[Premium-Rx] Ten-Tec RX-340 - Amateur Use

[w3jn]

That goes without saying, along with proper I/O impedance matching for the 
filter, etc.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Miles" <jmiles at pop.net>
To: <premium-rx at ml.skirrow.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Premium-Rx] Ten-Tec RX-340 - Amateur Use


> Keep in mind, too, that simply adding a 3-kHz filter after the first mixer
> does not guarantee improved real-world performance.  You may also need a
> diplexer after the first mixer to present a 50-ohm (or whatever) load 
> across
> the board.  A mixer that isn't terminated in a *broadband* load won't be 
> all
> it can be in the IMD department.
>
> -- john KE5FX
>
>>
>> First, as I mentioned, making a narrow filter at high frequencies is not
>> trivial.  You think paying $100 for a typical 9 MHz xtal filter is bad...
>> try and price a 40.455 3 KHz xtal filter!
>>
>> And I can think of many receivers costing much more than the TenTec that
>> don't have them either.
>>
>> > Tell me then, why don't all high end HF rigs have this capability?  The
>> > Ten Tec 340 roofing filter mod looked pretty straight forward and
>> > inexpensive (using a KIWA 4 kc filter).  Others have done this
>> mod and are
>> > happy, but I wasn't due to the loss of fidelity.  Guy Atkins and I had
>> > problems when we tried added a switch to the mod.  Somewhere along the
>> > line we lost a lot of signal strength, which was not the case if the
>> > filter was wired in permanently.  I've been wondering about
>> this problem
>> > for quite a while.  I don't understand why a $4k receiver (ie the 340)
>> > wouldn't have such a capability.  I re-iterate again that the
>> Ten Tec is a
>> > bit of a dog on MW in it's unaltered state.......Walt.
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Premium-Rx Mailing List
> To Post: premium-rx at ml.skirrow.org
> For Info: http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> Visit the Website: http://kahuna.sdsu.edu/~mechtron/PremRxPage/