Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Wider\s+SSB\s+Filters\s+For\s+Omni\s+VI\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Wider\s+SSB\s+Filters\s+For\s+Omni\s+VI\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Wider SSB Filters For Omni VI (score: 1): Author: DHHDEH@concentric.net (David H. Hammond); Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:55:32 +0000; Hi Everyone, I recently has a nice talk with the good folks at INRAD about the possiblity of getting a small run of custom SSB filters for the Omni VI at around 2.7 to 2.8khz. They would need a speci; /archives//html/TenTec/1998-08/msg00183.html (8,424 bytes)
2. [TenTec] Wider SSB Filters For Omni VI (score: 1): Author: turner@safety.ics.uci.edu (Clark Savage Turner WA3JPG); Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:32:17 -0700; Don't know how much interest Dave's message generated, but I am interested. Has anyone pinpointed Ten Tec's reasons for not recommending an extra 150 Hz on each end of the standard filter's skirts? I; /archives//html/TenTec/1998-08/msg00259.html (8,020 bytes)
3. [TenTec] Wider SSB Filters For Omni VI (score: 1): Author: kf5mc@flash.net (Joseph Pursley); Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 16:41:18 -0500; I think I'm missing something here. The reason for narrower filters is an attempt to keep loud signals in close proximity from interfering . SSB was never designed to sound like Hi Fi. It was origina; /archives//html/TenTec/1998-08/msg00265.html (10,544 bytes)
4. [TenTec] Wider SSB Filters For Omni VI (score: 1): Author: turner@safety.ics.uci.edu (Clark Savage Turner WA3JPG); Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 15:23:56 -0700; Joe writes about standard vs. wider SSB filters, and raises some good points. I can address them a bit, from my own personal perspective. I find the tradeoff of smoother sounding SSB from 2.7 filters; /archives//html/TenTec/1998-08/msg00298.html (9,538 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]