[TenTec] Top receivers

Tue May 15 19:05:37 PDT 2012

I agree that I do not want FCC or Government intervention.  However, today 
the FCC mandates that the transmitter must meet certain spectral purity. 
The manufactures are required to meet those guidelines in order to market 
the radios.   If the FCC tightened those specs then we'd have better / 
cleaner transmitters.

Of course there is always the "grandfather clause" that must exist.  Hence I 
continue to run my Johnson Viking Valiant on AM along with a host of other 
heavy metal transmitters quite legally today.  Even if the FCC tightened the 
IMD specs and those associated with spectral purity, we could still use the 
Omni VII and the Eagle or Paragon today or tomorrow without concern.  It 
would just be the NEW BREED of radios affected and over time, the bands 
would likely get cleaner.

If Europe or Canada or any other countries tightened their spectral purity 
regulation, the manufactures would be required to meet them or not be 
allowed to sell in those countries.  I do believe it is a forceful step in 
the right direction.

73
Bob, K4TAX

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bwana Bob" <wb2vuf at verizon.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Top receivers

> 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 by outdated Government regulations.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  However, how does one control the outdated transmitters in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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 