TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

[TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD [6+]

To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD [6+]
From: hondo@kscable.com (Steve M)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 23:15:29 -0500
I don't need to run a test on my radio to quote qst. I use my 6+ every day.
I would certainly like it better if the transmitter was even nearly as clean
as such ancients as the Yaesu Ft-102 or the Kenwood TS-830.
      Not all hams are satisfied with mediocrity.

Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hyder -N4NT-" <N4NT@chartertn.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD [6+]


> I wonder if all you guys ever operate your radios or just sit around
> running tests on them.
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve M" <hondo@kscable.com>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>; "John Rippey" <w3uls@3n.net>
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] OMNI VI Transmit IMD [6+]
>
>
> | 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
>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>