|
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 |
well then everyone should be buying a 350 and saving $2500.
if they were so close, what was worth the extra $2500. that is a lot to pay for one feature My friend Dean is pretty much an authority on the 340 and says the sync is not that good. "Les" wrote in message oups.com... 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 |
if you do buy a 350, a used one is very cheap since no one wants it. usually
they are less than $800 and stay on the market quite a long time Universal has had one in their used section for a few weeks and it usually takes them over a month to sell 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 |
Les wrote: mike maghakian wrote: well then everyone should be buying a 350 and saving $2500. if they were so close, what was worth the extra $2500. that is a lot to pay for one feature My friend Dean is pretty much an authority on the 340 and says the sync is not that good. Well, I didn't pay that much money for it, it was purchased used for $2,650. Yep, everyone is an authority on anything if you want to believe them. Universal had one up used a few weeks ago, if I recall they were asking something like $2900 for it and I think it also came with a cabinet. It didn't last to long. dxAce Michigan USA |
dxAce wrote: Les wrote: mike maghakian wrote: well then everyone should be buying a 350 and saving $2500. if they were so close, what was worth the extra $2500. that is a lot to pay for one feature My friend Dean is pretty much an authority on the 340 and says the sync is not that good. Well, I didn't pay that much money for it, it was purchased used for $2,650. Yep, everyone is an authority on anything if you want to believe them. Universal had one up used a few weeks ago, if I recall they were asking something like $2900 for it and I think it also came with a cabinet. It didn't last to long. dxAce Michigan USA Thats right! I bought a new Hammond cabinet for $108, and I could easily get more than I have invested in it should I decide to sell. It's impressive in the cabinet, 21" wide, 7-1/4" high and 13" deep. The tuning is as smooth as I have ever experienced, the buttons and keypad all have a great feel and those three displays are great. The S Meter buld has been changed to a blue to match the blue fluorescent displays (like the older Drakes), all in all, it is a fine receiver. Les |
I own both the 350 and an Icom R75. For general program listening, I prefer
the 350. It has great audio, and the 12kHz output allows you to experiment with DRM. When it comes to NDB listening in the low frequency end, the R75 is my receiver of choice. If I had to do it again, I would do it the same way, buy both. If I absolutely had to choose one, my interest in the lowband would favor the R75. Al KA5JGV "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. |
In article ,
"mike maghakian" wrote: well then everyone should be buying a 350 and saving $2500. if they were so close, what was worth the extra $2500. that is a lot to pay for one feature My friend Dean is pretty much an authority on the 340 and says the sync is not that good. "Les" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Can you define "the sync is not that good" a little better? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
you can read his review he
http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/3757 he is DEAN, N2JSG "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "mike maghakian" wrote: well then everyone should be buying a 350 and saving $2500. if they were so close, what was worth the extra $2500. that is a lot to pay for one feature My friend Dean is pretty much an authority on the 340 and says the sync is not that good. "Les" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Can you define "the sync is not that good" a little better? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
read these reviews of the RX-340, I don't think that they would say the 350
and 340 are about the same///////// http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/3757 for that matter, read Magnes reviews, I don't think he would say they are similar either........ "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 |
mike maghakian wrote: read these reviews of the RX-340, I don't think that they would say the 350 and 340 are about the same///////// http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/3757 for that matter, read Magnes reviews, I don't think he would say they are similar either........ "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 Opinions are like assholes Mike, everyone has one and lots of them stink. I operated both receiver side by side and i stated my opinion. Magne isn't the end all for receiver reviews ya know. I know you had a bad experience and seem to have a hard on for Ten Tec. That is your opinion and right. Mine differed from yours. Les |
In article ,
"mike maghakian" wrote: you can read his review he http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/3757 he is DEAN, N2JSG "Telamon" wrote in message .. . In article , "mike maghakian" wrote: well then everyone should be buying a 350 and saving $2500. if they were so close, what was worth the extra $2500. that is a lot to pay for one feature My friend Dean is pretty much an authority on the 340 and says the sync is not that good. "Les" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Can you define "the sync is not that good" a little better? OK, out of six reviews one person mentioned the same complaint I have with the sync losing lock on rapidly fading signals so I can't agree with your friends statement that the sync is not that good. The sync is very good other than that one performance problem. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
I will consult with my friend. his opinion on the 340 is above reproach in
my book he has more years using receivers of this class than anyone else that I know. he also has over 25 years of monitoring experience. "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "mike maghakian" wrote: you can read his review he http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/3757 he is DEAN, N2JSG "Telamon" wrote in message .. . In article , "mike maghakian" wrote: well then everyone should be buying a 350 and saving $2500. if they were so close, what was worth the extra $2500. that is a lot to pay for one feature My friend Dean is pretty much an authority on the 340 and says the sync is not that good. "Les" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Can you define "the sync is not that good" a little better? OK, out of six reviews one person mentioned the same complaint I have with the sync losing lock on rapidly fading signals so I can't agree with your friends statement that the sync is not that good. The sync is very good other than that one performance problem. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com