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.

41. [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <w3uls73@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:31:00 -0400; To my way of thinking (and I am not alone), claims of superior performance (i.e., close-in 3d order IMD) being the be-all and end-all, are overblown. The average ham, such as myself, will rarely, if; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00154.html (8,426 bytes)
42. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 23:12:30 +0000; Rare? It depends on your operating style and how you use the subreceiver. I ran up against the limitations of the Orion subrx almost on a daily basis. In recent years, I was a topband enthusiast. I w; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00155.html (9,419 bytes)
43. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 01:13:32 +0200; John, I endorsed every word of your post until the last sentence. Then the alarms went off. Rob clearly emphasizes in his presentations that many things contribute to making a good receiver and not t; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00156.html (10,516 bytes)
44. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Al Gulseth <wb5jnc@centurytel.net>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 21:23:21 -0500; Rick, I have to agree. Even with just casual operating (I'm not a contester) I've seen more than one situation where other stations were complaining about "splatter" or QRM (on both SSB and CW) which; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00158.html (9,215 bytes)
45. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 22:31:15 -0400; Thanks for doing the test. Sounds like John Henry was right in not classifying the RX366 as general coverage. That is not how I read Mr. Henry's comment. I believe he said, "Some very astute ears wi; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00159.html (9,745 bytes)
46. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 22:58:25 -0400; Fundamentally it gets down to a couple of things, like which side of the pond do you live on, and if you care whether you might be the 5th guy or 155th guy to work a DX station. Phooey. If you can h; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00160.html (9,471 bytes)
47. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:19:32 +0200; James, nobody said that you can hear him. You just assumed that. When you know the DX-pedition is on Christmas Island, you've found the spot on the DX-spotting site, but on the listed frequency your; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00161.html (13,916 bytes)
48. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:30:48 +0000; Sorry James, but the degradation in general coverage is more than "very little" and "barely discernible", per my previously posted test results. 73, Barry N1EU _______________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00162.html (10,507 bytes)
49. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 08:37:17 -0400; YOU said the differences between the two receivers would mean the difference between the 5th guy to work the DX, or the 155th guy to work him. So, if I can work him on both radios, then I can hear hi; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00163.html (12,483 bytes)
50. [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: John Henry <jhenry@tentec.com>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 08:37:49 -0400; Actually, a lot of this is misunderstood. The RX366 related to how good or bad it receives AM Broadcast has nothing to do with upconversion or downconversion. The reason the RX366 doesn't provide AM; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00164.html (9,228 bytes)
51. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 08:53:53 -0400; OK... Shoot. No offense... but I was banking on what John Henry said. ;-) I am forever picking the wrong candidate... ;-) Thanks for the clarification, OM. -- K8JHR -- _______________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00165.html (9,303 bytes)
52. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: GARY HUBER <glhuber@msn.com>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 08:21:42 -0500; Rick, I would have been interested in the OMNI-VII test you didn't do. I'm sure you would have had to run the RF gain below 30 percent. Does anyone here on the list have any RX366, 599, or 566, test; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00166.html (15,459 bytes)
53. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:30:52 +0200; John, there were two threads going on under the same subject. I was not responding to the AM Broadcast issue, but rather to the question how big the difference is between the old 2nd RX and the new 2; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00167.html (10,105 bytes)
54. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:27:53 +0200; James, This thread is about a high performance upgrade to a high performance transceiver that most people will never own. So it is not at all about "most people". I pointed out 3 instances where a do; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00170.html (13,497 bytes)
55. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:15:51 -0400 (EDT); John, The issue, for me at least, is not AM BCB reception but short wave reception outside the ham bands, including: WWV Military stations working hams on Armed Forces Day Maritime stations such as K; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00171.html (8,331 bytes)
56. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Michael Cheponis <Michael@Cheponis.Com>; Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 16:39:24 -0700; I've found a paper on Phase Noise by Crystek Corporation's VP of Engineering to be very good in quickly explaining "from the ground up" what phase noise is, and why it's important. It's 4 1/4 pages l; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00172.html (13,153 bytes)
57. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:07:50 -0400 (EDT); Hi all, Since I started this thread a few days ago, let me try to summarize where we are. John Henry says that the RX366 is essentially the Eagle receiver, while the stock Orion/Orion II sub rx is es; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00173.html (10,935 bytes)
58. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:45:16 +0000; If you want to be able to depend on the subreceiver not folding in the presence of strong signals on the band (especially cw), you'd want the RX-366. This doesn't necessarily mean contesting. 73, Bar; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00174.html (8,365 bytes)
59. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:32:30 +0200; I will add one more scenario to Barry's comments. If you have a very good antenna on 40m in Europe, the Orion's "stock" 2nd RX crunches easily. I compared the original ORION's first and second receiv; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00175.html (10,513 bytes)
60. Re: [TenTec] RX366 (score: 1): Author: "Duane Calvin" <ac5aa1@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:32:51 -0500; Sounds like you got it right, Ray. I have a slightly different view. I find the stock subRX to be fine for DXing because I use the MainRX to listen to the DX. After all, he's the one getting clobbere; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-05/msg00176.html (12,394 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]