John N1JM Binaural or stereo CW is a different way of doing things. Not a gimmick. We have by necessity become conditioned to
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00451.html (9,346 bytes)

11. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: "Phil Chambley, Sr." <k4dpk@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:09:00 -0500
I played with a similar circuit from one of the magazines back in the seventies, with some interesting results. One worthwhile addition was to install an X-connected DPDT switch in the headphone line
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00452.html (13,366 bytes)

12. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:13:22 -0500
I do a fair amount of contesting and 99.9% of the time listen for callers with a wide bandwith on my receiver. Unless two callers are on exactly the same frequency or there's an AGC issue, I just don
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00453.html (11,123 bytes)

13. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: Joe Giacobello <k2xx@swva.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:07:29 -0500
How wide are we talking here? 800 Hz should do it. No? 73, Joe NJ0IP wrote: Steve, When you are running stations in a contest, you have to open your filters wide anyway because many callers don't exa
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00454.html (11,578 bytes)

14. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:05:19 -0500
500hz is fine IMHO. If you go any wider, you risk the rx getting clobbered by the neighboring running station. 73, Barry N1EU __________________________________________________________________ Switch
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00456.html (12,702 bytes)

15. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: "NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:11:02 -0800
Barry, as long as you think that way, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I wish to believe that if I can learn to use it, it will help. I'm going to give it a(n) (open-minded) try. 73 Rick I do a
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00461.html (11,808 bytes)

16. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:39:36 -0500
Rick, this isn't my first brush with binaural "magic". I got the latest and greatest DSP599ZX when it came out several years ago because of the binaural hype and it just didn't do much for me then or
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00462.html (13,809 bytes)

17. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@netscape.net (Barry N1EU)
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:35:48 -0500
Apologies, but I really should have qualified this statement. I've posted before about my own comparisons that showed the Orion gives up nothing to the FT-1000D in this regard. The Orion is as good a
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00468.html (9,157 bytes)

18. Re: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: Clark Savage Turner <csturner@kcbx.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:34:18 -0800
On Jan 13, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Barry N1EU wrote: Rick, this isn't my first brush with binaural "magic". I got the latest and greatest DSP599ZX when it came out several years ago because of the binaural
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00477.html (10,668 bytes)

19. RE: [TenTec] Binaural (Stereo) CW Redux! (score: 1)
Author: Martin AA6E <msembx-aa6e@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:54:41 -0800 (PST)
(I've noticed lots of redux going around lately. :) I am puzzled by what people are looking for in weak signal CW work. It seems to me the best you can expect from a conventional receiver (even Orion
/archives//html/TenTec/2005-01/msg00479.html (11,043 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu