Ten-Tec RX-350D opinions?
 

Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver. It's very
expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Crocker

Bill Crocker wrote:
Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver.
It's very
expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Crocker

I had one for over a year, it had the optional remote keypad and the
latest V1.15 software update. I thought it was a good receiver,
sensitive, lots of bandwidth choices (34 I think), good audio, good
agc, decent synchronous detector if properly used. The only reason I
sold mine was to buy a Ten Tec RX-340. I actually ran them side by side
for over a month before selling the 350D, not a whole lot of difference
between the two receivers imho. I think the biggest gripe most owners
have about it is the seemingly indifference by Ten Tec to updates on
the software which has a couple of minor (IMHO) bugs.

Les Locklear

On Wed, 4 May 2005 16:28:35 -0400, "Bill Crocker"
wrote:

Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver. It's very
expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Crocker

Had one... way overpriced- suffered from image problems.
Sent it back for a refund.

wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2005 16:28:35 -0400, "Bill Crocker"
wrote:

Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver.
It's very
expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Crocker

Had one... way overpriced- suffered from image problems.
Sent it back for a refund.

That problem was corrected, they made a low pass filter available at no
charge to owners of older RX-350's.

Les

I had one and it is a piece of JUNK, sold it after one month. has serious
issues that TT has not address in a couple of years now and surely will
never address !!!

you WILL be sorry if you buy one !!!!



"Bill Crocker" wrote in message
...
Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver. It's
very expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Crocker

I think that most of the 340 owners out there would think you are crazy if
you say they are similar receivers ("not a whole lot of difference")! I know
my friend Dean would groan if I told him what you said !







"Les" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Crocker wrote:
Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver.
It's very
expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Crocker

I had one for over a year, it had the optional remote keypad and the
latest V1.15 software update. I thought it was a good receiver,
sensitive, lots of bandwidth choices (34 I think), good audio, good
agc, decent synchronous detector if properly used. The only reason I
sold mine was to buy a Ten Tec RX-340. I actually ran them side by side
for over a month before selling the 350D, not a whole lot of difference
between the two receivers imho. I think the biggest gripe most owners
have about it is the seemingly indifference by Ten Tec to updates on
the software which has a couple of minor (IMHO) bugs.

Les Locklear

Bill Crocker wrote:
Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver. It's very
expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Crocker



Bill,

It appears there are two camps, those who like it and those who didn't.

When looking at a receiver one has to consider how they intend to use it
and what they want to listen to. You didn't indicate your interests and
the others who respond didn't either. They are also not specific about
what they do or didn't like.

For me, I consider it a good radio. Not as expensive as an R8B or AOR
7030+. There are other table top radios at half of the $1200 price.

I find it easy to use. I also have the external keypad but found I don't
need it for everyday use.

The radio works well for general program listening. The sound quality is
excellent when using the SAM modes. (I do use an external speaker.)
However the radio has to be tuned precisely on station to minimize the
unlocking of the sync during deep fades.

The performance for LW use is not that good. Too many AM BCB images.

The numerous IF bandwidths are very useful in crowded bands.

USB and LSB modes work well.

Hope that helps.

Craigm

mike maghakian wrote:
I had one and it is a piece of JUNK, sold it after one month. has
serious
issues that TT has not address in a couple of years now and surely
will
never address !!!

you WILL be sorry if you buy one !!!!



"Bill Crocker" wrote in message
...
Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver.
It's
very expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Crocker


Well, the gentleman who purchased my RX350D said he had an earlier
version and the one he bought from me operated like a totally different
receiver, said the audio, sync detector was much better and the image
problem wasn't there either. Obviously you thought differently.

Les

I think that most of the 340 owners out there would think you are crazy
if
you say they are similar receivers ("not a whole lot of difference")! I
know
my friend Dean would groan if I told him what you said !



"Les" wrote in message


oups.com...


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Bill Crocker wrote:
Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver.
It's very
expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.


Thanks in advance for your input.


Bill Crocker


I had one for over a year, it had the optional remote keypad and the
latest V1.15 software update. I thought it was a good receiver,
sensitive, lots of bandwidth choices (34 I think), good audio, good
agc, decent synchronous detector if properly used. The only reason I
sold mine was to buy a Ten Tec RX-340. I actually ran them side by
side
for over a month before selling the 350D, not a whole lot of
difference
between the two receivers imho. I think the biggest gripe most owners

have about it is the seemingly indifference by Ten Tec to updates on
the software which has a couple of minor (IMHO) bugs.


Les Locklear

Well, they both heard the same signals, both had decent audio, both
were "dead on" as far as frequency readout. Sure the 340 has 58
bandwidths vs, 34 for the 350D. Yes, the 340 has a better synchronous
detector. But, the 350D has a better noise reduction and blanking
system. It's not like I just started using receivers Mike, I'm 62 years
old and have owned more receivers than some small dealers have sold.
I'm just relating my experiences with the two receivers. I have an
extensive antenna system and a real good multicoupler, so it was an
equal test imho.

Les

Les

in my situation, the lack of performance was not affected by its intended
use.

the selectivity had serious issues aboce 3kHz
the Sync was absolutely useless under all situations

I don't remember if there was anything good about it.

and TenTec service was absolutely pathetic on the several calls I made to
them.
"craigm" wrote in message
...
Bill Crocker wrote:
Interested in hearing opinions on Ten-Tec's RX-350D HF receiver. It's
very expensive, and it doesn't appear to be in wide use.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Crocker

Bill,

It appears there are two camps, those who like it and those who didn't.

When looking at a receiver one has to consider how they intend to use it
and what they want to listen to. You didn't indicate your interests and
the others who respond didn't either. They are also not specific about
what they do or didn't like.

For me, I consider it a good radio. Not as expensive as an R8B or AOR
7030+. There are other table top radios at half of the $1200 price.

I find it easy to use. I also have the external keypad but found I don't
need it for everyday use.

The radio works well for general program listening. The sound quality is
excellent when using the SAM modes. (I do use an external speaker.)
However the radio has to be tuned precisely on station to minimize the
unlocking of the sync during deep fades.

The performance for LW use is not that good. Too many AM BCB images.

The numerous IF bandwidths are very useful in crowded bands.

USB and LSB modes work well.

Hope that helps.

Craigm