"Brian Denley" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

Other then a few computer controlled alternatives, there are no other
choices other then the R-75. That's the larger point.

The radios in the list I'm asking for don't have to meet your
"PRACTICAL improvement" criteria.

What does "statistically significant PRACTICALLY speaking" mean?

craigm

Meaning exactly as stated. Here is an example:

The Drake R-8 was tested to have a sensitivity of 0.25 and 0.18 with
the pre amp on.

The R-75 was tested to have a sensitivy of 0.5 and .02 with the
first level pre amp on

The Kenwood R-5000 was tested to have a sensitivity of .02

The NRD-525 was tested to have a sensitivity of .02

OK, what do you say ???? You can see what receiver gets the better
test numbers here. Think it matters PRACTICALLY speaking given what
typical noise floors are ??? Would you feel it was worth it to spend
a few thousand dollars to get that extra decimal ??? This applies
equally to other values.
Do you understand my point yet ????

Michael

Hold it Mike. Didn't you say that you are in a noisy area? Sensitivity
(then) becomes the least important papameter you should consider (it's
actually not a very important parameter for most of us since we are
usually limited by atmospheric noise that is much greater than the
receiver noise floor). Worry more about ultimate selectivity, dymanic
range, etc.

Also I think you have your decimal points badly screwed up above. (.02
should be 0.2)


The point I was trying to make is that using minimal differences in stats is
not a good way to demonstrate which is the superior raido. There are
statistics and then there are statistics.

Michael