Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Scout\s+VS\.\s+DX\-77\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Scout\s+VS\.\s+DX\-77\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: jreber@es.com (jreber@es.com); Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:58:47 -0600; Hello everyoneI'm planning to pick up a compact rig around the holliday season for mobile/portable use, as well as some use in a fixed location. I am considering the Alinco DX-77 or the Ten Tec Scout; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00647.html (8,381 bytes)
2. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: aa8ve@juno.com (JEFF S JOHNSON); Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:53:08 -0400; Jason, If your really serious about HF radio this is an easy choice. More features is no substitution for quality radio. The Alinco is just another do-all, look important, Jap. rig with more features; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00651.html (10,025 bytes)
3. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: bigmack@nortexinfo.net (Robert); Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:25:27 -0500; Strictly my personal opinion... I have had Alinco radios from HTs to HF and the biggest problem I have had with them was in the receiver. If I had a problem I couldn't fix, it took forever to get a t; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00656.html (10,540 bytes)
4. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: caitlyn@netferrets.net (Caitlyn Martin); Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:51:04 -0400; Hi, Jason, I have owned both the Scout and the Alinco DX-70TH, which is much more comparable to the Scout than the much larger DX-77. The Alinco was a good radio, and the narrow 1khz SSB filter was g; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00657.html (12,394 bytes)
5. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: Walter Dufrain" <walter@inlink.com (Walter Dufrain); Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:40:52 -0500; Hi Jason and All, Before the screaming starts, I own FOUR Ten Tec HF rigs and use them all the time in both the QTH and mobile. Just for the record, there is NO better QSK than Ten Tec, in a commerci; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00691.html (11,323 bytes)
6. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: seweber@netnitco.net (seweber@netnitco.net); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:40:58 -0500; Hi Walt and the group. The niche you mention was formerly filled by the Delta II. I have one and absolutely love it. I wonder how many of us would buy a Delta III (Delta 2K?) if it came in at about; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00724.html (9,646 bytes)
7. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: jreber@es.com (jreber@es.com); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:37:35 -0600; You raise a great point, Walter. In spite of the bashing the Delta II/ Argonaut II took from QST, those rigs filled a niche Ten Tec has not since filled. It's too bad they didn't make a few improveme; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00727.html (11,357 bytes)
8. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: caitlyn@netferrets.net (Caitlyn Martin); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:08:34 -0400; Hi, I have played with the Delta II (though I've never owned one) and it seemed to me that the combination of the Jones filter and PBT did more to sort out a desired weak signal from between strong o; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00731.html (9,857 bytes)
9. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: cshyde@yahoo.com (Carl Hyde); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:45:50 -0700 (PDT); You have to understand the story behing the review of the Delta II that was published in QST. The author of that article had already accepted a job position with Kenwood USA when the article was writ; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00734.html (11,025 bytes)
10. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: at060@chebucto.ns.ca (David McClafferty); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:30:19 -0300 (ADT); I wonder why Tentec didn't use the function keys in the Pegasus software? It's not always convenient to use the mouse. 73, Dave, VE1ADH -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm Submissi; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00739.html (10,994 bytes)
11. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: reid.w.simmons@intel.com (Simmons, Reid W); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:39:36 -0700; Yes, I think TT needs something between the Scout and the Omni VI that can be used fixed, portable, or mobile. I seem to remember a rather long thread on this a couple of years ago where we were subm; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00741.html (11,437 bytes)
12. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: reid.w.simmons@intel.com (Simmons, Reid W); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:23:21 -0700; Hmmm, that's interesting. It seems to me that QST should not have published that review (or should have informed the readers of this fact), or assigned the project to a more "objective" reviewer. Who; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00742.html (9,926 bytes)
13. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: Ron@MidAmericaBreedingTech.com (Ron Keener); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:51:28 -0500; "I have played with the Delta II (though I've never owned one) and it seemed to me that the combination of the Jones filter and PBT did more to sort out a desired weak signal from between strong ones; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00743.html (9,601 bytes)
14. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale L. Martin); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:03:46 -0500; in at above and Yes, it could be. The Delta II, however, cannot be computer controlled AND do CW. That's why I don't "love" it, only like it. It's also very large in a /m context. For the $1200 or l; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00746.html (9,563 bytes)
15. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale L. Martin); Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:25:11 -0500; Just try driving and The Delta II: The angle of the operator and display in bright sunlight is important. It takes pushing two buttons to change bands. No internal keyer. It's big! In a small car (e.; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00748.html (10,649 bytes)
16. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: weingaertner@nac.net (Robert Weingaertner); Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:04:32 -0400; The rig to fill the niche above the Scout but below an Omni VI might be the Elecraft K2, or something like it, Maybe Ten Tec should enter into a teaming agreement with Elecraft. I have not heard or t; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00767.html (9,962 bytes)
17. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: weingaertner@nac.net (Robert Weingaertner); Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:12:30 -0400; I always thought thatthe Delta II review as a little harsh. If it had gotten a better review I might have bought one instead of a Paragon. Its sad that there is no editorial review process. However,; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00768.html (9,897 bytes)
18. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: aa8ve@juno.com (JEFF S JOHNSON); Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:34:13 -0400; Good point Bob, also if T*T were to come out with fits-all rig it would have to employ the same type design of everyone else. In short it would be pretty blah. Even the imports have had to go to DC t; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00775.html (9,699 bytes)
19. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: k4aal@jackatak.theporch.com (Ariel Elam); Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:43:30 -0500; Hi to the Reflector-- Years ago the Packard Motor Car Co. had a motto: "Ask the man who owns one." It's a good idea in any field! Ten-Tec Forever!!! 73, Ariel, k4aal -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contest; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00778.html (10,923 bytes)
20. [TenTec] Scout VS. DX-77 (score: 1): Author: dacalvin@us.ibm.com (dacalvin@us.ibm.com); Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:14:52 -0500; Hey, at least they TRY to do a review - not like CQ mag where the company ad writer might as well provide the copy! 73, Duane Duane A. Calvin Server Systems Test Engineer Dept. 76TS RS/6000 - SP Node; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-10/msg00791.html (10,531 bytes)

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