- 1. [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Reid" <jimr.reid@verizon.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:45:40 -1000
- I have been asked again recently to compare these two for use by radio amateurs. They are sitting here side by side. In fact, using N4PY software, the 340 can play the part of the sub-rcvr for the Or
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00655.html (11,638 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:56:28 -0500
- At one time, I believe Carl had modified his 340 with a switchable 4 kHz roofing filter, similar to the Orion. So, with that filter installed, I suspect performance is equal to the Orion except in c
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00656.html (7,183 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:14:53 -1000
- Jim, The Orion receiver you are comparing the 340 to is the "primary" receiver, not the "sub" receiver? Ken N6KB _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00657.html (7,652 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Reid" <jimr.reid@verizon.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:30:33 -1000
- That is correct, to the Orion MAIN rcvr. My reference to the Orion sub rcvr was to the fact that with Carl's software, one "ignores" the sub rcvr within the Orion, and the RX-340 is used instead. To
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00658.html (8,279 bytes)
- 5. Re: [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:49:29 -0000
- One other big difference between the rx340 and Orion is the rx340 has a fantastic sync AM mode. This really makes shortwave AM broadcast stations sound good. Also, the filters on the rx340 are sharpe
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00661.html (9,330 bytes)
- 6. Re: [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:06:12 -1000
- Hi again Jim, I would be interested to know how the 340 compares to the Orion "sub" receiver. I thought that they were pretty much the same. I guess that was an incorrect notion. Ken N6KB ___________
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00664.html (7,896 bytes)
- 7. Re: [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Reid" <jimr.reid@verizon.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:16:25 -1000
- Oh my goodness, NO, there is no favorable comparison at all! That is why I use the 340 as the Orion subrcvr via Carl's software. The benefit to the 340, first of all: 1. You would use the sub to fin
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00666.html (9,713 bytes)
- 8. Re: [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:33:04 -0000
- I removed the 4 khz roofing filter I previously had added to my rx340. I never really found any practical real world benefit from it. Carl Moreschi N4PY Franklinton, NC -- Original Message -- From: "
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00667.html (10,631 bytes)
- 9. RE: [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: "John L Merrill" <jmerrill1@adelphia.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:48:51 -0500
- If you look at Sherwoods list of tested receivers at close spacing you will notice the 340 is near the bottom of the list. I noticed he has added the OmniVI+ and the K2. Unfortunately the Orion and i
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00668.html (8,547 bytes)
- 10. Re: [TenTec] Orion vs. RX-340 TT Rcvrs. (score: 1)
- Author: "Carl Moreschi" <n4py@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:41:39 -0000
- The rating is very misleading for the rx340. The DSP AGC has a 60 DB limit because of the DSP chip that was used in this receiver. The only thing that happens when closed spaced signals are in the 20
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00679.html (9,919 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu