OK, since I seem to have 'stepped in it', let me say, that it wasn't my
statement that I was referring to any 'universal preference', I was simply
reading the replies to the original thread and wondered why no one seemed
to come out and say they liked the TenTec filters better. That HAS changed
since my posting, and I now am hearing from about 3 or 4 people an hour
about this.. If you look back through the thread you will see the lop-sided
responses in favor of the INRAD filters.. Sorry for all the bandwidth, I
was just making an observation.. I plan on several TT filters in my new Omni-6.
At 08:11 PM 9/8/99 , vbbond@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Robert wrote:
> >
> > After reading all of this, what is the TenTec response... Surely they see
> > (as I have in just these few messages) that there is an obvious preference,
> > on this reflector, for the INRAD filters. Why doesn't TenTec offer these
> > filters under the TenTec brand name? Just curious...
>
>I can't speak for Ten Tec, but I fail to see how the preferences of a
>few (or a few dozen, for that matter) can be equated as the universal
>preference of the many hundreds or thousands of satisfied Omni 6 owners
>who utilize stock TT filters. I, for one, am satisfied with the
>performance of my various TT filters and the steep skirt selectivity
>exhibited, which, I might add, seems to far exceed what I've seen in
>Kenwood and Icom rigs I've owned. That's not to say I wouldn't entertain
>considering Inrad filters in the future. But, so far, I feel no need as
>a CW and SSB operator, to change out my TT filters. I suspect the silent
>majority who simply follow this reflector, but who choose not to
>respond, may feel the same way. My 2.1 cents, if you will.
>
> Vince/K7NA
> "From the Surf to the Sewer, to ALL of Southern California"
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|