| To: | Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [TenTec] receiver specifications ---Eagle |
| From: | shristov <shristov@ptt.rs> |
| Reply-to: | Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com> |
| Date: | Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:24:15 +0100 |
| List-post: | <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com> |
mike bryce <prosolar@sssnet.com> wrote: > So, is the Eagle that much better than the ICOM pro series? > (The Atlas 210 has a better receiver than the Icom 756 Pro III? > The Heathkit SB104 better than the unmodified Drake R4C?) Receiver quality is a much more complex thing than, say, IM dynamic range. IM dynamic range is a kind of limit. Under specific circumstances, if the limit is not exceeded, the IM specification is irrelevant and other things become responsible for the "receiver quality". 73, Sinisa YT1NT, VE3EA _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [TenTec] "The End of Ten-Tec" (Yeah, Right), Philip C. Anderson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [TenTec] "The End of Ten-Tec" (Yeah, Right), Walt Amos |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] receiver specifications ---Eagle, Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] receiver specifications ---Eagle, CSM\(r\) Gary Huber |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |