I have a DX-394, a DX-302, a Sangean ATS-803A that I'd like tweaked, tuned
and upgraded. I also have a DX-160 but honestly think I'll get rid of it;
it makes no sense & doesn't seem to be any better than any of the other
receivers I have

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
usually not myself but I do give recommendations, what receiver is in
question ?



"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
.. .
Mike - do you upgrade/improve/tune others' receivers?

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
. ..
he says that with filter upgrades the R-1000 would be a very nice
receiver

I have pointed out many times publically that almost every receiver
below
$1000 new except the Drake R8 series and SW-8 series made in the past
25
years needs some serious filter upgrades. Some were available as
manufacturer upgrades as in the Kenwood R-5000 but not cheaply in that
case
!

I have been on a mostly unsuccessful campaign to better the Radio world
with
better selectivity but most people don't understand or care it seems.

I have also tried to explain that the $20 Kiwa filter is a poor choice
to
upgrade to but people still go crazy for them when there are better
options
available for LESS money !!!!!! Maybe because it is more work to do it
better is the answer ?

Most people would not believe the improvements in reception when
filters
in
most sets are upgraded. I even upgraded the filters in my beloved
HF-225
and
improved the performance.

I do touch upon filters in my DX-394 article that can be found on my
web
site http://home.comcast.net/~maghakian
the DX-394 with proper filters and few minor fixes is a real nice
radio.
The Kiwa filter is really not the way to improve this set. It is just
another cheap filter with a tighter nose that cuts out the hets but
other
important parameters are still junk.

Not to say that other Kiwa products are not great, I use a Kiwa Preamp
for
example.



wrote in message
oups.com...
This is certainly an informative discussion, as I had read and
rationalized that the later FRG-7 with Fine Tuning would be the more
desirable unit. Thanks for educating us on that, Pete!

BTW, Mike, what does that book say about the Kenwood R-1000? I enjoy
mine but it does have some flaws the way it was out of the box
originally, definitely needs some modifications to be all that it can
be.

mike maghakian wrote:
I can scan some of the pages from his book if you would like to read
his
opinions.
he not only measures the receivers but he uses them for a while and
gives
several pages of comments on each one.
he also devotes a page or two to his test station and I can send
that
also


also remember this book was written in about 1984 for whatever that
is
worth


"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
. ..
Hi John,

I had variable experience with the FRG-7, depending on which
iteration
that I had. I remember that when using an 8 foot diameter untuned
loop,
MW
reception was very good with no signs of intermod.
Under these same conditions with a later iteration (I had both
units
at
the same time), there would be a marked increase in the noise
floor
as
you
approached a strong signal. It almost sounds as if there were very
high
noise sidebands coming from the 1st LO, in turn causing reciprocal
mixing.
I must apologize to Mike M for jumping a bit hard on his comments.
I've
talked directly to him over the phone in the past and he is an ok
person,
but unless you actually make test measurements yourself you never
know
actual test conditions.
Please accept my apology Mike...............it was one of those 18
hour
work days.

Pete

"John Plimmer" wrote in message
...
I owned an FRG-7 for a year but passed it on as being useless due
to
it's
poor filters and intermods.
But there is always the exception, in Cape Town is a DX friend of
mine
who
swears by his Frog and leaves his awesome Drake R7 on the shelf.
He
is
one
of the world,s most accomplished MW DXer's and says the Frog
delivers
such
superior audio on the really faint DX catches that he will not
upgrade
to
a
more modern high end receiver - go figure!
He runs rings around us with our more modern RX's..!!!

I also owned a FRG-8800 for a couple of years - another useless
receiver
that I was glad to get rid of. On Robert Sherwood's
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
he tested it and the filters were so poor he couldn't even get a
measurement.

--
John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
RX Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
Drake SW8 & ERGO software
Sony 7600D GE SRIII
BW XCR 30, Braun T1000, Sangean 818 & 803A.
GE circa 50's radiogram
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
I thought I would dig up some numbers to back up what I have said
for
years, the FRG-7 is grossly over rated.
These stats are measured in the lab of the great Ranier Lichte
in
his
awesome book "radio receiver, chance or choice" the best review
book
ever
written in the history of shortwave radio. In fact I just
modified
one
of
my copies to make it easy to scan reviews to mail to people for
proof
of
what I say.

FRG-7 FRG-7700
FRG-8800
SW sens (uV) 2.1 2.1
1.1
3rd order ICP (dBm) -25 -10 +3
selectivity (-6/60) 3.2/8.8 *1
3/7
+
7/18

*1 Wide 11/26 Norm 5.2/13.5 Narr 2.6/8.2

In every category of these most important specs, the FRG-7
loses.
In
fact
the 3rd order ICP is pretty BAD !!!!!!

The facts speak for themselves, the reputation of the FRG-7 is
not
based
on reality but fantasy.

I am not crazy about the selectivity of the stock units of any
of
the
FRG's so my FRG-7 and my FRG-7700 both have mechanical filters
and
the
7700 has an upgraded ceramic as well. But the 7 selectivity is
way
too
limited for the real world !

And the 7700 and 8800 both sound really NICE !!!!