[NSRCA-discussion] RX choices

[Michael Wickizer]

Chris:

I, for one, am glad you didn't make it off list.  Other than these Berg rx's 
not liking a WCII, they are sounding pretty good.

Mike


>From: "White, Chris" <chris at ssd.fsi.com>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] RX choices
>Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:42:44 -0500
>
>Okay...so much for remembering to past your address....sorry, oops.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of White,
>Chris
>Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:39 PM
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] RX choices
>
>Hi Adam,
>
>I'm going off-list with this because I think I'm confirming the obvious:
>I know diddely about electronics, but if I understand you correctly you
>would trust this receiver in an (eg: YS160 equipped Pinnacle with
>digitals) with as much confidence as any JR or Futaba receiver?
>
>Thank you,
>Chris White
>(Tulsa)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Adam
>Glatt
>Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:30 PM
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] RX choices
>
>Wayne, I agree with you.  Prior to the new Berg models coming out, I
>would not even consider running an FM receiver in anything over 2lb.
>PCM is great because the control is perfect until there is too much
>noise, then the RX does what you told it to: hold or failsafe
>positions.  It also is pretty good about listing to my transmitter
>instead of the guy on a different brand or FM on the same channel.
>
>I'm back to advocating FM because the Berg models have done it
>properly.  These models have a lot of signal processing, allowing them
>all the features that we love in PCM receivers:  perfect control until
>it goes into hold or failsafe, which we program; transmitter signal
>recognition.  So, PCM features in a receiver that costs $50, weighs 8g,
>has a weird antenna that you can cut to any length with only
>proportional range loss, has lifetime firmware updates through your
>computer, and has additional features through the computer programming
>system (that most of us won't use).  I say that this is a good receiver
>to choose.
>
>It's not FM, it's Berg.
>
>-Adam
>
>Wayne wrote:
> > I have a question guys.
> >
> > I see in lots of posts guys using FM (PPM) RX's.  Why is this?
> >
> > In today's market there are so many choices of good PCM RX's I can't
> > understand why someone would actually choose to run FM. Back in the
>days
> > when I started RC there was no PCM and we had the choice of AM or FM.
>I was
> > taught that my model was too important to me not to run the best link
> > possible, at the time FM was it.
> >
> > When PCM came in the price was much higher and I can see a reason to
>not use
> > it. Today however both Futaba and JR have PCM RX's that are good for
>under
> > $99, JR now even has one that PLL Synth. So why use FM?
> >
> > It is my understanding with today's PCM that noise rejection is so
>much
> > better with PCM that it seems along with its F/S properties both model
>and
> > people are better protected. I can see the reasoning among average
>modeler
> > its price why else do MPI, FMA and so on make such a profit on off
>brand
> > leads and servos that are in my opinion very sub par. I felt that in
>the
> > pattern community with available models shrinking, and the cost of
>models
> > hitting larger prices that guys would trust their baby to better
>equipment.
> > I mean a basic pattern model that is on the cheap is going to be $1000
>to
> > $1500 all up. The difference in a 127 Futaba RX and say a Futaba 138DP
>PCM
> > or JR 790 PCM version is about $40
> >
> > What am I missing?
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion