RHF wrote:

...
JS - You are replying like and Amateur Radio Operator
[HAM] and are most likely You Are Technically Correct
-wrt- Every item that you have pointed out is very valid
for Amateur Radio [HAM] Operators.

RL - In this instance Knows His Reader and is replying
as a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) to the Original
Question : Which was posted by a SWL for Tips on
what would be {how to make} a better SWL 'type' of
Antenna.
-wrt- The SWLer "RL" is Practically Correct.

JS - You speak of Antenna 'resonance' while the SWL
Antenna is by-design a board-banded "Random" Wire
Antenna : Which is often used un-tuned across the
Shortwave Radio Bands from 3~30 Mhz.
Result : On-average-better-Signal-Levels
-and- On-average-lower-Noise-Levels

RL - Is very correct that for the Shortwave Radio Listener
(SWL) : Their Antenna's should give them improved 'better'
Signal-to-Noise : So That They Can Hear More [.]

two similar hobbies and two different objectives - iane ~ RHF
.
.

Again, in the narrow context which you describe this, you are correct.
But, there is no reason to NOT have an antenna of resonate length. A
simple motor and a spring loaded real to take up slack will allow you to
construct an antenna of variable length and multi-band capability.
Indeed, only ones knowledge, "macguiverisms", and patience limits one
.... as opposed to purchasing a product which is solely, usually, based
on construction costs alone.

I think the post, of mine, which you are responding to, with your above
response, implied all this--I honestly meant to imply such ... or, in
other words, you can only get out what you put in with your efforts,
time, materials, knowledge, techniques, etc.; Or, i.e., the more
thought, design and good construction practices used, the better the
results.

While some of us may search for the most simple constructions, others
will go towards the most elaborate constructions--if anyone is like
myself, complexity grew with understanding, knowledge, patience, etc.

And, as I implied, Roy gave an answer which would have sufficed for,
perhaps, the majority of SWL-ers... I did not fault it (his response),
rather I expanded upon it ... no harm meant here, nor did I intend to
"slight" anyone! HONEST!

Regards,
JS