There are a lot of factors that would go into what makes a rig "sound good."
Probably the most important is the intermod that takes place within the
receiver's
passband. In recent rigs, the expanded reports contain a graph that shows how
two or more strong signals inside the passband intermod and form third- and
higher-order responses also in the passband.
On SSB, the various frequency components of a human voice can intermix,
resulting in distortion. Also, the audio chain can have some distortion. If a
signal were to have 1% total harmonic distortion, that would be quite
discernable
to many people.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX [mailto:RMcGraw@blomand.net]
Sent: Sun 3/9/2003 1:58 PM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: [TenTec] More on rig tests, choice etc
Sitting side by side here on the desk, the Omni V receiver sounds better
than the Omni VI+. However, the Omni VI+ receiver is better than the
Omni V
receiver. Guess it is just what your taste demands. Actually my
Paragon
sounds better on receive than either of them.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: <tlogan7@cox.net>
To: "tentec reflector" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:33 AM
Subject: [TenTec] More on rig tests, choice etc
> Hi all -
> After literally going through a spasm of entire shack equipment/rig
> turnover in the last few months I heartily agree with John's
comments. For
> the record, after my "shack pverhall spasm" the shack now consists of
an
> Omni VI+, Corsair II (back after a temporary trade to Ten Tec on the
Argo),
> K2/100, OHR500 and Palstar R30. In and out of the shack was an Argo
V and
I
> let go a very fine Icom 756 ProII.
> One thing that surprised me is that, real or imagined, my Omni VI+
seems
> much better than I remember my Omni V. On the other hand, one of the
list
> members went from an Omni VI+ to an Omni V in the last two months and
likes
> the V more. We speculated that perhaps even identical rigs may have
their
> own characteristics - just like a two identical keys will feel
different.
> Another thing that surprised me was to see myself let the ProII go.
I
was
> totally enamored with the ProII and very justifiably so. It is an
amazing
> rig. However, when I fired up that Omni VI+ - well it just fit me
like a
> glove and the Pro had to go to help pay for the VI and the Corsair. On
paper
> the Pro is better than the VI+. In my shack the VI+ is (for me that
is) is
> 20 times more fun - even without an Icom style bandscope!
> My rig shuffling spasm is over, but it certainly proved to me that
nothing
> replaces that on the air test that allows us to each subjectively
decide
> what out favorite "operating feel" is.
> 73/Tim NZ7C
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rippey" <w3uls@3n.net>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 6:06 AM
> Subject: [TenTec] More IP3 Stuff
>
>
> > Given the variables involved in lab data results and their
interpretation,
> > as discussed in this thread, there seems to be no substitute for
in-home
> > evaluations of transceiver performance by each ham as the final
arbiter.
> >
> > This is no panacea, though, because it's an expensive,
time-consuming
> > process to obtain, evaluate, compare, resell and then ship out
individual
> rigs.
> >
> > As an additional complication, most of today's transceivers are
designed
> to
> > be pretty much all things to all people--to provide all kinds of
modes,
> > options, etc., at a certain price point. Each transceiver therefore
> > consists of many complex compromises--determined by a host of
> > design/production decisions, with an end result that can be a
> > mish-mash--perhaps very appealing to some while leaving others
> unimpressed.
> > (As one example, the IC-756 PROII's "dual watch" feature is not the
same
> as
> > Yaesu's separate receivers in the 1000 series because, as I
understand
it,
> > in producing the 756 PRO is basically a military transceiver
converted
to
> > amateur use and the original military specs did not call for dual
> receivers.)
> >
> > Furthermore, as perhaps in the case of an FT-920 I owned, the rig
obtained
> > may not meet factory specs, unbeknownst to the purchaser. In other
words,
> > the ham could be attributing certain faults to a model generically
when
in
> > fact the specific rig under evaluation is defective. This means,
ideally,
> > that two or three samples of each model (ugh!) should be evaluated
before
> > reaching a conclusion.
> >
> > In spite of the valiant ongoing efforts of the ARRL, and to a lesser
> extent
> > CQ Magazine, the reports they provide can only be a first cut in the
> > evaluation process. (If you don't have a good curve ball, you won't
be
> > invited to spring training.) Ultimately, each ham's selection of
his/her
> > "ideal" transceiver has to be up to him/her, acting alone. And it's
a
> > complicated, lengthy process. No wonder so many hams either hang on
to
> > their tried-and-true transceivers from the 80's or, if buying a new
rig,
> > fall back on brand loyalty as their selection criterion. Being
loyal to
a
> > brand does greatly simplify life. And the good news is that most
(all?)
of
> > the rigs today are pretty good all-round performers so it's not as
if
you
> > end up with a poor performer no matter what rig is chosen and by
what
> > selection process.
> >
> > The foregoing makes me wonder how many hams who are not now Ten-Tec
owners
> > will be motivated to explore on their own the Orion when it becomes
> > available--meaning not just reading up on it but actually buying
one?
> >
> > 73,
> > John, W3ULS
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|