<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Bob Richards wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:93750.77327.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"
valign="top"><br>
<div> </div>
<div>I absolutely agree. I've always heard that the PCM method
was slow. The previously posted link shows that to be true.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My point was that the TM-7 and TM-8 modules would likely
not be as fast as a native 2.4g system.<br>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Since there is not such thing for the older radios it is a moot point.
And it is more to the point that the fellow who feels his 2.4 is slower
has something else going on.<br>
<br>
I am merely trying to keep people from getting stuck on the idea that
at least for Futaba's current line of radios there is no difference in
performance betweeen module based and built in RF for the FASST
systems. <br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>