[Premium-Rx] Receivers

Wed Jan 1 15:52:16 EST 2014

I agree with everything Michael and Bob said, except that the Ten Tec  
tuning has a number of selectable tuning steps and a good keypad so have never  
had any discomfort with manual frequency hopping.

I've never had the pleasure of tuning a 9500, but the 340 has stood the  
test of time here, often next to an HF1000, and the only thing the HF1000 did  
better was follow around the poorly netted DX60 AM net.

My RX340 graduated from the Premium rack to the HF outboard  receiver used 
with an Omni 7 because of the ergonomics and good  audio.  N4PY software is 
a plus as well, although I don't know  that the software  doesn't work with 
the 9500.

And for no reasons other than personal experience and blind faith, I tend  
to think that there is more of a chance Ten Tec service is easily available 
if  there is an issue.  Just a few weeks ago after they provided a free set 
of  cables so that I could clean up the Omni/340 interface.  Like 'em  alot.

Scott

In a message dated 1/1/2014 1:43:34 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
michaelob666 at ntlworld.com writes:

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
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/