[TenTec] On being a contrarian

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:27:06AM -0400, M. P. Haynes wrote:
> Geoff,
> 
> I think it was the Delta II. 

Yes, I looked it up and that was it.

>  They didn't know how to use the Jones
> filter properly (i.e. adjust the bandpass slightly to center the signal
> in the filter bandpass on USB,LSB and CW.  And also accept that the gain
> through the Jones filter naturally drops as you close it down.)  I have
> both the original Paragon and the Delta II and find their performance is
> pretty equal in casual operating.  Also the backlighting is dim compared
> to other rigs making the screen harder to read in adverse lighting
> conditions.

They felt that the radio was too expensive, but did not say it that way.
What they said was (and I'm paraphrasing) was that for $1700 (in 1991
when they did the review), you could buy a radio with far more features and
they expected a radio that worked as well without them for a lot less money.

They also panned the Argo II. I can understand why they were upset, it was
an early entry into the U.S. market for QRP operators who wanted a top 
quality rig. The previous choice was one of the Japanese rigs for their
no-code HF operators who were limited to 10 watts. They were very hard
to find in the U.S. and from what I understand are still sought after.

The problem was that term "QRP rig" brought to mind someone using a few
parts tossed together from a hand drawn schematic by Doug DeMaw. Bold
experimenters who could run for weeks on a lantern battery.

The concept that a QRP rig could be something with top quality features
and top quality performance, but had to be plugged in to run, was too new.

There were a few missing items such as PL tones for 10m, audio connectors
on the back (on the ArgoII), etc. 

Geoff. 

-- 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm at mendelson.com  N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667  Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/