[TenTec] ARRL Reviews

Thu Sep 8 09:55:22 PDT 2011

Very interesting anecdote Gary.  I would suggest that part of the
superiority of the Corsair over the Omni 6 was the pure analog audio
chain in the Corsair versus the first generation dsp digital audio of
the Omni 6.  In a stock Omni 6, the rx audio goes through the dsp
fulltime.

73, Barry N1EU

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:32 PM, CSM(r) Gary Huber <glhuber at msn.com> wrote:
> In addition to no phase noise, it is difficult to overload a PTO with many
> strong signals as with a pile-up. I'm certain that the overload point for a
> PTO is zero DBm or greater whereas many PLL circuits and downstream mixers
> go into compression overload with multiple signals of -60 (negative sixty)
> DBm or greater as in the big CW pile-ups.  There was a time when both a
> OMNI-VI+ and my CORSAIR II shared the same antennas via the aux receiver
> port of my CORSAIR II. That configuration made it very easy to compare the
> two radios with A or B and A plus B listening; not much difference could be
> heard at least with my ears except the CORSAIR II was easier to listen to.
>
>
> 73 es DX,
>
> Gary - AB9M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Haigwood
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:48 AM
> To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews
>
> Ray,
>   It is also interesting that the "old" Corsair rates in the top 25 radios.
> It is ahead of such radios as the Icom IC756ProII, PROIII, Collins S-Line,
> and a whole lot more.  It probably sounds a whole lot better without all the
> digital noise too!
> Jerry W5JH
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]
> On Behalf Of Rsoifer at aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:16 AM
> To: tentec at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Reviews
>
> Hi all,
>
> Since we're into subjective impressions, I'll put on my flak jacket and
> share mine.
>
> Looking at Rob Sherwood's table, the top six receivers (FT-5000, K3,
> Perseus, Flex 5000, Orion I and II) look pretty much indistinguishable.
> One
> spec is a little better, another a little worse.  Then there is a small
> step
> down to the next level (Eagle, Flex 3000, etc.)  Those are almost as  good,
> and generally less expensive.  They perform about as well as the top  group
> in all but the most demanding situations, and represent excellent value  for
>
> money.
>
> Older radios generally rank lower in the table, but as has been said by
> others, are just as good as when we bought them.  I have fun with my  KWM-2
> as
> well as my Orion II.
>
> 73 Ray W2RS
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 9/8/2011 1:39:10 P.M. GMT Standard Time,
> cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> Perfect!  Absolutely perfect. Kudos to you, good  Sir!
>
> Kim N5OP
>
> At 05:59 AM 9/8/2011, you wrote:
>>I offer  three personal observations on the new radio - receiver list
> debate:
>>
>>         1)   As new  radios come to market, they may (should) be
>>       expected to perform better than older models.    This
>>         sort of quality attrition  happens in most all fields of
>>          endeavor.  New models outpace older ones.    But...
>>
>>         2)  No matter how  much better a new radio is compared to
>>       your old rig, ... your old radio does not suddenly  start
>>         performing worse.  It is  still the radio it always was.
>>
>>       3)  These receiver rankings are sorted only by  close-in
>>         third order intercept  specifications.   Some of the lower
>>       rated radios appear to have superior or equivalent  ratings
>>         on other  specs.
>>
>>
>>Therefore,  I don't feel bad that my Omni  VII was once rated one of the
>>best receivers when it was released in  '07, but has fallen a couple of
>>places on these receiver rating  lists.   It performs the same today as
>>it did back  then.   I have not lost any ground, nor have I been set
>>back,  just because the Eagle, or the TX-590s  have better close-in  third
>>order intercept specifications.   I expect my new  TX-590s to have better
>>numbers... as does the new TT Eagle.    My Omni VII has not lost any
>>ground - the others just pushed the  envelope out a little farther, but
>>the Omni VII is just as good as it  always was.   Same for the Orion II
>>and other rigs.   No one took a step backward.
>>
>>I suspect this take could  explain why so many Collins owners continue to
>>exhibit tremendous pride  and experience such enjoyment with those
>>vintage rigs.   They  are the same great radios they always were, despite
>>the fact newer,  improved radios have come along.
>>
>>Besides, these receiver test  charts are of limited utility as they are
>>sorted for one, albeit  important, factor.  But, this overlooks, and
>>overshadows, the fact  some of the "lesser" radios have superior figures
>>and better  specifications in other categories.   They may also  have
>>other features you might prefer.   Therefore, one needs  to look at ALL
>>the specifications before making a purchase decision, or  before one
>>decides his rig has been rendered  obsolete.
>>
>>Therefore, I am not losing any sleep over the rating  my rig currently
>>has.  I plan on shamelessly enjoying my Omni VII  for a very long time -
>>without worry the new Eagle has a superior  close-
>>in-third-order-intercept score.   The Omni VII works  as well as it did
>>when I purchased it a couple years  back.
>>
>>Besides, I figure I have a limited budget, and good  enough is just
>>that... good enough.
>>
>>This is just MY  take, anyway... your mileage may differ for various
>>multiple  reasons.
>>
>>------------------
>>Happy  Trails.
>>
>>=======================  Richards / K8JHR   =========================
>>
>>On 9/2/2011 23:49, Ron Castro  wrote:
>> > How true!  There is no scientific correlation between  numbers
> published on
>> > the page of a magazine and what is actually  coming out of your speaker
> or
>> > headphones.  If they correct  the numbers it won't improve the
>> performance of
>> > your  radio at  all.
>>_______________________________________________
>>TenTec  mailing  list
>>TenTec at contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec  mailing  list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>