"craigm" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Well, if we're going to compare receivers I guess I'll put in my 2
cents worth after dicking with radios for over 40 years. I have an
R-75 (second one) and I find it to be the best overall receiver for
what I use it for. I modified the AGC and sync detector similar to the
Kiwa scheme, and ,I've found with the various controls that I can pull
DX out of the muck easier than with the other receivers I've had short
of the NRD-535D. The latter was a GREAT receiver but the audio sounded
like **** even with an external speaker. Surpirsingly, I've had 3 Icom
R-72s and I've found them to be excellent despite the poor reviews of
the past. They are the only decent sounding Icoms of them all and I
would put them pretty close to the top of my list except they run very
hot. The R-71A is a good receiver but a quality control nightmare with
poor audio. I liked the Lowe HF-225 and the FRG-100 but found I
couldn't use them here being within 5 miles of several 50 kW FM
stations which mixed directly into the 1st IF. It's a shame because the
FRG-100 is an excellent, and highly underrated receiver IMO. I've had 3
Drake R-8s and was not impressed with either of them considering what
they go for and the hype. The Palstar R-30 was the worst of all (tried
2); birdies galore, unstable IF, speaker/cabinet resonances and just
overall cheezy receiver. My simple Lowe HF-150 beat the pants off of
both R-30s hands down. Now, all you "space cadet" type SWLers can go
ahead and personally insult me because of my opinions! I can't wait to
see the comments!
Frank
Tucson
Frank,
I'll go first!
When you say "I find it to be the best overall receiver for what I use it
for" that is the right phrase. You have found the reciever that works best
for you. Congratulations.
There are many different receivers just as there are many different
listeners. Each listener may be looking for something different in a
radio.
Just because radio 'x' doesn't meet my need there is no reason for me to
be concerned that it satisfies your requirements. Nor is there any need
for me to tell you that my choice for a radio would also be the best for
you.
I may choose to tell you which radio I prefer to use. But if I don't
decribe my listening preferences, antenna, and conditions that existed
when I made my decision or comparison, I am not really saying anything of
value. For my opinion to mean anything, you have to know the context.
Your post indicates you go after DX. It also indicates that strong FM
stations have caused problems with some radios. That information adds the
context that explains why some radios didn't work for you. It may also
tell the reader who doesn't have nearby FM transmitters that the FRG-100
may be worth looking at. A reader that has nearby FM transmitters may want
to avoid the FRG-100.
You have also indicated that you have experience with many different
radios. This also is worthwhile as your comments carry more weight than
someone saying that radio 'y' is the best he's ever used only to find out
later that it was being compared to a $25 thrift shop special.
My bottom line: Good Comments.
craigm
Yes I agree,
great comments from Frank. It was good little read! I was surprised at the
reaction to the Palstar 30 though. I thought it was a decent receiver and
was ready to bid on a "Lowe HF-350" made by Palstar. But Frank has me happy
the auction got pulled.
Yes you are right. Without letting anyone know what your listening habits
and preferences are, the review and opinion means nothing.
All that wasted typing
Lucky