Chuck Harris wrote:

JimC wrote:

I'm not sure whether I qualify to post notes on this newsgroups, since
I don't know what qualifies as a boat anchor radio. I'm interested in
general coverage receiving, but I'm not a Ham and haven't got into
transcievers or transmitting stations. - I have a Realistic DX-160,
bought recently from Ebay, and also a Radio Shack portable similar to
the Sangean ATS-909. Is this group directed only to HAM radio, or
would general DX receivers also qualify? I would guess that my small
portable wouldn't, but I'm not sure about the DX-160?

Can anyone tell me what whether general DX receiving would be within
the general subject matter of the ng?

Thanks,
Jim Cate


Hi Jim,

Boat Anchor's are usually heavy radios with big power transformers, and
lots
of vacuum tubes. The definition has loosened up somewhat to include
some of
the slightly more modern ham radio gear that is partly solid state, and
partly
tubes (hybrid).

The only requirement for joining this group is having an interest in things
of this sort.

Although there is some discussion of receiving, and such, it is mostly in
connection with describing the performance of a particular radio vs some
other
radio. DX receiving is not in the general focus of this group. There
are other
groups in the rec.radio hierarchy that do focus on SWL receiving.

-Chuck

My DX-160 receiver is rather large, around 1 ft, 2 in. wide, and it is
about 30 years old. However, it's solid state, because I was more
interested in using it than in collecting or fixing it up. Years ago I
did use tube shortwave radios (a Zenith table model and a Hallicrafter
S-38, when they were popular and in general use.

How do these old tube models compare with current or recent SS models in
the same general price range?

Jim

The DX-160 is comparable to the Hallicraters S-85 - a $120 general coverage
receiver ala 1958.

The DX-160 is analog and single conversion. That means the dial calibration
is not great nor is the image rejection very good above about 12 MHz. Also,
the selectivity is average.

For listening to short wave broadcast stations below 12 MHz, the DX-160 is
adequate. Really not that bad. But, it lacks a noise blanker, any
rejection tuning and is generally just ok.

The modern true short wave radio will have digital tuning, double
conversion, excellent stability and image rejection and generally lack all
of the qualities that boatanchor lovers covet.

R-390A receivers are big and heavy, but they lack the instability, poor
calibration and poor image rejection of many of the true boat anchors. We
tolerate those owners in this group merely because the receivers are very
heavy and have sharp corners, which makes a great anchor. In addition, they
probably can be used for anchors for months before the electrical quality is
affected.

Colin K7FM

COLIN LAMB wrote:
The DX-160 is comparable to the Hallicraters S-85 - a $120 general coverage
receiver ala 1958.

The DX-160 is analog and single conversion. That means the dial calibration
is not great nor is the image rejection very good above about 12 MHz. Also,
the selectivity is average.

For listening to short wave broadcast stations below 12 MHz, the DX-160 is
adequate. Really not that bad. But, it lacks a noise blanker, any
rejection tuning and is generally just ok.

The modern true short wave radio will have digital tuning, double
conversion, excellent stability and image rejection and generally lack all
of the qualities that boatanchor lovers covet.

R-390A receivers are big and heavy, but they lack the instability, poor
calibration and poor image rejection of many of the true boat anchors. We
tolerate those owners in this group merely because the receivers are very
heavy and have sharp corners, which makes a great anchor. In addition, they
probably can be used for anchors for months before the electrical quality is
affected.

Colin K7FM


Thanks. I also have a Radio Shack DX-398, which has double conversion,
digital tuning, and tuning memory provisions. - Obviously, it wouldn't
qualify as a boat anchor, but it's a good supplement to the DX-160. - I
wanted the DX-160 because it has analog tuning, and an easily read
display. I'm in the process of constructing an outdoor antenna.

Jim