Eric,
The differences may be noticed depending on how you use your rig. All of
the INRAD filters are 8-pole crystal lattice filters (you really don't want
the Collins mechanical filters). They do have less insertion loss than the
TenTec filters, by maybe a dB or two. While less insertion loss can be
helpful in extreme cases, I think their value is probably in that the
filters shape factor is typically 2.0 or less at the 6dB/60dB points. The
aditional improvement is that they are installed in a shielded metal can,
meaning, in most cases, that the stop attenuation should be better than the
TenTec's. Like everything in this world, if you get something better, your
going to have to pay more for it, and that's the case with the INRAD filters.
In my opinion, if you are a serious contester or serious DX'er, they are
worth the change. But for general QSO'ing, your not going to see too much
difference. I've just ordered a set for both IF's in my Omni 6+ so I'll
know this week how they compare.
At 11:32 AM 10/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I have a Paragon I with all of the filters installed and am wondering if it
>is worth my while to replace any/all of them with the INRAD versions.
>
>It seems that the INRAD models might have a lower insertion loss, but I am
>unable to understand the differences between the two manufacturer's models.
>
>Can anyone help?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Eric W3DQ
>Washington, DC
>rosenberg.eric@orbcomm.com
>
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
Chester Alderman
* Tom - - W4BQF*
chestert@pressroom.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|