On 7 Jan 2007 13:43:22 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I'll put a good word in for the RA-17 as well. Ergonomically I think it's
a little better than the R-390A, and it's a lot easier to work on, though
I don't think the RF performance as good.

There's no doubt the 390 has better if filters than the Racal.


On the other hand, it's a lot better than the newer solid-state Racal
receivers. I was really shocked to compare the R-17 with an R-1750
on a marine install... CW stuff that was easy to copy on the R-17 was
down in the noise floor on the newer receiver.

My RA-17 is racked up with a RA-1792, (synthesised solid-state, mine has
provision for remote control and modified eproms to allow tuning down to
0Hz!) the 1792 has better performance than the 17 but I still prefer
the older rx for general tuning around.

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)

The future was never like this!

Stan Barr wrote:

My RA-17 is racked up with a RA-1792, (synthesised solid-state, mine has
provision for remote control and modified eproms to allow tuning down to
0Hz!) the 1792 has better performance than the 17 but I still prefer
the older rx for general tuning around.

Try working one channel while an adjacent transmitter is operating a
few hundred KC away and you'll see why the RA-17 beats the RA-1792
for full-duplex radiotelephone service hands down.

The filters on the RA-1792 sure are nicer than on the RA-17, though,
and consequently audio quality on SSB is a whole lot better with less
noise.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 7 Jan 2007 19:28:36 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Stan Barr wrote:

My RA-17 is racked up with a RA-1792, (synthesised solid-state, mine has
provision for remote control and modified eproms to allow tuning down to
0Hz!) the 1792 has better performance than the 17 but I still prefer
the older rx for general tuning around.

Try working one channel while an adjacent transmitter is operating a
few hundred KC away and you'll see why the RA-17 beats the RA-1792
for full-duplex radiotelephone service hands down.

Yeah, true. I regularly transmit on, say, 3.5MHz while one of the receivers
is tuned to Shanwick AT control on 5.599 without any problem, but then
that's a bigger separation and I'm only running a few watts normally.

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)

The future was never like this!

Stan Barr wrote:

Yeah, true. I regularly transmit on, say, 3.5MHz while one of the receivers
is tuned to Shanwick AT control on 5.599 without any problem, but then
that's a bigger separation and I'm only running a few watts normally.

That brings to mind... I have been listening to Shanwick weather recently,
just below 80M. Do they welcome reception reports?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 8 Jan 2007 15:28:36 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Stan Barr wrote:

Yeah, true. I regularly transmit on, say, 3.5MHz while one of the receivers
is tuned to Shanwick AT control on 5.599 without any problem, but then
that's a bigger separation and I'm only running a few watts normally.

That brings to mind... I have been listening to Shanwick weather recently,
just below 80M. Do they welcome reception reports?

I don't know, but I imagine they get a few. They probably have a
website.



--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)

The future was never like this!