Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!oliveb!jerry
From: jerry@oliveb.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Telebit -- thanks
Message-ID: <16248@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Date: 27 Feb 88 03:18:17 GMT
References: <626@ddsw1.UUCP> <4560002@hpihoah.HP.COM> <1004@neoucom.UUCP> <2905@fluke.COM> <824@ddsw1.UUCP>
Reply-To: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre)
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 26

In article <824@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <2905@fluke.COM> jeff@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Stearns) writes:
>>HOWEVER, they are tepid performers at 1200 and 2400 baud.  This shows up
>>most dramatically when the line levels are low or noisy.
>
>I can't agree here.
>
>We have the BA4.00 units, brand new, and they are flawless -- on noisy lines
>or quiet, at any baud rate.  Our lines here are *horrid* -- loud audible 

I suspect you guys are talking apples and oranges.  There was a review
(<7164@pur-ee.UUCP> in comp.dcom.modems by George Goble <ghg@pur-ee.UUCP>
on the net a while back that made note of the differences between the
TrailBlazer and the TrailBlazer Plus.  Apparently there was extensive
redesign of the hardware.  Two features mentioned were EMI and a "new
analog front end".  The EMI was improved so that the modem didn't drive
every nearby radio crazy.  The old TB required a choke in the phone cord
to filter out noise before it got into the phone wiring.  The old TB
also had a fan.  The TB+ doesn't require that filter and has a standard
modular cord.  It also doesn't have a fan.

The reviewer also noted that the new analog front end improved the
performance especially on bad lines.  So, when you complain you should
give your model and firmware revision so people can make some sense of
what you are saying.
				Jerry Aguirre