Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+MFJ\s+1025\s+or\s+1026\s+Noise\s+Cancellers\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+MFJ\s+1025\s+or\s+1026\s+Noise\s+Cancellers\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: MFJ 1025 or 1026 Noise Cancellers (score: 1): Author: W2pm@aol.com (W2pm@aol.com); Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 07:33:55 EDT; (Oops, sorry I messed this one up...please reply to Pete...not W4ZV) Does anyone have views or comments on the MFJ 1025 canceller VS the 1026 which has the optional "active antenna preamp"? I recentl; /archives//html/Topband/2000-05/msg00012.html (7,816 bytes)
2. Topband: MFJ 1025 or 1026 Noise Cancellers (score: 1): Author: w7iuv@nis4u.com (Larry Molitor); Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:46:36 +0100; Pete, in my experience, the 1026 preamp is worthless on topband. I have had to resort to external, high intercept point, "preamps" with even higher gain in order to use the 1026 at all. Just my opini; /archives//html/Topband/2000-05/msg00015.html (7,169 bytes)
3. Topband: MFJ 1025 or 1026 Noise Cancellers (score: 1): Author: nr1dx@cyberportal.net (NR1DX); Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 03:13:25 +0000; The trick with any of the noise cancellers is to get a (noise) signal of equal amplitude into both the main antenna input as well as the noise antenna input. In my experience folks who have had probl; /archives//html/Topband/2000-05/msg00016.html (8,818 bytes)
4. Topband: MFJ 1025 or 1026 Noise Cancellers (score: 1): Author: pete@vermontel.net (Pete Ferrand); Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:59:51 -0400; Yes, this point cannot be overemphasized. The main thing to point out is that the desired signal is not a factor here, but both channels must have the same amount of noise in 'em. Also, if the noise; /archives//html/Topband/2000-05/msg00018.html (8,774 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]