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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Top\s+receivers\s*$/: 50 ]

Total 50 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: John K3GHH <k3ghh@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 05:50:51 -0400; Did list members notice the article recently mentioned in the ARRL Contest Update? I haven't pored over it thoroughly, and am not qualified really to understand it, but the FTDX5000D and K3 come out; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00062.html (7,524 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:01:36 +0200; John, You have to take that article with a tiny grain of salt. It lists the top 3 receivers (of transceivers) and of course you can rank them against a single specification, as has been done. However; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00063.html (10,370 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: Joel Hallas <jrhallas@optonline.net>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 08:21:09 -0400; Rick, All points well taken! Please note, however, that the info in the sidebar on reciprocal mixing on page 55 of April QST was from, Bob Allison, WB1GCM, the ARRL Test Engineer who developed the ne; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00064.html (12,247 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 07:22:17 -0500; I'd read the article published by ARRL and the article that John provided with his post. Both are very good and very informative and are suggested reading. I've followed the work of Rob Sherwood, his; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00065.html (10,072 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 15:22:40 +0200; Joel, thanks for pointing out that it was from Bob... (says so right at the bottom, doesn't it). I just assumed it was from Mark. Sometimes it's a big advantage when you can read! (hi) Bob has brough; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00066.html (8,597 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 09:58:46 -0400 (EDT); And even the sainted KWM-2, one of which I've had for 50 years, gets bad reports on CW because of the way it generates it -- inserts an audio tone into the SSB TX. 73 Ray W2RS _______________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00067.html (7,672 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: kc9cdt@aol.com; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 10:15:53 -0400 (EDT); Ray, Even though the KWM-2 is not a good CW transiever (never was designed to be) it is still a super SSB tranceiver. I use mine regularly and to tell the truth...95% of the time it's ALL you need. W; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00068.html (8,380 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 10:21:21 -0400 (EDT); Lee, I use mine too, mostly on 20 and 15 SSB. It has the DX Engineering speech processor installed and, as you said, it really gets through. Most of the time I don't even have to turn on the 30L-1. 7; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00069.html (7,281 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: Glenn <wa4aos@aol.com>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 12:58:04 -0400 (EDT); Isn't it funny though... How much we use to enjoy the hobby with our horrible Hammarlund, Hallicrafters, National, Heathkit, and other receivers before we all got in the habit of becoming OVERLY focu; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00078.html (12,279 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: "Walt Amos" <waltk8cv4612amos@att.net>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 17:13:41 -0400; Wonder what that new TS-990 on the back of QST will cost, $10 grand like the big Yeasu rigs? My Orion 2 is the most expensive rig in my shack, and there are 25 of them, and I agonized for years befor; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00083.html (15,212 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: Floyd Sense <floyd@k8ac.net>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:07 -0400; Interesting article, and I know it addresses only the receivers, but sometimes it's just hard to keep quiet. I guess that with the current state of the art in these high-end transceivers, it would be; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00084.html (10,340 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 18:04:42 -0400; If you sell all the rigs you don't use very much, you could afford any rig you want ! But I know how hard it is to sell of an old friend ! You face a terrible dilemma, OM. ;-) == K8JHR == ___________; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00085.html (8,843 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 18:28:24 -0500; Floyd, I agree with you and with many of the other writers. The receiver performance has been pushed ahead and largely demanded by "users" in a competitive market while the transmitter performance is; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00086.html (13,721 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:17:45 +0200; Bob, you hit it. We need to stop making transmitters with 12v transistors. 48v MOSFETs should be mandatory. We do need laws to mandate this. The problem as I see it is with the mobile rigs. Maybe we; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00090.html (11,708 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: d.e.warnick@comcast.net; Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:36:06 +0000 (UTC); There are currently emission standards, etc. that need to be met to gain FCC type acceptance. If the current crop of transceivers meet these specifications & there is still a problem, then the specif; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00091.html (14,463 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: kc9cdt@aol.com; Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 09:33:00 -0400 (EDT); Yes...it'a all about the emission standards, FCC enforcement etc. FCC is not doing the job...no surprise...all they want to do these days is sell frequency's. Also, look at all the crap operations on; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00093.html (14,503 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 07:13:21 -0700; Many of us are old enough to remember when the FCC had field offices, monitoring stations, and field engineers who actually came out and inspected stations. Broadcasters were inspected on a routine b; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00096.html (10,426 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: kc9cdt@aol.com; Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:48:06 -0400 (EDT); Well, Small government?? It's huge and growing daily! I don't blame 'small government' I blame POOR GOVERNMENT. There a several things the federal government should do VERY WELL and they are NOT doin; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00098.html (11,099 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:00:29 +0200; Jim, based on that (which I fully believe), our only recourse is to START DEMANDING CLEANER TRANSMITTERS. Just as we focused on DR3 in the past, we need to focus on cleaner transmit IMD in the future; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00100.html (11,840 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] Top receivers (score: 1): Author: kc9cdt@aol.com; Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 11:06:03 -0400 (EDT); Yep...use the old KWM-2 regularly...never had any complaints... it is a real pleasure to use. 73, Lee Jim, based on that (which I fully believe), our only recourse is to START EMANDING CLEANER TRANSM; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-05/msg00102.html (12,061 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]