Not everyone sees it that way. The DX-150A was an improvement over the 150,
but then cost-cutting and marketing kicked in as they began to use ICs,
remove the internal speaker, make the knobs plastic push-on instead of
machined aluminum with a set screw, etc.

It's not always true that subsequent models in a series are better, and a
lot of people feel that the 150A is the one to have in this series.


"Roadie" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 25, 7:52 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
If by "expanded coverage" you mean the addition of the LW band on the
160,
that is seen by some as a negative. The fifth band added to the
same-size
window makes it slightly more crowded and hard to read, and there's
nothing
to listen to on LW anymore. Wasted space.

"Roadie" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Sep 24, 6:29 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
Sorry for the blatant shilling, but it's possible someone here may be
interested in this. Yes, it's mine.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=190155553202&...

Jeff

They are a fun to use radio if you enjoy bandspread tuning. There are
more similarities than differences between the 150, 150A, 150B and
160. However, in reference to the auction comments I would say the
150b had a slight edge because of the relatively improved selectivity
from a mechanical filter and the 160 because of extended coverage.

Best of luck with the auction.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I said something like "slight edge". That series is best
viewed as four very similar radios with each subsequent one offering a
small improvement. Whether you listen to LW or not isn't the issue.
The capability of the radio was improved, if slightly.