On 28 Oct 1999 SFIKE@twa.com wrote:
> I am trying to decide if it is better for a transciever to NOT have a general
> coverage receiver. There seems to be a couple of schools of thought on this.
No... there really isn't any school of thought. What people talk about is
crystal mixing and PTOs verses synthesizer (PLL) stuff.
It's really expensive to make rigs with several crystal mixers, like ANY
company's PTO-based receivers. That's why Tritons, Omni's, etc only cover
the ham bands. Since it's cheap and easy to make a GC receiver with a PLL
based tuner, the japanese do so. So did Ten*Tec with the old Paragon.
There are plenty of Collins and Drake GC receivers that have PTO based
receivers. They are wonderful - or so it's said.
Personally, I think it's tough to listen to AM through a rig with a 2.4KHz
crystal filter. It's about as bad to hear broadcast SW AM through a cheap
cermamic 6 KHz filter.
At least, that's my opinion, I could be wrong.
73! =paul= W8KC
Collector of Ten*Tecs and other fine plastics.
Visit the Virtual Ten*Tec Museum at:
<http://www.acs.oakland.edu/~prvalko>
--
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
|