[TenTec] RX366

Kim Elmore cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net
Tue May 21 11:23:20 EDT 2013 

This is prettying how I use it, too. The main rx has the arsenal needed to handle hearing the DX. I only have problems when the pile is filled with nearby, strong signals and the DX is working someone with a weal signal at my QTH. I may not hear that guy and so don't know the freq of whoever the DX is working. 

Kim N5OP

"People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long as the music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith

On May 20, 2013, at 19:13, Rsoifer at aol.com wrote:

> Right on, Duane.  If  the sub rx doesn't copy the DX well,  then I flip 
> around and do it your way.
> 
> 73 Ray W2RS
> 
> 
> In a message dated 5/20/2013 11:41:16 P.M. GMT Standard Time,  
> ac5aa1 at gmail.com writes:
> 
> Sounds  like you got it right, Ray.  I have a slightly different view.   I
> find the stock subRX to be fine for DXing because I use the MainRX to  
> listen
> to the DX.   After all, he's the one getting clobbered by  the cops,
> tuner-uppers, QRMers, etc.  The SubRX is great for finding  who's calling 
> him
> and where the pileup is.  Any more, it seems the  worst place to call is on
> top of the last worked station because you and 20  others are in that same
> spot.  The SubRX is great for lining up the  Transmit VFO in the pileup, I
> find. 
> 
> For what it's worth - we all do  it our own way!
> 
> 73, Duane
> 
> 
> Duane Calvin,  AC5AA
> Austin,  Texas
> www.ac5aa.com  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original  Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf  Of
> Rsoifer at aol.com
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:08 PM
> To:  tentec at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] RX366
> 
> Hi  all,
> 
> Since I started this thread a few days ago, let me try to  summarize where  
> we are.
> 
> John Henry says that the RX366 is  essentially the Eagle receiver, while 
> the 
> stock Orion/Orion II sub rx is  essentially the Jupiter receiver.  Rob  
> Sherwood's tests show  that the Eagle receiver is almost as good as the 
> Orion
> 
> II main rx,  inside the ham bands.  I can't find where, or if, Rob  ever  
> tested the Jupiter but you can go to the TT web site and  download  the
> specs.  
> Barry tested the two sub receivers and found  that  the RX366 was much 
> better
> 
> inside the ham bands but the stock  unit was much  better in the 9 MHz SWL 
> band as well as in the AM  BCB.
> 
> Do you need the RX366?  If you are a serious contester, or if  you have  an 
> active ham next door, then probably yes.  If not,  then the stock unit is  
> probably good enough, especially if you do  any listening outside the ham  
> bands.
> 
> Did I get it  right?
> 
> 73 Ray W2RS
> 
> 
> In a message dated 5/20/2013 2:22:57 P.M.  GMT Standard Time, Rick at DJ0IP.de 
> 
> writes:
> 
> John,  there  were two threads going on under the same subject.
> 
> I was not   responding to the AM Broadcast issue, but rather to the question
> how  big  the difference is between the old 2nd RX and the new 2nd RX on  
> the
> Ham Band  performance.  
> 
> There the upwards vs.  downwards conversion makes a  significant difference.
> 
> 73
> Rick,  DJ0IP
> 
> -----Original  Message-----
> From: TenTec  [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf  Of John 
> Henry
> Sent:  Monday, May 20, 2013 2:38 PM
> To: Discussion of  Ten-Tec  Equipment
> Subject: [TenTec] RX366
> 
> Actually, a lot of this is   misunderstood.
> 
> The RX366 related to how good or bad it receives  AM  Broadcast has nothing 
> to
> do with upconversion or  downconversion.
> 
> The  reason the RX366 doesn't provide AM Broadcast  reception as good as the
> ham  bands is due to a broadcast band filter  before the roofing filters.
> This is  to ensure that the umpteen  hundred gigawatt station 2 miles down 
> the
> road  does not get into  the receiver path. You can measure differences in  
> ham
> bands when  the local AM station is at full power in a rig that doesn't  
> have
> a  broadcast band filter. The original sub receiver in the
> 565/566  was  actually the Jupiter receiver, and it did not have a broadcast
> band   filter in line.
> 
> What we did fail to realize though when designing  the  Eagle and it's
> subsequent reuse as the RX366, is that hams would  want to  use their Eagle 
> as
> a high quality AM broadcast band  receiver in the ham  shack.
> Me, personally, I'd go down to radio shack  and pick up a  $12.00
> AM/FM/Weather/etc radio for this, and get the  RX366 to get the best  2nd rx
> for ham operations.
> .... Just my two  cents.
> 
> For future  rigs, we will consider the impact of having a  separate path in
> the  preselector for AM Broadcast and treat it as a  band of it's own. But
> that  is up to discussion/design/prototyping in  house.
> 
> Thanks, and  73,
> John Henry, KI4JPL
> TEN-TEC   Engineering
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the TenTec mailing list