Re: [HCDX] DAT vs. MD

["Don" <ulformat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "T. Bankson Roach" <sigint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <hard-core-dx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [HCDX] DAT vs. MD


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <HaraldKuhl@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [HCDX] DAT vs. MD
>
>
> > >  From:    sigint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (T. Bankson Roach)
> >
> > >  Another favorite hobby device is the Sony TCD-D7 DAT recorder. With
> this
> >
> > Also used such a nice machine for quite a while, and it really was
> highly
> > effective. But then I changed to a portable MiniDisc-recorder, which
> costs
> > much less, consumes much less power, and also offers the possibility
> to
> > record the exact date and time of the reception (at least some
> models).
> > Furthermore, MiniDiscs are a lot cheaper than DAT tapes (at least here
> in
> > Europe) and provide nice possibilities for editing the recordings. One
> > MiniDisc gives you 148 minutes of recording time (mono; 74 minutes in
> > stereo). You can give each recording a name, which will then appear on
> the
> > display of the recorder. When it comes to taping highly complicated
> digital
> > modes, however, a DAT recorder seemingly still is the better choice.
> >
>
> The DAT has some tremendous disadvantages, at least for use in the
> field. It is about as sturdy as wet toilet paper and mine has broken
> more times than not while in the "wilds". The mini-disc sounds like a
> better way to go, as long as they keep making mini-discs, and assuming
> it is a bit more hardy in mechanical structure. I get all the DAT tapes
> I want free from a friend. His company uses them to back up sensitive
> computer data, so they aren't about to put them in a Dumpster. Instead,
> I get them.
>
> > >  to the receiver the HF-1000 is. I hope someday to make a comparison
> of
> > >  the TenTec RX340 to the Watkins Johnson. As good as the WJ is, I'll
> bet
> > >  the RX340 is better. Time marches on!
> >
> > It certainly does. On the other hand, the RX340 kind of looks quite
> similar
> > to the HF-1000. And when WJ stopped the HF-1000, soon after the RX340
> was
> > announced. Any conclusions?
> >
>
> They look VERY similar. There are some real diffirences, especially on
> the front panel and the "knobs" and displays used to show and set
> receiver parameters. The TenTec accepts a wider range of external
> frequency standards. The real difference would probably be in how low
> noise the front end is. In most instances this might not matter, but
> with a quiet antenna like a Beverage, it might make a real difference.
> Also, the DSP circuitry seems more encompassing then the HF-1000, and
> apparently you won't "need" the Sherwood SE-3 for audio. Also the TenTec
> apparently can use passband tuning  for other than CW mode.
>

Actually, I have had a TT340 for two weeks now. It **does** benefit from the
SE-3, particularly since
the PBT is **not yet** enabled on the TT340 for SAM.  According to Robert
Sherwood, the SE-3 level is -10dB, same as the setting for the HF1000A. So I
was able to rob one off one of the hf1000As for direct TT340/SE-3 vs
hf1000a/SE-3 (using a Stridsberg splitter so the signal was the same).  All
tests were done off beverages, EWEs and Pennants. It makes enough of a
difference for DXing weak signals that I have ordered one from Sherwood for
use on the TT340!

There are many differences betweent the two receivers. There were cases
where the TT340 "heard" weak DX better than the HF1000A/SE-3 - especially in
LSB/USB using PBT,  and other cases where the TT340 was deaf (example: 3305
R Western) while the HF1000A heard the signal.

The TT340 PBT in conjunction with LSB/USB was outstanding for improving the
signal for 9kHz spacing MW when adjacent to 10kHz US/Canadian signals
(example: Tahiti on 738 with a very strong PNW station on 740), Fiji on
1467, Tonga on 1017. All from the WCNA.

There are two known microcode bugs (one found by R. Sherwood in the SSB/DSP
microcode, and one by myself in the memory storage on SAM. I have one more
"sighting" that I have not yet characterized).

I've just published a detailed review of the TT340 vs the HF1000A to the
premium receiver group. I will be more than happy to forward this to any one
that requests it.

> Tom Roach
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hard-Core-DX mailing list
> Hard-Core-DX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www2.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/hard-core-dx
> http://www.hard-core-dx.com/
>

_______________________________________________
Hard-Core-DX mailing list
Hard-Core-DX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www2.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/hard-core-dx
http://www.hard-core-dx.com/