I just reread the qst reveiw of the 6+. They were not happy with their
measurements so they got another one. It was better except on 80 meters
where it still missed 30db down by 3db.
The first one was sent back to Ten Tec for repair. It missed 30db
down by 2db on 10 meters when retested.
This doesn't prove anything but it does show that 3 examples of the
6+ didn't meet the Ten Tec spec of 30db down.
Several radios with good audio reputations have intermod specs all over
the map from band to band--very good to horrible.
John I know you were talking about the Omni 6 but I think info about
the 6+ is needed too.
73
Steve wd0ct
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rippey" <w3uls@3n.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 4:24 PM
Subject: [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD
> Steve et al:
>
> This is known as avoidance--I'm way behind in sending out QSL's, so I'm
> sitting in front of the computer posting to the Ten-Tec reflector instead
. . .
>
> It's peculiar that what must be essentially the same final comes in with
> much worse numbers when tested as the OMNI VI +. (THe MP and Mark-V tested
> essentially the same.) The QST reviewer, Larry Wolfgang, got pretty testy
> about what he determined to be inexcusable faults with the OMNI VI + ARRL
> had bought for testing. Maybe that particular rig was faulty. Otherwise,
> who knows? Anyone have an explanation?
>
> I own the VI not the VI +, OBTW.
>
> 73,
> John, W3ULS
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
|