Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.

Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.

Neither of us were commenting on the speaker alone. We were talking
about the radio as a complete unit having excellent sound reproduction
abilities.



Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.

Nonsese. Just look at all of the am and shortwave floor and table
model radios some of which came with huge speakers and most all of
which used wooden cases.

Nonsense yourself.

You are completely talking about "sound quality" and ignoring far
more important issues.

Grandpa's radio may have had good sound quality, but they had broad
selectivity, bad dials, not great image rejection, and they usually
had very limited shortwave coverage.

I wouldn't even count them as shortwave radios. They were AM broadcast
radios, with incidental shortwave coverage. They may have cost a pretty
penny, but the money wasn't going to capability or features, and in
that they are indeed cheap shortwave radios.

Hmm...that's interesting. All manner of people who used them to listen
to shortwave radio must have been mistaken. Maybe those BBC broadcasts
were simply images of ABC.



THe HROs didn't have built in speakers. The SP-600 didn't have built
in speakers. None of the Collins receivers. But those were top of
the line shortwave receivers.

Pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of receivers that were built
as a complete unit to deliver very enjoyable full audio. Why don't you
try staying on point.



Drop down and the cheap Ameco, receivers like the Radio Shack DX-150,
the low end Hallicrafters, they had built in speakers. But then,
they weren't particularly great receivers.

Again, please try to stay with the discussion or consider dropping out.



The receivers you think are the cat's meow couldn't be fixed with
something as simple as an external speaker.

None of tohse receivers needed to be fixed, including the delightful
Panasonic RF5000. They were designed by the manufacturer to deliver
excellent audio when plugged in. It does seem a silly and wasteful for
someone to pay top dollar for a receiver only to have pay even more
money for supplemental speakers and other audio equipment just to
extract an enjoyable boradcast.


Yet pick any receiver
today and if you lament the sound quality, it can be easily fixed
by adding an external speaker.

It is absurd to have to pay top dollar for a receiver only to have to
pay more money to fix a fundamental design flaw like poor audio.


Yes, in some cases there may be an issue with a particularly bad
audio amplifer. But the bottom line is a small speaker in a small
plastic case, that can be easily remedied.

I took issue with this because it keeps coming up. "I like this
receiver, if only it had a better speaker". If the speaker is
the only issue, then add that external speaker and then you've
got the ideal speaker.

Michael