Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Re\:\s+TT\s+vs\s+756PROII\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Re\:\s+TT\s+vs\s+756PROII\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: royanjoy@ncn.net (Roy Koeppe); Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:24:54 -0600; Concerning: "Hi folks - The comparisons I see on the reflector re the above radios generally relates to SSB and audio. Does anyone know how the 746PRO and the 756PROII do with cw? I operate 99% cw. T; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00012.html (7,646 bytes)
2. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: w5yr@att.net (George, W5YR); Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:01:34 -0600; Roy, I don't know what you are looking at, but when I look on a scope at the output r-f envelope of my PRO sending continuous dots, I see textbook perfect dots and spaces of equal lengths. Not saying; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00016.html (8,717 bytes)
3. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: n4lq@iglou.com (n4lq@iglou.com); Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:51:21 -0500; I've asked a few 756 pro owners about the truncation and most are using external keyers to compensate for it by cranking up the weight so this isn't too serious. The pro's cw notes all sound very cle; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00017.html (8,003 bytes)
4. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: n4lq@iglou.com (Steve Ellington); Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:04:16 -0500; Well that contradicts the QST review on the Pro2. Something isn't right. Did Icom change the keyer in the Pro2 to have a real weight control or is it still the odd "ratio" type control. Steve Ellingt; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00022.html (9,887 bytes)
5. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: w5yr@att.net (George, W5YR); Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 19:56:00 -0600; Don't know about the PRO II, Steve. But, I am getting confused here - nothing new! <:} When I hold down the dit paddle at almost any speed and look at the r-f output envelope with a scope, I see almo; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00035.html (9,411 bytes)
6. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:40:18 -0500; You probably already do this or something similar, but what I do is drive a NPN transistor with a signal generator. I tie the collector to the manual key input, and of course the emitter is grounded; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00038.html (8,827 bytes)
7. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: n4lq@iglou.com (Steve Ellington); Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:43:42 -0500; Scrap the test equipment. Just listen to yoursef in another receiver as you switch the Pro between QSK and Semi bk in. If your dits sound shorter in QSK mode then it's truncating. My IC-706 chops dit; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00041.html (11,095 bytes)
8. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: w5yr@att.net (George, W5YR); Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 21:59:22 -0600; Neat setup, Tom - I'll have to try that . . . thanks. Well, I have only the PRO to speak about, but it is just about the same as your 706! I just got through running some scope checks and monitoring; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00042.html (12,865 bytes)
9. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 05:32:23 -0500; <snip> The main marketing guy at ICOM, perhaps four years ago, told me "no one works CW, it is a dying mode" and "there isn't any chance we will change the software, the ratio control is fine". Whil; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00044.html (8,578 bytes)
10. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 05:32:23 -0500; Hi Steve, Respectfully, that is why we should look at it with a scope. The IC- 706 (and the 775DSP I had) does not just truncate dits, it truncates the leading edge of EVERY element, both dots and d; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00045.html (8,118 bytes)
11. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: n4lq@iglou.com (Steve Ellington); Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:03:05 -0500; You're absolutely right Tom. In fact, when I use an external keyer on the 706 while in QSK mode, the keyer's sidetone is unpleasant to listen to because the weight has to be so heavy. I suppose keyer; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00053.html (9,358 bytes)
12. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: w5yr@att.net (George, W5YR); Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 16:07:42 -0600; Ran some more tests last night using the CW function/mode of MixW 2.02 as a keyer. It is the only program I could find that has actual "weighting" as an option. Default is "0" which does not change t; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00060.html (10,892 bytes)
13. [TenTec] Re: TT vs 756PROII (score: 1): Author: n4lq@iglou.com (Steve Ellington); Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:33:41 -0500; were Sure do! And really it's the best way. There are two rigs I can think of that actually have a sidetone which represents the RF generated at some point within the transmitter. Those are the TenT; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-02/msg00061.html (8,930 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]