Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20313 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 11:22:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by excalibur-qfe1-smtp-plusnet.harl.plus.net with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 11:22:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 1639 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 11:20:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 11:20:28 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 15c3DS-0006F9-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:09:02 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132] helo=e34.bld.us.ibm.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 15c3DQ-0006F4-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:09:01 +0100 Received: from westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.99.140.22]) by e34.bld.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA78284 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:06:06 -0400 Received: from usa.net (ss3.bld.socks.ibm.com [9.14.4.68]) by westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.11.1m3/NCO v4.97.1) with ESMTP id f7TB6xc348382 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 05:07:00 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <3B8CCCD4.27810EFB@usa.net> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:07:00 +0200 From: "Alberto di Bene" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Receiver References: <3.0.1.16.20010827102249.2d576aba@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> <3.0.1.16.20010828090220.30f77454@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> <002201c12fbe$7b7ce940$0a00a8c0@ThreeLakes.ca> <3B8C9E5C.1E075231@abnamro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Ulrich Idzes wrote: > >From what I have seen on the reflector, the TS-850S should be a good > choice. My question is if someone can say something about the TS-930S in > this context. (I have to choose between those two) Ulrich, my personal advice is to go for the TS-850. It has a very clean DDS, which cannot be said for the TS-930, and its sensitivity in the LF band is second to none, at least among the commercial Ham transceivers. 73 Alberto I2PHD