[Premium-Rx] Premium-Rx Digest, Vol 86, Issue 1

Wed Jan 1 09:54:13 EST 2014

I have had my 340 for three years now -- it's obviously among
the top of the pile when it comes to receivers.  But one thing I
have noticed is that it does not hold up well in noisy receiving
locations, likely due to its construction in comparison with the
older boatanchor weight receivers.  Comparisons with my 8718A/MFP
at my house, which frustratingly has been plagued by a lot of power
and DSL noise, show that 8718A, which is built like an Abrams tank,
manages to rescue signals better than the 340 on days when local
noise is high.

On 1/1/2014 7:37 AM, premium-rx-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:
> Send Premium-Rx mailing list submissions to
> 	premium-rx at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	premium-rx-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	premium-rx-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Premium-Rx digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Receivers (John Simon)
>     2. Re: Receivers (Gary Geissinger)
>     3. Re: Receivers (Bob Betts)
>     4. Re: Receivers (Gary Geissinger)
>     5. Re: Receivers (Michael O'Beirne)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 13:17:07 +1100
> From: "John Simon" <jrsimon at ozemail.com.au>
> To: <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
> Message-ID: <AFD4336172614146A1838CD506F8AFD4 at Stinky>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> 	reply-type=original
>
>
> I have just been drooling over a couple of commercial receivers and was
> wondering if anyone on the list has one or both of these receivers and could
> comment on their use.
> The receivers are Icom R9500  and the Ten-Tec 340.
> Comments please.
>
> John de VK2XGJ
> Thou shall not weigh more than thine refrigerator!
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 02:28:28 +0000
> From: Gary Geissinger <ggeissinger at digitalglobe.com>
> To: "'Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net'" <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
> Message-ID:
> 	<F2CD57154B11A442AC69CD8ED866E8813260087D at PW00INFMAI001.digitalglobe.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> John,
>
> Head over to www.sherweng.com and look at the receiver tests.
>
> I think the intercept and instantaneous dynamic range tests really show the difference between the two at HF.
>
> Gary WA0SPM
>
> -----------------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Simon [mailto:jrsimon at ozemail.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 07:17 PM
> To: Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
>
>
> I have just been drooling over a couple of commercial receivers and was
> wondering if anyone on the list has one or both of these receivers and could
> comment on their use.
> The receivers are Icom R9500  and the Ten-Tec 340.
> Comments please.
>
> John de VK2XGJ
> Thou shall not weigh more than thine refrigerator!
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Premium-Rx mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> Help Page: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net
> Help Contact eMail:  paul at 8zo.com
> Home Page:  http://www.premium-rx.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:06:56 -0800 (PST)
> From: Bob Betts <rwbetts at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net" <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
> Message-ID:
> 	<1388545616.11415.YahooMailNeo at web185302.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> 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
>
> http://www.bobsamerica.com? http://www.youtube.com/n1kpr
>
> Engineering: Where Enigma meets Paradox
>
> From: Gary Geissinger <ggeissinger at digitalglobe.com>
> To: "'Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net'" <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 9:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
>
>
> John,
>
> Head over to www.sherweng.com and look at the receiver tests.
>
> I think the intercept and instantaneous dynamic range tests really show the difference between the two at HF.
>
> Gary WA0SPM
>
> -----------------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Simon [mailto:jrsimon at ozemail.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 07:17 PM
> To: Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
>
>
> I have just been drooling over a couple of commercial receivers and was
> wondering if anyone on the list has one or both of these receivers and could
> comment on their use.
> The receivers are Icom R9500? and the Ten-Tec 340.
> Comments please.
>
> John de VK2XGJ
> Thou shall not weigh more than thine refrigerator!
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Premium-Rx mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> Help Page: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net
> Help Contact eMail:? paul at 8zo.com
> Home Page:? http://www.premium-rx.org/
> ______________________________________________________________
> Premium-Rx mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> Help Page: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net
> Help Contact eMail:? paul at 8zo.com
> Home Page:? http://www.premium-rx.org/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 03:20:37 +0000
> From: Gary Geissinger <ggeissinger at digitalglobe.com>
> To: "'rwbetts at sbcglobal.net'" <rwbetts at sbcglobal.net>,
> 	"'Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net'" <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
> Message-ID:
> 	<F2CD57154B11A442AC69CD8ED866E8813260089A at PW00INFMAI001.digitalglobe.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> For users with a dense, strong signal environment (for example Europe) the instantaneous dynamic range spec gets very important.  The intercept is important there as well.   The receivers at the top of the list have the better specs.
> -----------------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bob Betts [mailto:rwbetts at sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 08:06 PM
> To: Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> 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
>
> http://www.bobsamerica.com? http://www.youtube.com/n1kpr
>
> Engineering: Where Enigma meets Paradox
>
> From: Gary Geissinger <ggeissinger at digitalglobe.com>
> To: "'Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net'" <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 9:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
>
>
> John,
>
> Head over to www.sherweng.com and look at the receiver tests.
>
> I think the intercept and instantaneous dynamic range tests really show the difference between the two at HF.
>
> Gary WA0SPM
>
> -----------------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Simon [mailto:jrsimon at ozemail.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 07:17 PM
> To: Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net <Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
>
>
> I have just been drooling over a couple of commercial receivers and was
> wondering if anyone on the list has one or both of these receivers and could
> comment on their use.
> The receivers are Icom R9500? and the Ten-Tec 340.
> Comments please.
>
> John de VK2XGJ
> Thou shall not weigh more than thine refrigerator!
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Premium-Rx mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> Help Page: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net
> Help Contact eMail:? paul at 8zo.com
> Home Page:? http://www.premium-rx.org/
> ______________________________________________________________
> Premium-Rx mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> Help Page: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net
> Help Contact eMail:? paul at 8zo.com
> Home Page:? http://www.premium-rx.org/
> ______________________________________________________________
> Premium-Rx mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> Help Page: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net
> Help Contact eMail:  paul at 8zo.com
> Home Page:  http://www.premium-rx.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 12:37:42 -0000
> From: "Michael O'Beirne" <michaelob666 at ntlworld.com>
> To: "PREMIUM-RX" <premium-rx at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Premium-Rx] Receivers
> Message-ID: <60A8E50E63444BC2B97B3D8ABAD290C3 at Michael>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> 	reply-type=original
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Premium-Rx mailing list
> Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
>
>
> End of Premium-Rx Digest, Vol 86, Issue 1
> *****************************************