[TenTec] OT: Rob Sherwood's impression of the FLEX 6x00

K8JHR jrichards at k8jhr.com
Thu Apr 24 13:02:08 EDT 2014


Heck... freq-ing yes...   produce it!   And BRAG about it.   Sell it 
right, as the next great thing,  like everybody else is wayyyyy behind 
the curve...   like you sold the Orion as the best %$#@  receiver out 
there because it had the first roofing filters, etc., etc.,   and put 
some advertising money,... and hire a real ad guy... some real marketing 
effort... and step out ahead of the crowd.

$200 more... I would spend it...  IF I HAD A GOOD ENOUGH REASON.

So. you MAKE the reason... market the heck out of it... go for broke... 
because that is what you are doing anyway.

Yeah... I say go for it.   I will send you the extra $200 now just to 
show my faith in it.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CLEAN UP THE BANDS TODAY... JUST SELL WHAT
CAN DO IT FOR THE FUTURE AND SET THE PACE, AND THE REST WILL
COME ABOUT OVER TIME - BUT DON'T STOP BECAUSE IT WON'T BE A
COMPLETE FIX TODAY...   START UP THE MOUNTAIN CAUSE WE WON'T
GET THERE AT ALL IF WE DON'T START.

BUT YOU GUYS NEEEEEEED SOMETHING NEW AND DIFFERENT.

-------------------  JHR  ----------------------------

On 4/24/2014 8:44 AM, John Henry wrote:
> I feel that there is more to this problem than what has been discussed thus
> far.
>
> Yes, we can make an amp cleaner, and, depending upon how much the consumer
> wants to pay, completely clean, at least enough to make Rick/Rob/Bob go
> away, (just kidding).
>
> Seriously, we can clean it up, but it ain't gonna be free, it will have to
> come at a price. Parts-wise, on an OMNI-VII or an Eagle, we could end up
> adding $200 or more to the end price of the rig.
> Now, given the economy, how many of the typical set of hams that are out
> there today will really want to pay that extra $200 maybe $300?
> Maybe the 20 or so that complain about it.
> But, in all honesty, yes, we need to clean up our transmitters 2nd and 3rd
> order a bit. And we are looking into that for future rigs.
>
> Here is the REAL quandary that will be a fact even if starting today, every
> manufacturer started shipping rigs with better TX IMD numbers, less
> pollution....
> How many hams will immediately drop that bad TX rig they have and have had
> for 20 years, and jump out and buy this new one immediately. Ain't gonna
> happen. Hams will keep their favorite rig that they have had for 10-20
> years because it is the best rig ever made, slicker'n snot runs rings
> around the new rigs, etc. Probably 80% of the market has their tried and
> true rig that will continue to spew out the aforementioned pollution and
> then they stick it on the air with an amp that not only amplifies the
> problems but has problems it introduces all on it's own. They will continue
> to keep that rig for another 20 years until there is no such thing as
> transistors, resistors, caps, etc. (kinda far fetched, but I hope you see
> what I'm referring to)
>
> Both of these last two items.... keeping the older or current stuff for the
> next 20 years, and placing it on an amp,
> both of these two items are a fact, a given, and will NOT change the
> splatter crap you hear for at least another 20-30 years.
>
> I have a solution to this though, TEN-TEC could stop servicing any rig that
> doesn't meet our new self imposed TX IMD numbers, how about that? Don't
> think that would go over too well, after all, ham A says his Corsair is the
> best rig he has ever heard, let alone the thousands of Jupiter fans, etc.
> etc.
>
> ok, enough of my diatribe as to the realistic impact of an amateur company
> improving the airwaves within two decades of providing rigs that will do
> this much better than they are today.
>
> TEN-TEC is committed to making what the ham community wants, and if it
> wan'ts cleaner transmit, well, we are researching it and have a design that
> will give you the numbers you want in future rigs. Now, do we make everyone
> pay that extra $200-$300 in purchase price? Or do we make it an option.
> Heck, only 1 in 50 would buy that option, if we are lucky.
> But, it will be there, the solution.
>
> Sorry if I may appear negative or combative on this one, but, well, it adds
> cost that can't be made in earnest at TEN-TEC out of our kind hearts, the
> consumer will have to pay for it, and I"m sure, 99% of everyone on here
> will say they will gladly pay that extra 200-300, then decide they really
> want something else instead. But we have a solution in hand that we can use
> for the rigs based on the 599 and 588 architectures, and will do it for the
> future rigs. (actually, already done to a point), and will see if we need
> to include it in every version of that product, or not as an option. That
> last part (optional) essentially means you will continue to have the same
> problems even though the option is there, I'm guessing 90% will opt not to
> include it.
> Just my two cents, take it for what it's worth.
>
> Speaking as a TEN-TEC employee though, yep, we can provide the feature, and
> will have it available for future rigs (well, Eagle size and up rigs, not
> 506's, 507's, imagine adding $100 to the transmitter of a $200 rig, ain't
> gonna happen)
>
> Thanks, and 73,
> John Henry, KI4JPL
> TEN-TEC Engineering
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>


More information about the TenTec mailing list