[Premium-Rx] Receivers

[Michael O'Beirne]

Dear Bob

I agree entirely.  Numbers and specs are but one aspect of the "goodness" of 
a receiver.  It largely depends what you want to use the receiver for, and 
that will guide you.  For example the old Icom R71-E is super on SSB, CW and 
FSK but has dreadful audio distortion on AM thanks to the use of very poor 
AM demodulator.

There are plenty of receivers with fine numbers but you would not want to be 
tuning them for long periods due to the stiffness of the tuning or the lack 
of user friendliness.  An example is the STC STR 8212 of about 1990.  It has 
superb DSP IF filtering down to the 100dB level but the tuning is unpleasant 
and the knob does several other jobs as well which annoyed me.  And as for 
the two incredibly noisy fans!!!    No no no.

Add to that is the fact that practically all professional receivers are 
designed for remote control and computer control by professionals who are 
paid to put up with their usability shortcomings.  And a computer has no 
feelings and can't complain (unless it's a manic depressive called Marvin 
:-) if you recall!!).  The keen SWL in contrast is in a position to choose.

Personally speaking, unless the receiver has smooth finger tip tuning and 
well weighted using a large flywheel running in a well engineered ball race, 
I wouldn't touch it.  On that parameter, the receivers I have tried which 
come closest are the Racals RA1772 and 3701 (and probably the 3791) and the 
older Eddystone 1650 and the Plessey 2280.

I personally like light coloured panels with black lettering.  Both the 
TenTec and Icom pass on that parameter.  The ICOM has a certain cosmetic 
resemblance to R&S gear and looks most handsome.

The TenTec 340 does in fact derive its IF filtering in DSP.  It has 57 
bandwidths according to the maker's brochure.  It was very well reviewed in 
exhaustive depth in the UK's RadCom by Peter Hart some years back.  He was 
much impressed and the recovered audio was excellent but the manual tuning 
is very slow.  It's more of a fine tune rather than for swift navigation.  I 
can't find the particular issue but it's around 13 years back.  Google will 
do the job more efficiently.

There was a review in 1990 by Donald Nelson N9EWO.  He was at www.ticon.net.

I can't speak for the ICOM 9500 but it was very expensive.

Frankly, if you are going to spend big money I'd want to try it out first. 
Would you buy a car without a test drive??

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL ON THIS MOST EXCELLENT SITE and many thanks to all 
those who keep it afloat day after day.

I hope this helps a bit.
73s
Michael
G8MOB



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Betts" <rwbetts at sbcglobal.net>
To: <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Premium-Rx] Receivers


Hi John and Gary:
Not sure what Bob Sherwood had to say about them, but I'm super pleased with 
my Ten Tec 340. I had done some side-by-side tests with a W-J 8711 
(HF-1000), wth them sharing the same antennas through a multicoupler. It's a 
tough job, but somebody had to do it...lol. That first go-around was a fun 
memorable night, which was repeated several times over 2 weeks. I later 
included a pair of W-J 8718's and two Racals, 6790 and 6793. Sorry, but the 
Icom never got on my "to buy" list. Too much $$$, but it has been on my 
"wish" list...maybe some day.
Anyhow, I'll go straight to the end first. The 340 wins in all categories 
except for a few occasions when the 8711 eeked it out a bit (very subjective 
value judgment). By and large, it was the TenTec that lead the 
pack...sometimes by a squeaky hair and sometimes by a significant amount. 
The 8711 was always right there...many times too close to call, but I'd have 
to give the nod to the 340. Considering the Racal's and older W-J's are a 
few generations removed, they really held their own. Racal noise floor is 
almost nonexistent on the very weak DX stuff, making its intelligibility, 
way down in the mud, superb. Considering that the 340 has DSP processing, 
I'd say that's quite a badge of honor. Likewise, the 8718's really held 
their own. Somewhere around 30-years-old, those icons really play well.
My testing involved near-in flame throwers against various Hams and Intl 
b'casters on 40/41 meters, AM b'cast band DXing, NDB's, 12/10 meter Hams, 
and careful notice of WWV as an indicator beacon on 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz.
I should tell you that all of these guys have been on the service bench for 
instrument specing...some of them many times. But test equ numbers are just 
numbers. All due respect to Bob Sherwood who had done an amazing job of 
tabulating all that data. But reading the torque, RPM's, G-force, and zero 
to 60 specs is never as much fun as sliding behind the wheel.
So there's a whole bunch of rambling words from a very memorable effort. The 
radios are scattered in different locations now, but it is certainly a very 
repeatable test setup. Maybe in mid-winter I'll do something like that 
again.
Anyhow, I hope you've gotten something from my (very) subjective evaluation 
(read, opinions).
BTW: None of those radios are different enough to be considered undesirable.

Maybe someday I'll get that R-9500...

Happy New Year and good signals to all,

Bob, N1KPR

-rx.org/