Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Eagle\s+vs\.\s+TS\-590S\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Eagle\s+vs\.\s+TS\-590S\s*$/: 47 ]

Total 47 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: Brian Carling <bcarling@cfl.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 20:33:23 -0400; Sorry to digress but I have similar questions... Will HRD 5 work with my Omni VII arriving this week? I'm not sure if it's coming with an interface cable for my Win8 laptop. Was the serial interface; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00172.html (14,882 bytes)
22. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Duane Calvin" <ac5aa1@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 19:45:42 -0500; Does TT not still have the 30 day trial period? That's 30 days to try it out and, if it doesn'tmeet one's expectation, return it for a full refund (minus shipping cost both ways.) Pretty sweet! 73, D; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00173.html (16,337 bytes)
23. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: Robert <rmcgraw@blomand.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 19:54:01 -0500; Yes HRD will control the Omni VII as well as N4PY software. You will need a RS-232 to USB converter. Get the one from Tentec. It works where others may or may not. 73 Bob K4TAX Sent from my iPhone __; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00174.html (15,971 bytes)
24. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: Carl Moreschi <n4py3@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:21:30 -0400; My N4PY Pegasus Plus program is tailor made for the Omni VII. Carl Moreschi N4PY 58 Hogwood Rd Louisburg, NC 27549 www.n4py.com Will HRD 5 work with my Omni VII arriving this week? I'm not sure if it; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00175.html (14,668 bytes)
25. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: K8JHR <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:30:11 -0400; In contrast, while I liked the 590, I prefer the ergonomics of my Omni VII. It is all good. --JHR -- The "feel" of a radio is very subjective, much like the same characteristic of a good key or paddl; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00176.html (8,797 bytes)
26. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: K8JHR <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:34:06 -0400; Interesting take, Ron. I will have to research this more. Thanks for the uptake. -- JHR -- . It's not quite that simple, folks. -- . _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing lis; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00178.html (8,930 bytes)
27. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: K8JHR <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 01:39:07 -0400; Right... Or... get a $20 PCI or PCIe serial port add in card for your computer and save yourself all kinds of worries and problems with USB drivers. Paid something like $16 for a 4 port card and now; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00182.html (10,169 bytes)
28. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 12:54:24 +0200; Sorry James, NO CIGAR! The Kenwood TS-590 definitely has better IMD rejection than the Ten-Tec Eagle. You are on the wrong page. The link you referred to is Rob's chart on RECEIVER PERFORMANCE. You w; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00189.html (16,154 bytes)
29. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:03:29 +0200; Bry, I suggest you contact the HRD people and ask them. I have no idea whether they use 3rd party drivers or their own CAT drivers. They don't have much about Ver. 5 on their web site. The least one; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00190.html (15,979 bytes)
30. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 07:38:00 -0500; Yes, HRD 5.xxxx does have correct drivers for the Omni VII. 73 Bob, K4TAX Bry, I suggest you contact the HRD people and ask them. I have no idea whether they use 3rd party drivers or their own CAT dr; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00195.html (16,096 bytes)
31. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "John" <fraz1@bellsouth.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 21:58:32 -0500; And, how does one engage SPLIT again in the Eagle....in the heat of battle? 73 John W4II _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contest; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00201.html (8,367 bytes)
32. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:51:35 +0200; Push the button and count to 3.... in chinese! ;-) Split is not difficult. You don't even have to push the fUNC key. The one that bugs me is RIT. 73 - Rick, DJ0IP (Nr. Frankfurt am Main) And, how doe; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00202.html (8,983 bytes)
33. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 11:15:41 -0500; VFO A and VFO B must be on the same band. If not, press FCN and then A=B. Release FCN by pressing it again. Then press and hold A/B. SPLIT appears just to the left of the VFO B frequency display. The; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00204.html (9,348 bytes)
34. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: Toby Pennington <w4cakk@centurylink.net>; Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:15:39 -0400; I work cw most all the time, and the Eagle's RIT implementation sucks, that plus another nit or two caused me to get rid of the Eagle, although the QSK cw was the best I have ever used, and I liked t; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00205.html (10,064 bytes)
35. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 11:22:01 -0500; It is much easier to use SPLIT. Plus one knows directly the freq of their TX and RX. From my take, every radio I've ever owned or used including others than Tentec, the RIT function sucks! I view it; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00207.html (11,241 bytes)
36. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: Dave Edwards <kd2e@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:33:26 -0400; RIT on most rigs works perfectly. It is not "split". It is for use when the station in communication with is slightly off frequency. Perhaps he is running separates, or something old. You don't want; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00210.html (12,370 bytes)
37. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 12:56:33 -0500; With SPLIT one frequency is transmit and one is receive. Thus RX is adjustable without changing TX freq.. With RIT one frequency is transmit and one is receive offset by the RIT value. Thus RX is adj; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00212.html (14,056 bytes)
38. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Ted Bryant" <w4nz@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:18:52 -0400; RIT is very useful in CW contesting where in the heat of battle stations calling you may land on or near the edge of your passband. Many radios like the Orion, Orion II, TS590s and FT1000mp will acce; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00215.html (11,163 bytes)
39. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:43:17 +0200; I will side with Bob on this one. Although I spend most of my time doing search and pounce, I always have several hours of CQing. I find it easier to hit A=B, and then split. I did that will all my r; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00217.html (12,076 bytes)
40. Re: [TenTec] Eagle vs. TS-590S (score: 1): Author: K8JHR <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:01:39 -0400; Yeah.... my bad. I was addressing receiver performance as you surmise. -- K8JHR -- You are on the wrong page. The link you referred to is Rob's chart on RECEIVER PERFORMANCE. You were looking at 'REC; /archives//html/TenTec/2014-07/msg00219.html (9,910 bytes)

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