Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+rx366\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+rx366\s*$/: 81 ]

Total 81 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: BobK8IA@aol.com; Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:22:09 -0500 (EST); John, I installed a beta RX366 in my Orion II about mid-Sept 2011 and have contested extensively with it ever since. Much of it in the N1MM SO2V mode you mention. K8IA and N7AT callsigns used here. I; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-02/msg00324.html (8,532 bytes)
22. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: amsctalx@comcast.net; Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:53:43 +0000 (UTC); John - While I am happy for you and the rest of the organization that this product is successful, I am mildly heartbroken to read that they are sold out. I am traveling to Knoxville on business in a; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-02/msg00326.html (8,499 bytes)
23. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: José Félix Ballester <jfballester@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:25:30 -0400; Hi John, Couldn't be more pleased that TenTec with USA manufactured products is doing so well. Now, it may not seem as very important, but if and when you can tweak the NR function on the Eagle and w; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-02/msg00331.html (8,603 bytes)
24. [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "n2wk" <n2wk@rochester.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:48:48 -0500; I looked for the RX 366 info on the Tentec website...its not under the new products, not under the Orion 2 options, not under receivers, not under accessories.... You can find it under KITS _________; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-02/msg00334.html (6,460 bytes)
25. [TenTec] rx366 (score: 1): Author: Rick Dougherty NQ4I <nq4i@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:24:34 -0400; Anyone using the new second reeceiver with the Orion 565? I am interested in some off line comments...do you use it with bevergaes and transmitting antennas? How effedctive is the diversity reception; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-09/msg00353.html (7,189 bytes)
26. Re: [TenTec] rx366 (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 21:31:34 +0000; It's very effective Rick. 73, Barry N1EU _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec; /archives//html/TenTec/2012-09/msg00357.html (7,601 bytes)
27. [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 12:40:54 -0400 (EDT); I can see why a serious contester would want the RX366 but as a DXer who just fools around in contests and doesn't do SO2R, I personally don't feel the need for it. I would rather not give up general; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00115.html (6,577 bytes)
28. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: John Occhipinti <k3ur@att.net>; Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 19:46:05 -0400; Ray, are you saying that you lose the general coverage capability on the Orion II, when you install the DX366? Thanks for your input. John, K3UR Net Control, TEN-TEC Nets Sent from my iPad __________; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00131.html (7,674 bytes)
29. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Rick W <ve7tk@yahoo.ca>; Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:55:00 -0700 (PDT); I guess my RX-366 is broken because it hears on general receive? ... and WWV as well? 73, Rick VE7TK Website: http://www.ve7tk.com To:Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com> Subject:; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00132.html (8,060 bytes)
30. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 08:39:47 +0000; If there's interest, I may have the opportunity in the next few days to do a head-to-head comparison between original subrx and RX-366 on general coverage bands to answer this (at least for myself) o; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00141.html (9,082 bytes)
31. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 21:33:05 +0000; I just spent a few minutes doing an A/B comparison of an original subrx (in 566) with a RX-366 subrx (in 565). I used a delta loop antenna to listen to 9MHz SWL band and a 580ft Beverage antenna to l; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00144.html (10,420 bytes)
32. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: John Occhipinti <k3ur@att.net>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 17:38:33 -0400; Barry, thank you for taking the time to do the comparison. I have been here at the Dayton Hamvention assisting at the TEN-TEC Booth as a TEN-TEC Ambassador. I just asked John Henry, TEN-TEC Engineer; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00145.html (10,422 bytes)
33. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 00:12:22 +0200; WELL DONE, BARRY! Let's see, what have we learned from this? "Radios with a 2nd RX using upward conversion won't work as well on the ham bands as receivers using downward conversion!" Hmmmm, seems I; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00146.html (9,143 bytes)
34. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Cecil <chacuff@cableone.net>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 19:02:12 -0500; With such a significant difference in general coverage performance I would have liked to hear of the same test inside the ham bands and the results being that the 366 was much improved in that scenar; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00147.html (10,667 bytes)
35. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 22:09:23 -0400; Let's see, what have we learned from this? "Radios with a 2nd RX using upward conversion won't work as well on the ham bands as receivers using downward conversion!" Er... um... Not necessarily. That; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00148.html (10,887 bytes)
36. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 22:12:10 -0400; ________________________________________________ Yeah... Barry, did you get an opportunity to make any comparisons between the two on any ham bands? From the brief description of your test, it appear; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00149.html (8,691 bytes)
37. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "PA5MW, Mark" <pa5mw@home.nl>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 08:42:34 +0200; Thanks Barry, That justifies my saving for a future RX366 upgrade on the OII only and keeping my '04 Orion , with its original 2nd rcvr, for AM BCB. 73, Mark PA5MW On 18-5-2013 23:33, Barry N1EU wrot; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00150.html (8,973 bytes)
38. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 09:01:40 +0200; James, If we were speaking about radios in general, and all radios ever built, then your statement would be technically correct. But since we are listing radios here which are touted to be among the; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00151.html (12,830 bytes)
39. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 10:06:11 +0000; I don't have the test equipment to do the comparison in the ham bands. To me it's a no-brainer that a down-converting rx with narrow 9MHz roofing filters will significantly outperform an up-convertin; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00152.html (8,974 bytes)
40. [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 20:42:05 -0400 (EDT); Hi Barry, Thanks for doing the test. Sounds like John Henry was right in not classifying the RX366 as general coverage. The only thing I do with the 566 sub rx in the ham bands is pileup spotting (no; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00153.html (8,101 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]