To: <tentec@contesting.com>
>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:42:09 -0400
>To: Del Seay <<seay@Alaska.NET>
>From: Chester Alderman <<chestert@mail.pressroom.com>
>Subject: Re: [TenTec] Omni-6 Plus Upgrade
>In-Reply-To: <<34057B16.427@alaska.net>
>
>At 06:20 AM 8/28/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>I'd like to pass along my observations on the Plus upgrade for
>>those who are contemplating.
>
>As an Omni 6 owner for six years and a factory modified Omni 6+ owner now for
>only a few weeks, I'd like to use your message to add my observations and
>comments.
>>
>>First, I made a mistake ordering the 1.8 kHz 2nd filter for ssb.
>>I don't use ssb that much, and the filter is far too steep,
>>with the resulting audio being extremely limited. My fault, not
>>Ten-Tec's.
>
>I have a 2.4kc, 1.8kc, and 500 Hz filters in the first IF, and the full
>complement in the second IF. I am finding the 1.8 kc in the 1st IF and 500 Hz
>in the 2nd IF to be very good for digging out weak DX signals on 80 and 40
>mtrs. I like the sharpness of the skirts and do not notice any degredation of
>the signal level, no matter what filter combinations I select.
>
>>A couple of years ago, I bought and played with one of the high
>>end DSP units, and was not impressed. Now, the built in DSP
>>in the OMNI appears about the same. The low pass filter works well,
>>the auto notch is great for the phone operators, but I have yet
>>to find a signal that I can copy with the dsp, that I can't copy
>>without. I guess it could be considered a nice toy, but not of
>>great help in serious dx chasing.
>
>I certainly agree! I've never found any DSP box that really did help dig out
>weak signals in the presence of normal band noise. For sure, in the presence
>of QRN, I don't find them to be of any help. The DSP in my Omni 6+ seems to be
>the same. If a signal is loud enough for you to read without the aid of the
>DSP, then the DSP will enhance the signal by dropping the background noise
>level, however one could copy that signal anyway. In my brief experience on
>20/40/80 mtrs, if the signal is very near the band noise level, DSP will not
>enhance that signal. And in fact, in my opinion, makes the weak signal
>somewhat more difficult to copy because it introduces a 'ringing sensation' in
>the audio. I find the DSP on SSB signals to be very discouraging! If you can
>almost copy a SSB signal, when you turn the DSP on, the audio presence
>decreases so much that you can hardly copy the voice.
>However, I still reserve judgement on the DSP, with hopes that this winter,
>especially on the low end of 80 mtrs, with no QRN, the DSP will function much
>better. Right now I would say with good filters in the 1st and 2nd IF, DSP is
>not providing a significant enhancement to copying signals.
>>
>>The additional filtering has really sharpened the receiver, and is
>>well worth the upgrade. I have 2-500 Hz filters, and find that it is
>>great. I can't imagine ever needing, or being able to use a 250 hz
>>filter with it.
>>
>>There is one item that has been dropped from the menu - to my dismay.
>>The ability to change the cw offset was great in the original. Now,
>>it appears we must be satisfied with 670 Hz.
>
>This problem, I do not have. I can adjust the CW sidetone from 400 Hz to about
>900Hs. I can adjust the RIT and XIT the factory advertised amount. I do,
>however, notice that when using RIT, the tuning transition is not consistant.
>Say I have tuned the RIT up 200 cps from my xmit freq and start tuning it back
>down toward zero. As I watch the digital readout, the count will go something
>like ....5.4.3.2.3.2.1.3.2.1...etc. The frequency does not seem to jump as
>indicated, only the digital readout.
>>
>>Now - the built-in keyer seems better, although I doubt that there was
>>any intentional change. Probably just a result of the new firmware.
>>However, it does still change speed as the cpu works with other
>>functions. Very disturbing to a guy who has to keep a real close grip
>>on his hand or send undistinguishable garbage. It veries about 2 wpm
>>at the 30 wpm rate. I think that the cpu is probably too busy to keep
>>up with all it is trying to control.
>
>I don't use the internal keyer, but I'm sure everyone is aware that the Omni 6
>will not key above 68 wpm? Truely not a big deal to most, but only to a very
>few (and I am among the very few). When you key above 68 wpm, the characters
>start changing the weight ratio, to the point when you get to about 74 wpm, it
>is no longer code. I have talked to TenTec (many years ago) and they explained
>the problem (PLL lock time) and I'm perfectly happy with their answer. The
>trade off would be to lose the fabulous receiver in the Omni 6...I'll happily
>take the receiver performance and use my backup Corsair II for my limited QRQ
>work.
>>
>>All in all, I am very satisfied, and there were no surprises. Everything
>>appears to be just as advertised. Another damned fine rig. Think I'll
>>keep it!
>
>I really like the additional filter selection for the 1st IF (however I would
>have perfered that the selected 1st IF filters all be cascadable!). I like the
>new menu system and I especially love the ability to set the tuning rate on
>both SSB, CW, and RIT! A big thumbs up for TenTec!!
>
>
>>
>>de KL7HF
>>
>>--
>>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
<color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>W4BQF -- Tom
</color><color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>chestert@pressroom.com
</color>
--
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
|