[TenTec] Top receivers

Tue May 15 18:28:40 PDT 2012

More cash for clunkers?  No, no, no, FCC keep your hands off my Heathkit 
HW-100,  DX-60A, Corsair, and those historic boat anchors!  And EPA, 
stay away from my classic 1992 Ford Explorer SUV!  Let freedom ring!

             73,

             Bob WB2VUF

On 5/14/2012 11:25 AM, Kris Merschrod wrote:
> Hands off my old mitters!   No phasing out, they are already out of phase.
> I promise not to use the spark gap during sports events :>)
>
> Kris KM2KM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX"<RMcGraw at Blomand.net>
> To:<floyd at k8ac.net>; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"
> <tentec at contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 7:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Top receivers
>
>
>> Floyd, I agree with you and with many of the other writers.  The receiver
>> performance has been pushed ahead and largely demanded by "users" in a
>> competitive market while the transmitter performance is largely controlled
>> by outdated Government regulations.
>>
>> Yes, it is time to clean up the bands and push for cleaner transmitters
>> and
>> power amps.  However, how does one control the outdated transmitters in
>> use
>> today?  Put a time limit on them saying they must meet the current specs
>> or
>> be trashed by a certain date?  They have done that for other applications
>> and equipment such as the switch from analog TV to digital TV.  That was
>> expensive for everyone, specially the broadcasters.  But look how it
>> forced
>> the price of digital TV's down.  The price dropped some 75% in just 2
>> years.
>> Imagine a top of the line ham transceiver for under $2K.  Of course one
>> has
>> to look at things differently, i.e. a business vs. a hobby.  Then there
>> are
>> countries which mandate when a vehicle gets X number of years old they are
>> crushed thus can no longer be used.  That was done to largely effect a
>> reduction in air pollution and it worked.  Maybe that would work for ham
>> radio.
>>
>> I'm all up for cleaner bands and cleaner signals.  I believe today we have
>> to forgo the idea of 12 volt radios to attain that desired result.
>> Technically there is no problem with that concern either.  As one wrote,
>> there's the 200 watt class radio that only outputs 75 watts when running
>> in
>> class A mode.  Are we willing to accept that fact or are we a culture that
>> is too number driven?
>>
>> I don't like Government intervention any more than anyone else, but some
>> effort by manufactures, pushed by Government regulations and us buyers
>> that
>> pay our hard earned money for these boxes need to demand better
>> transmitters.  That's "better" in terms of cleaner, lower noise, and lower
>> IMD products and operators that  operate them correctly.  It is a very
>> large
>> topic and will need to be addressed on an international basis.
>>
>>
>> 73
>> Bob, K4TAX
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Floyd Sense"<floyd at k8ac.net>
>> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment"<tentec at contesting.com>
>> Cc: "John K3GHH"<k3ghh at arrl.net>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 4:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Top receivers
>>
>>
>>> Interesting article, and I know it addresses only the receivers, but
>>> sometimes it's just hard to keep quiet.  I guess that with the current
>>> state of the art in these high-end transceivers, it would be reasonable
>>> to assume that the transmitter sections must reflect the same high level
>>> of performance.  Sadly, that's not the case.  Specifically, the CW
>>> waveforms generated by the FTDX-5000 that I owned and tested were simply
>>> terrible.  The actual elements transmitted bore no relationship to what
>>> was heard in the sidetone when operating QSK mode.  While the QST
>>> reviewer accepted the Yaesu claim that units after the second run had
>>> the problem corrected, that turned out not to be true and units from the
>>> fifth run and later still had the problems in spades.  Yaesu offered a
>>> "fix", but owners had to pay shipping both ways to the west coast and
>>> the turnaround time was measured in weeks.  One fellow who had the fix
>>> installed reported that he could no longer hear anything from the
>>> receiver when operating QSK above 20 WPM.
>>>
>>> My intent is not to complain about the 5000, but to point out that it's
>>> not safe to make any assumptions about the quality of the transmitted
>>> signal based on the ranking (or price) of the transceiver.  I've
>>> recorded the CW signal of both an FTDX-5000 and Orion II on a separate
>>> receiver and analyzed the recordings with an editor.  The Orion
>>> waveforms are textbook and changing the CW rise/fall time in the menu
>>> actually affects the resulting waveform as you'd hope.  That was not the
>>> case with the Yaesu.  I am not a Tentec cultist and the Orion II is my
>>> first Tentec transceiver.  But, I've owned all three of the transceivers
>>> mentioned in the article and to me there's no doubt about which is the
>>> all-round best.
>>>
>>> 73, Floyd - K8AC
>>>
>>> On 5/13/2012 5:50 AM, John K3GHH wrote:
>>>> Did list members notice the article recently mentioned in the ARRL
>>>> Contest Update? I haven't pored over it thoroughly, and am not
>>>> qualified really to understand it, but the FTDX5000D and K3 come out
>>>> on top; the Orion 2 is then said also to have "extremely high
>>>> performance," and the article's comparison table includes only these
>>>> three radios. Finally, the Perseus SDR is mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.edn.com/article/521690-High_performance_HF_transceiver_design_A_ham_s_perspective.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4996 - Release Date: 05/13/12
>
>