"starman" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:

"0ff_r/-\/\\p" wrote in message
...

Radios without a digital display are often lacking in other features
such as dual conversion to reduce images, good selectivity and
tuning
stability to prevent drifting.


No doubt about it! AND, you will miss the analog display for about 2
seconds.
The cheapest portable I would consider for any type of use is the Sony
ICF-SW35.
Analog dials are dead! In this day and age, why rely on tooth floss
to
turn
a dial?



Have you ever used a decent quality analog radio? Most of the analog
radios
made in the last thirty years have poor tuning mechanisms with stiff
plastic
dielctric tuning capacitors and no bandspread.

I have over a dozen SW radios. I'm an active listener. I have only one
digital readout SW radio, a DX-440. It's one of my least used radios.
I
use it mostly to align the real radios.

Frank Dresser

If you're referring to the old analog tube radios (boatanchors),
they're not a good choice for beginners and certainly not portable,
which are the subjects of this post.

No, I was just wondering if "off ramp" really knew anything about analog
radios.

But what can be considered a good radio for a particular person depends, not
only on the radio, but what the person listens to and his capabilities. A
Zenith Transoceanic is a little less portable than a Sat 800, but it is
portable. It might be the best choice for a beginner, provided that
beginner listened to the big broadcasters, liked analog tuning and didn't
mind so-so image rejection and was capable of dealing with either cobbling
up a battery or buying one of those expensive battery kits. I know that
only covers a small percentage of beginners, but that small percentage isn't
zero, and it's presumptuous to assume that NO beginner would be interested
in such a radio.

The original poster was asking about the Sangean PT-633. I don't know
anything in particular about that radio, but if it's similar to other
current analog portables it's probably has poor frequency stability,
imprecise frequency readout, poor image rejection but good battery life and
a low noise floor. Like any other radio, it has strengths and weaknesses.
I have no idea which strengths and weaknesses are most important to the
original poster.


I own several top end boatanchors
but their performance can't match a modern digital communications
receiver.



Many of the portable digital communications receivers of a few years ago
were reported to have lots of birdies, lots of images, were easily
overloaded and a high noise floor. I don't know if these qualify as modern
or if similar digital communications receivers are still available, but I'd
think your radios would out perform those radios. Of course, that depends
on the definition of performance. If performance is defined only as
frequency stability and exact frequency read out, then the do outperform the
analog radios. But someone else may have an entirely different set of
performance requirements.

Frank Dresser