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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+RF\s+Speech\s+Processor\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] RF speech processor (score: 1): Author: "Zivney, Terry L." <00tlzivney@bsu.edu>; Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:28:22 -0500; The older Ten-Tec 234 RF speech processor was a great improvement for my OMNI VI+ station over the built-in audio processor. I think the DSP processing in my Orions (1.372 version) is better than the; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00063.html (6,818 bytes)
2. [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls73@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:51:54 -0400; There is a series of ongoing exchanges on the Yahoo Group for the new Kenwood TS=990S in which some people say they're finding the average PEP is not as good as it should be, with or without the spee; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00111.html (7,516 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:05:13 -0500; I've been using a TT-715 and Heil HC-4 to drive my OMNI-VII to 100 W PEP to break a few pileups. The OMNI-VII is set for TX BW = 2500, TX Roll Off = 300 Hz, TX EQ = 0 dB, Speech Proc = 50%. The 715 i; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00114.html (9,889 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:55:13 -0400; Golly, Gary... I would not run both the 715 and the Omni VII onboard processor at once, ... or do I misunderstand what you are saying...? The Omni VII has its own RF-type processor, and the 715 is al; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00115.html (7,621 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:37:56 -0500; I tend to agree that running an external speech processor AND the internal processor at the same time would not seem be the better configuration. My experience and measurements indicate the internal; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00116.html (10,656 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:52:38 -0500; I've worked with both the internal DSP processor of the OMNI-VII and TT-715 to produce a transmitted signal which is narrow, intelligible, and effective by looking at it with the FLEX-1500 in Panadap; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00117.html (11,568 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 04:54:48 -0700; Right. This is an example of "more is NOT better." There's enough bad audio on the air -- why add more? A good rule of thumb is no more than about 10dB indicated compression on peaks. More than that; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00118.html (8,070 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:59:29 -0500; Jim, You've not heard my audio, nor seen it, but you already have an opinion. Why not look at my original comments as to how the combination was produced. 73 ES DX, Gary -- AB9M Right. This is an exa; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00119.html (8,861 bytes)
9. [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: dhhdeh@comcast.net; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:57:17 +0000 (UTC); Gary is 100% correct if your objective is to work rare DX in a competitive environment. This can be configured as he describes with great success towards that end. Back in the 1970's one of my good; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00120.html (9,556 bytes)
10. [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls73@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:14:21 -0400; Dave Hammond! I am so glad to see a posting by you on this thread! Long time no see. I always have read with interest what you have had to say. I will consider carefully what you, Bob and Gary have s; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00121.html (8,221 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:25:44 -0500; While DX operation demands certain artifacts of sound to be successful, the issue remains that today's RF PA's operating on 13 volts have a significant amount of transmitted IMD products. Increasing; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00122.html (12,384 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:32:06 -0500; Thanks Dave, I'm also at 348 for DXCC, needing only VP8-S and FT8W to complete the current DXCC list. After 40 years in the hobby and more than twenty in the telecommunications industry working with; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00123.html (11,178 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:27:06 -0500; I recall a comment made to me recently by a very highlyl respected audio and recording engineer. "In the 70's we had talent. Today we seem to have only technology". Perhaps that better explains what; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00124.html (9,175 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:00:17 +0200; Well war-story time. While running the MARS station in Berlin back in the early 70's, I had an S-Line with 30S1 linear, and a 204BA on top of a 75 ft. tower. For lack of a speech processor (and no kn; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00125.html (11,211 bytes)
15. [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: dhhdeh@comcast.net; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:16:59 +0000 (UTC); Rick, I can't stop laughing! A ham radio "MacGyverism" for sure. You were literally hosing guys in the DX pileups. 73 de N1LQ-Dave _______________________________________________ TenTec m; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00128.html (8,271 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:57:38 -0400; Personally, Gary, after reading your comments over the past couple of years, and reviewing your setup procedure, I am confident you have managed to ring the most out of the rig and processor, pushing; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00129.html (11,845 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:55:11 -0500; Thanks James, I have never been one to subscribe to the all knobs to the right nor running every thing to the maximum. For great sounding transmit audio, a TenTec 705 microphone, and enough mic gain; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00133.html (14,048 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 00:09:52 -0700; You've not heard my audio, nor seen it, but you already have an opinion. I was not commenting on YOUR post, but on Bob's. I didn't see your post. Yes, I have an opinion. I know a lot about audio and; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00138.html (9,645 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: Reed Krenn <reed.krenn@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:35:52 -0400; That man has a *stranglehold* on reality! Regards, Reed WW3A _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ten; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00141.html (10,539 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] RF Speech Processor (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 00:25:38 +0200; Well we can't blame it all on the hams, though they are indeed a big piece of the problem. Our radios have slowly but surely gotten worse over the years and they too are part of the problem. Most rad; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-06/msg00151.html (11,815 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]