Michael Black wrote:
"Shepherd" ) writes:
Wayne wrote:
What I'd like to see in a portable MW receiver. A good audio section
like the one in the GE SR III. Both 9 and 10 KHz digital step tuning
with at least 1 KHz fine tuning. Good selectivity allowing for
split-frequency DX. Very good sensitivity. Better than average image
rejection. Synchronous detection. RF attenuator. Large ferrite bar
which can be rotated separate from the main body of the radio. Switch
allowing for disconnection of the internal ferrite bar antenna to allow
for exclusive use of an external antenna. S-meter. Make it an MW or MW
+ SW only set and tailor its performance to get the most out of those
bands. Oh, include stereo decoder. Is this asking too much?

Wayne

Wayne,

I don't think it is too much to ask. Please post when you find this
radio! That is certainly the one I want.


But the problem is that what is the market?

The GE Superradio carries a nice label, which likely sells more radios.
But it really isn't that much more than an average portable AM/FM radio.
It could be argued the bigger speaker (ie better sound for local reception)
is as much a factor as the the heralded ability to receive distant stations.

The things the previous poster wants is quite available in a receiver. A lot
of portable shortwave receivers have most of those features. But, they also
carry a higher price. The cost is a reflection of the better circuitry, but
it also reflects a more limited market.

Just about everyone will spend ten dollars to get a portable AM/FM radio.
Some will pay a bit more to get one with a bigger speaker (and maybe better
DX ability). But the number of people who want an AM/FM radio for DX is
a much smaller number. Development cost has to be spread over that smaller
population. The cost reductions of mass production can't kick in, as it
does at the ten dollar radio level.

Once the features are added, you have an AM/FM radio that costs quite
a bit, but for most people doesn't give them any extra ability (because
they aren't interested digging signals out of the mud). Many of the
people who might be interested would look at the price and say "but at
its core, it's still just an AM/FM radio". They might be more tempted
by the addition of shortwave bands, but that adds more cost, and those
already exist.

Michael

I agree with all you said. I enjoy the hobby of DX listening and most
who do will pay a bit extra for a good radio. However, DX enthusiasts
tend to be a bit weird, not to mention far and few between. I include
myself in that group. I don't have lots to spend on radios. If I did,
I would probably own a Drake R8, which I understand, is an awesome
radio!

I have a love-hate relationship with my GE SR III. It's such an odd
radio. It shines in ways one would not expect for a $50 radio. I was
enamored by its audio quality the moment I hear it. It just sounds
great! As for its DX ability, it sure is a sensitive set but lacks in
the selectivity department particularly on the top end of the dial. But
it sounds great! I am amazed at how inaccurate its dial calibration is!
But it sounds great! It looks and feels like it may fly apart at any
moment. But it sounds great! I truly believe that if better quality
control and craftsmanship were put into that set, it would really be an
attractive radio. But then the price would have to go up. I have set my
GE SR III aside other high-performance portables and it gets pretty
much anything all others pick up and with superior sound. My GE SR III
benefits quite well from the Select-A-Tenna set alongside especially on
the lower end of the band. Could someone explain to me why the SAT when
introduced to a radio causes the tone of the signal to change. The
treble seems to drop off a bit, but the bass and midrange become
stronger and louder resulting in a richer sounding signal. It's
almost as if the receiver is somehow more selective and concentrating
the signal into a smaller or more narrow area.

Wayne