FWIW, the Triton had a 2.6khz crystal filter and the Omni A had a 2.4khz
filter.
Barry N1EU
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick@dj0ip.de> wrote:
> That may be Carl, but when Jack had my 515 worked over for me at the
> factory, we corresponded a bit and he specifically told me it was the
> Triton
> IV RX. This was about 10 years ago or so.
>
> That begs the next question, what was the difference between the Triton IV
> and the Omni A?
> I had the Omni A in 1979 and took it with me on my second DX-pedition to
> Andorra.
> It was light-years better than the old Swan SS100 I had on the first trip 4
> years earlier!
>
> 73,
> Rick, DJ0IP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
> On Behalf Of Carl Moreschi
> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 6:25 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec firsts???
>
> I believe the Argo 515 actually had the Omni A receiver in it and came out
> after the Omni A.
>
> Carl Moreschi N4PY
> 121 Little Bell Dr.
> Hays, NC 28635
> www.n4py.com
>
> On 7/7/2012 11:10 AM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
> > ABSOLUTELY NOT!
> >
> > The receivers in the 505 and 509 were basically identical and very
> > similar to the Triton, but the Triton had switchable crystals for the
> > 10m band, giving coverage in separate 500 Hz segments. It also had an
> > 8-Pole crystal lattice filter, whereas the two Argonauts had only
> > 4-pole filters. The two first Argonauts changed the rate of tune for
> > the VFO on 10m, so each mark on the dial represented 4 kHz instead of 1
> kHz. They were not great 10m rigs.
> > I found them a bit difficult to tune on 10m.
> >
> > When the Triton IV came out, it had a hotter receiver than the
> > original Triton. At least that is what I was told by the engineer that
> designed it.
> > It also had an 8-pole xtal lattice filter. I don't remember what they
> > changed but it was supposed to be better than the original Triton.
> > When the Argonaut 515 came out, it got the Triton IV receiver, except
> > it also had only a 4-pole xtal filter in it. At least it had the
> > switchable 10m band segments.
> >
> > The biggest difference between the Argonauts were, the 509 had a
> > broadband TX driver, whereas the 505 had a tunable driver. The tune
> > was controlled by the little elevator that went up and down to tune
> > the RX stages. The SSB generator board was updated on the 509 but I
> > can't recall what the changes were.
> > The 515 got the Triton IV RX and the 4 switchable band segments on
> > 10m. It also got slightly larger knobs for most controls. Finally,
> > it got a new paint job, making it look more like a real radio than a
> > plastic toy! ;=)
> >
> > 73
> > Rick, DJ0IP
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
> > On Behalf Of Curt
> > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 4:39 PM
> > To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec firsts???
> >
> > Owning a Triton IV, wasn't the receiver essentially same from Argonaut
> > 509 through all the Tritons?
> >
> > Curt KB5JO
> >
> >> That was the Triton I. The Triton IV came out in 1976.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|