[TenTec] Rcvr so-called performance figures (lo-o-ong)

[robert k stephens]

Max,
First of all let me say -I'm not an expert- not even close but I've been
reading this list for about 2 years and have picked up a little.

There is another receiver performance figure called phase noise. This is a
measure of noise produced internally by the rig itself. I'm pretty sure the
internal noise of the Paragon is higher than the Corsairs and any Omni ***
so this probably makes a difference.

And then there is transmit.This gets controvercial and I'm not going to
take a side but, there are guys who think the cw QSK transmit signal of
Tritons, Omni A,B, C,D and Corsairs was better than the transmit on latter
Ten Tecs. I am not saying they are right or wrong. The point is that
experienced hams disagree with each other. Try not to worry about that <grin>

My advise to you is to enjoy operating your Corsair. The Corsair is plenty
good enough for anything you are likely to do in your first few years of
operating. Someday in the future buy something else and then enjoy
operating that.

73
Bob KB1CIW (Scout)


At 04:10 PM 11/3/02 -0600, Max Moon wrote:
>Gents,
>I've been reading this list for a couple of weeks. Yesterday a Paragon was
>sold here. I didn't know anything about them so I went to the ARRL
>members-only QST Equipment Tests to look for a review. Also, since my only
>basis for comparison is the Corsair I got a few weeks ago (the reason I
>joined the list), it seemed logical to compare their numbers so I might have
>some perspective. I discovered that QST didn't review the Corsair I but they
>had figures for the Corsair II. Then I learned that the Paragon was
>essentially the replacement of the Corsair II so it seemed to be a very good
>comparison.
>
>I decided to compare some rcvr performance figures first. I looked at
>minimum discernable signal (MDS, in dBm), blocking dynamic range (BDR, in
>dB), and second-tone third-order intermodulation distortion (IMD, in dB). In
>each case, I checked the figures for 3.5 MHz and 14 MHz. Here is what I
>found.
>
>Corsair II, Aug'87, MDS 127-124,   BDR 117-???,   IMD 84-80
>Paragon,    May'88, MDS 139.5-137, BDR 136.5-136, IMD 101.5-101
>
>Although I'm a novice at understanding such figures, it certainly looks like
>the Paragon was an improvement on the Corsair II, besides being its
>replacement. Well, this aroused my curiosity so I decided to look at a few
>other TenTec rigs.
>
>Let me say a thing or two about my career in ham radio. It's less than a
>year old; I got my Corsair I based almost entirely on a QRP-L thread about
>"my very favorite rig, the one I never should've sold, what was I thinking!"
>Until reading that thread, I'd had only one rig (a QRP Plus) but I knew I
>wanted to try something else (not because I was unhappy with what I had but
>really just to get more experience with equipment). Well, I got a nice old
>Corsair because it seemed to be the most fondly remembered rig. And I've
>been very happy. But looking at those numbers, I couldn't help but think,
>WHY did everyone love the Corsair and not the Paragon? The Paragon must've
>been better!
>
>That was my frame of mind when I looked at other TenTec rig performance
>numbers. Continuing to look at the same figures (MDS, BDR, and IMD at 3.5MHz
>and 14MHz) this is what I found:
>
>Paragon, May'88, MDS 139.5-137, BDR 136.5-136, IMD 101.5-101
>Omni V,  Nov'90, MDS 135.0-136, BDR 135.0-135, IMD 95-97
>Omni VI, Jan'93, MDS 133.5-136, BDR 123.5-128, IMD 95-100
>Omni VI+,Nov'97, MDS 135.0-133, BDR 123.0-123, IMD 98-97
>Jupiter, Jun'01, MDS 127.0-135, BDR 113.0-123, IMD 87-85
>
>To begin, I realize that this is a bit of comparing apples, the
>top-of-the-line Omnis, to oranges, the mid-level Paragon & Jupiter. But
>where are the best numbers? Not only does the Paragon seem superior to the
>Corsair II it replaced, it looks superior to everything else in the nearly
>15 years since. Has it been all downhill? (Figures for the Scout, Delta II,
>etc., reinforce that idea.) But if things are in constant decline, why did
>QST think the Omni VI+ was such an improved rig when the Omni V numbers look
>to be as good if not better? Well, let me tell you, my head was positively
>spinning!!
>
>My question to you, should you care to accept it, is:  how does your
>hands-on experience of TenTec (and other) rigs compare to such numbers, and
>how much do numbers matter, anyway?
>
>Somebody else (just an e-mail or two previous) asked for a comparison
>J(ignoring cost) between the Jupiter and the Argonaut V. In a way, my
>question is just another version of his. What makes a great rig--in a ham's
>shack, not in the laboratory?
>
>Finally, I know we'll get into the realm of strong opinion here: for the
>sake of the innocent ears of children who stumble on our website while
>surfing for pornography, please let's remain civil and respectful to each
>other. Even if you-know-who is full of you-know-what!
>
>72/73,
>Max, k0max
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>