Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+re\s+756pro2\s+vs\s+omni\s+6\s+plus\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] re 756pro2 vs omni 6 plus (score: 1)
Author: kce@freeway.net (kenneth m cubilo)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:50:41 -0500
I had a chance to compare the icom and tentec radios side by side.At the risk of toe stepping keep your omni 6 plus, I found the icom 756 pro rx performance to be very user exhaustive, from my days a
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-01/msg00535.html (7,894 bytes)

2. [TenTec] re 756pro2 vs omni 6 plus (score: 1)
Author: pywacker@fuse.net (Jim)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:01:11 -0500
Saw just the opposite here.
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-01/msg00542.html (8,703 bytes)

3. [TenTec] re 756pro2 vs omni 6 plus (score: 1)
Author: n4lq@iglou.com (n4lq@iglou.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:26:00 -0500
He was really asking about the original 756 not the Pro which is a totally different reciever. QST did mention the rough audio in the Pro but that it was cleared up in the ProII.
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-01/msg00544.html (8,925 bytes)

4. [TenTec] re 756pro2 vs omni 6 plus (score: 1)
Author: w5yr@att.net (George, W5YR)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:10:51 -0600
I recently posted in response to some of Ken's comments denying that I had tinny or poor audio on receive from my PRO. That is a true statement, but I failed to point out that I take the receive audi
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-01/msg00547.html (9,918 bytes)

5. [TenTec] re 756pro2 vs omni 6 plus (score: 1)
Author: n1eu@hotmail.com (Barry N1EU)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:57:08 -0500
Investigating the AF circuitry of the Omni VI+ led me and others to the conclusion that true hi-fi receive audio could only be extracted from the Omni VI+ if the DSP and notch filter IC circuitry wer
/archives//html/TenTec/2002-01/msg00581.html (7,637 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu