Isn't it funny though... How much we use to enjoy the hobby with our horrible
Hammarlund, Hallicrafters, National, Heathkit, and other receivers before we
all got in the habit of becoming OVERLY focused on specifications. I restore R
390 and 390A receivers and these are very sensitive units but are deficient in
other areas; but they have personality and so do my other old boat anchors.
My SECOND favorite CW position is a Johnson Valiant and R 390. FIRST place, for
me, is one of my restored Ten Tec Corsair II's or an Omni 6+. followed closely
by a Drake C line with Sherwood mods. Yes, first place is a big lot here; all
are excellent in their own way. I have had 3) Omni 7's and like my K3, just
never liked the audio.
I also wonder about the guys who want the best of the best so they can check in
to the nightly nets and say, "NEGATIVE AND NEGATIVE."
The truth is almost everything on the market now is much more stable, sensitive
and selective than our old big box radios were. I never minded chasing another
signal on my HQ 170 because it drifted so bad, not to mention the other guy
might be drifting but never in sync with my drift. I assumed that was part of
the hobby and everyone had to do the same.
Don't most of us remember when RIT showed up and FINALLY if we were on freq and
the other guy was drifting we could keep up with him and not move our TX
signal. Now, I may go a year and never use RIT and if I do it's because some
fellow in Cuba is doing his best to be on the air with dried up filter caps and
he's drifting and buzzing up and down the band. However, most of those guys are
EXCELLENT CW ops but can't afford stuff most of us would consider junk here in
the States.
Ten Tec has brought us MANY fine radios but so have the Japanese companies,
Elecraft and others. Don't beat me up for using the "E" word on this reflector.
Hi Hi... The K3 has an IMPRESSIVE receiver, however, it's audio fatigues my
ears but that's another story.
Just a few thoughts from my perspective. I was first licensed in 1971 at the
age of 15 and just turned 56. So. that's over 40 years in this hobby. I have
played with MANY of the digital modes, RTTY through Packet, Pactor, PSK and
others as well as, SSB and AM but still prefer to finger talk using CW. Hi
73,
Glenn WA4AOS
DSM Labs (dot com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment' <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Sun, May 13, 2012 9:22 am
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Top receivers
Joel, thanks for pointing out that it was from Bob... (says so right at the
bottom, doesn't it).
I just assumed it was from Mark.
Sometimes it's a big advantage when you can read! (hi)
Bob has brought up a good point.
Most modern receivers have gotten so good that there really aren't many bad
ones on the market anymore, at least not in the mid-range and high end rigs.
Until we can get the manufacturers to do something about the cruddy signal
their transmitters are producing, it makes no sense to focus on the
receivers anymore.
It's kind of pathetic that today there are only 2 transceivers on the market
whose 3rd order (and higher) IMD is as good as the old KWM-2, 40 years ago.
Most are vastly worse and that is a major contributor to the impression we
get that the bands are so full. It the transmitters were all as clean as the
40 year old KWM-2, we would have more space on the bands.
And, the two rigs that are clean are 200w versions which are only clean when
you run them at 75w in Class A mode!
If you run them at their normal power levels, they are as bad or worse than
all the rest.
WE ALL NEED TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE THIS AND START DEMANDING THAT THE
MANUFACTURERS CLEAN UP THEIR (TRANSMITTING) ACT!
For many years, I didn't even look much at a rig's transmitter specs. I
just assumed 100w is 100w and they're all about the same.
THEY ARE NOT.
Over the years we became very critical of our receivers and with the help of
ARRL tests and Sherwood tests, we forced the manufacturers to improve their
receivers.
Now let's fix the transmitters!
73
Rick, DJ0IP
_______________________________________________
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
|