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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Which\s+filters\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: knopf@emeraldnet.net (Jim Knopf); Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:41:45 -0700; Which filters will I want to buy for my new OMNI VI+? I do about a 50/50 mix of CW and SSB. No contesting. If this is already answered in a FAQ, please forgive me and point me to it. I'm new on this; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00059.html (7,802 bytes)
2. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: jdvoracek@vvm.com (John Dvoracek); Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:38:09 -0500; Hi Jim! The question has been answered many times, however, the question doesn't have just one answer. As more ops experiment with filters, more opinions develop, and searching older reflector issues; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00063.html (9,533 bytes)
3. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid); Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:12:45 -1000; KI7Q wondered: mix Aloha Jim, Well, as you do not do contests and are equally busy on both CW and SSB operating modes, I would really recommend your considering the use of INRAD filters in your new O; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00064.html (10,839 bytes)
4. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: n1eu@yahoo.com (N1EU); Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:25:44 -0700 (PDT); Well, I tried to but couldn't resist jumping in. One of the greatest pleasures of owning an Omni 6 is all the fun playing with filters ;-) I echo Jim's recommendation on both INRAD 2.8 khz filters. T; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00066.html (11,115 bytes)
5. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: bigmack@nortexinfo.net (Robert); Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 11:16:47 -0500; -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm Submissions: tentec@contesting.com Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com Search: http://w; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00094.html (8,364 bytes)
6. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: geraldj@ames.net (Dr. Gerald N. Johnson, P.E.); Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 10:29:25 -0500; Actually I think I prefer the original TenTec because with their less steep slopes (poorer shape factor as INRAD would say) they tend to ring less on noise transients which I think is a very good tra; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00097.html (8,304 bytes)
7. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: n1eu@yahoo.com (N1EU); Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:42:03 -0700 (PDT); I think the TT filters are very good, and don't necessarily need "fixing". They are less expensive than INRAD filters as well. There seems to be room in the marketplace for both of them. Great! Don't; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00098.html (9,704 bytes)
8. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: cshyde@yahoo.com (Carl Hyde); Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:31:48 -0700 (PDT); The average 90% of us probably would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the TT and InRad filters in a side by side comparison. The TT filters are more than adequate for most of us. For th; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00102.html (10,406 bytes)
9. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: SteveBaron@starlinx.com (Steve Baron); Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:40:48 +0100; I would have guessed that the perhaps dozen or so messages that state a preference for INRAD would not represent an OBVIOUS PREFERENCE by the ham community. The additional bux is significant. -- FAQ; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00105.html (9,519 bytes)
10. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: bigmack@nortexinfo.net (Robert); Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 15:21:59 -0500; Well, being as the next Omni I get will be my first Omni since the series C days, I know I don't have a leg to stand on.. It just seemed at the moment that the INRAD filters were running away in the; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00110.html (10,845 bytes)
11. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: jdvoracek@vvm.com (John Dvoracek); Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:23:48 -0500; C Don't fret: most of the messages posted are pro-INRAD. Those ops have invariably used *both* INRAD's and TT's. -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm Submissions: tentec@contesting; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00114.html (8,655 bytes)
12. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid); Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:36:39 -1000; The discussion continues: C Aloha again, Well, as I listed all the INRAD's in my Omni, I should say I agree that the TT's are very good, and yes, my additions/ substitutions/rearranging were specific; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00116.html (10,536 bytes)
13. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: vbbond@ix.netcom.com (vbbond@ix.netcom.com); Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 18:11:37 -0700; I can't speak for Ten Tec, but I fail to see how the preferences of a few (or a few dozen, for that matter) can be equated as the universal preference of the many hundreds or thousands of satisfied O; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00117.html (9,496 bytes)
14. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: zeitler@ibm.net (zeitler@ibm.net); Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 18:44:48 -0700; Vince et al, I feel the same. The Network Sciences filters are superb compared to the stock YaeComWood filters and is evidenced in the incredible performance of the Omni's PBT function--probably the; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00119.html (10,253 bytes)
15. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: bigmack@nortexinfo.net (Robert); Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 00:55:00 -0500; OK, since I seem to have 'stepped in it', let me say, that it wasn't my statement that I was referring to any 'universal preference', I was simply reading the replies to the original thread and wonde; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00123.html (10,577 bytes)
16. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: vbbond@ix.netcom.com (vbbond@ix.netcom.com); Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 06:28:05 -0700; Robert: You started an interesting thread about the TT vs. Inrad filters. I have no doubt that the latter are quality devices. I've found, in my own circumstance, that the TT filters work very well.; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00126.html (9,246 bytes)
17. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: patents@dx0man.prestel.co.uk (John - G3JAG); Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 11:28:01 +0100 (BST); Carl has it right; if you do not need higher (or different ???) performance from your radio, then stay with the stock filters - I live very close to the mainland of Europe/Scandinavia, which justifie; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00170.html (14,883 bytes)
18. [TenTec] Which filters (score: 1): Author: tlj@indy.net (Jonesy KC9TV); Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:39:15 -0500; Just a note about filters, In my OMNI VI I have the 500hz CW filters from TenTec in both IF's and they perform very well. I can't speak about the SSB filters because I only operate CW and some RTTY a; /archives//html/TenTec/1999-09/msg00182.html (8,245 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]