Steve,
Yes this is the source I was thinking of.
I just baught a tone board for my Kenwood TM-2550 and it worked fine.
Howard #3
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Forst" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Best Beginner HF Transceiver
>I think that is the Peaks company up in the wilds of new England. May
> have the name spelled wrong. I know at one time they had replacements
> for the VS-2 voice board, some tone boards, and pc interface stuff for
> older Kenwoods. I've never purchased from them myself, but they seem to
> have a good reputation.
>
> 73, Steve KW3A
>
> On 12/15/2011 12:47 PM, John Miller wrote:
>> Sure you can, there's a company in NH I think that has an aftermarket
>> one,
>> may not be NH, but they have them.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Steve"<[log in to unmask]>
>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: Best Beginner HF Transceiver
>>
>>
>>> I would ste3er clear of the 440's, not because they were bad but you
>>> can't
>>> easily find the speech boards for them any more, if memory serves.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gerry Leary"<[log in to unmask]>
>>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:49 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Best Beginner HF Transceiver
>>>
>>>
>>>> One radio that isn't bad is the old Kenwood TS440sat. It has direct
>>>> frequency input, you can put a speech synthesizer in it and get
>>>> Frequency
>>>> and Mode, and a lot of the functions are directly accessible with out
>>>> menus.
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Steve"<[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:49 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Best Beginner HF Transceiver
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't chimed in on this much yet. Obviously, everybody wants to
>>>>> spend
>>>>> as little as possible. Your message below gives me some guidance.
>>>>>
>>>>> As others have said, the best rigs in terms of accessibility are
>>>>> Kenwood,
>>>>> Icom, Eilcraft, and Yaesu pretty much in that order, although the
>>>>> older
>>>>> Eilcraft did have an optional accessory to output readings in CW. The
>>>>> newer
>>>>> Kenwood 480 and 590 speak everything; the Kenwood Ts-2000 speaks
>>>>> almost
>>>>> everything except for actual power output and mike levels, although
>>>>> the
>>>>> knob
>>>>> you use to adjust them has detents that beep at the high and low end.
>>>>> For
>>>>> example, on my rig, if I want about 60 watts drive for my linear amp,
>>>>> I
>>>>> go
>>>>> to max and then turn the detented multichannel knob back about 8
>>>>> clicks.
>>>>>
>>>>> The TS-2000 is your best option for an all-in-one rig; it runs all
>>>>> modes
>>>>> on
>>>>> 160 through 440, with the exception of the 220MHz band. There are
>>>>> several
>>>>> of us who can help with that rig. It has a sub-receiver that runs
>>>>> VHF/UHF
>>>>> FM so you can work HF and monitor your favorite repeater. It has the
>>>>> capability to work satellite.
>>>>>
>>>>> Icom also makes rigs that run Hf and VHF, but not as comprehensive.
>>>>> The
>>>>> higher end rigs from Kenwood and Icom, like the TS-590, only run up
>>>>> through
>>>>> six meters 54MHz. Just about every new rig has built-in tuners, and
>>>>> several
>>>>> have built-in keyer.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you bought a lower-end rig, I think that sooner or later, you might
>>>>> want
>>>>> additional features like better filtering, noise reduction, and
>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>> You could save a few bucks if you bought something used that is in
>>>>> very
>>>>> good
>>>>> condition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve, K8SP
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "David thurmond"<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:13 AM
>>>>> Subject: Best Beginner HF Transceiver
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback regarding transceiver choices. I should
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> given a few more specifics. First off, I would prefer not to break
>>>>>> the bank if possible. If I try to spend $2000 on a new rig, my stuff
>>>>>> might end up out on the front lawn, and I might need to get an
>>>>>> attorney. :) I would like to find a rig that might not necessarily
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> full of features in favor of one that is either accessible with
>>>>>> speech
>>>>>> or else is easy enough to operate without it for a totally blind ham.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Kenwood 480 is an awesome-sounding rig, but if I have to wait to
>>>>>> save up to buy one, I might never get on the air. At the same time,
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> would hate to cheap out and buy something that is so basic that I
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be tired of using it after six months and end up buying something
>>>>>> else
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am very interested in CW, and of course in DXing as well, so I am
>>>>>> primarily interested in the HF bands, but if I could get something
>>>>>> with VHF capabilities also for a little more money, I am certainly
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> going to turn it down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Operating with low power would be perfectly fine with me, as I am
>>>>>> probably going to end up using some sort of stealth antenna due to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> small size of my property and the fact that I'm right in the middle
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> a busy suburb. No need for a "big guns" sort of station with a
>>>>>> 200-foot tower...I just want something modest with enough features to
>>>>>> get me started without breaking the bank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The speech output options of the Kenwood and ICom rigs sound very
>>>>>> attractive, as I don't want to run my rig exclusively through my
>>>>>> laptop. But since I have not even been on the air yet, perhaps this
>>>>>> is not really as important as I think it is. I certainly need to be
>>>>>> sure I am not operating out-of-band, and I need to be able to know
>>>>>> what kind of signal I am getting. Beyond that, I really do not have
>>>>>> the experience to know what is important for me to operate, and what
>>>>>> is really just an awesome feature that would be nice to have, but not
>>>>>> critical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any suggestions would be much appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Thurmond, KK4ADV
>>
>>
>>
|