[TenTec] what is "quiet"?

[Tim and Nancy Logan]

George, Steve, Barry and all - 

These comments are very interesting. My shack consists of a 4-band K1,
full house K2 and my 756 PRO (which as you know replaced my OMNI V). 
I've also built an SWL40+ and an OHR 500. If I could only have one radio
it would indeed be my K2. when you look at Elecraft's site the spec
differences between the K2 and the 756 PRO are not different enough for
most people, I suspect, really hear in the operating world. But the K2
does have, a very smooth, soft, "quiet" nature to it - and it's single
conversion. The thing that has really surprized me is that, at least for
me, I don't find all this hash or whatever one might call it on the 756
PRO - I have used the PRO for hours and do not get the listener's
fatigue I hear people talk about.   The rigs definitely DO SOUND
DIFFERENT though.   I think the OMNI, the K2, and the 756 PRO are all
extremely good rigs. Perhaps this is where George's comment may have
said it best: something like one man's noise is another man's music (I'm
not sure that's exactly what he said but you get the idea).

(BTW for educational purposes I am about to start on Rutlegde's book The
Electronics of Radio which centers around building the Norcal 40A -
still need to find a "cheap" function generator - any ideas? I got a
Tektronics 465M scope for $110 - and almost have my "lab" ready hi hi).

N1EU wrote:
> 
> N4LQ wrote:
> 
> "While the above is technically correct, there is
> still something mysteriously quiet about simple
> receivers that make them more pleasant to monitor."
> 
> I've certainly experienced what Steve is describing
> and yes, it seems to be a bit of an unexplained
> mystery.  I do a lot of weak signal dx'ing on 160M
> which is often plagued by lots of static crashes.
> I've occasionally listened on some simpler single
> conversion receivers such as a 75A4 (single conversion
> on 160M) or K2.  The same weak signal and static are
> present "side-by-side" on the simple receivers and the
> modern rigs, yet it seems easier to actually read
> (copy) the signal on the simpler receivers.  It's as
> if the signal gets "smeared" (mixing products?) in the
> modern rigs.  And yes, filter design (group delay?)
> might play a role in this.  But it sure seems like
> something has been lost in high-end modern rigs,
> something that the QST test reports aren't measuring.
> 
> 73,
> Barry  N1EU
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec