Edward Feustel wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:50:00 -0700 (PDT), Cadiscase
wrote:

Can someone compare the above receivers or direct me to a site that does?
I am interested in buying one of these and need to make a decision of which one does what.
I did look up the reviews on eham. It was good but lacked a bit of comparitive info.
Thanks
A major difference is that the 170 and 180 have a third IF at 60 KHz.
This IF is tuned to 455 KHz, the second IF with a VFO. It has single
sideband with various bandwidths from .5Khz to 3 Khz. If I recall
it has a product detector.

The 170 is Ham Bands only, but it is prior to WARC.
The 180 is General Coverage.

The 145 is General Coverage. I remember its being a dual conversion
receiver with a crystal filter.

73,
Ed, N5EI

I've owned all three and think the 180A is the best of the lot. A
common complaint is the narrow audio on AM but I call that "selectivity"
(wink). Doesn't bother me because my top-end hearing response is
somewhat damaged.

GL,
Bill, WX4A/KP4

Bill M wrote:

I've owned all three and think the 180A is the best of the lot. A
common complaint is the narrow audio on AM but I call that "selectivity"
(wink). Doesn't bother me because my top-end hearing response is
somewhat damaged.

With the "death" of shortwave broadcasting, the bands have gone from so crowded
that nothing can separate the signals to enough spacing that wide AM
selectivity is a good thing.

Still plenty to listen to, but you no longer need a sideband splitter
(or synchronous AM detector) or narrow filters to hear it.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Bill M wrote:

I've owned all three and think the 180A is the best of the lot. A
common complaint is the narrow audio on AM but I call that "selectivity"
(wink). Doesn't bother me because my top-end hearing response is
somewhat damaged.

With the "death" of shortwave broadcasting, the bands have gone from so crowded
that nothing can separate the signals to enough spacing that wide AM
selectivity is a good thing.

Still plenty to listen to, but you no longer need a sideband splitter
(or synchronous AM detector) or narrow filters to hear it.

Geoff.


Well, yes and no. Even though the SWBC bands are nowhere near as
crowded as in the past all it takes is 'one' situation where Rcvr A's
ability supercedes Rcvr B and then you're sold

All three are good radios. Gen Coverage vs ham band only coverage makes
the 170 an apple compared to the other two oranges in some respects. I
used a 170 for a while for hamming but I fell upon a sweetheart deal on
a 180A and made the switch. Although it didn't have that big vernier
knob like the 170 it was every bit as good - and maybe even better. I
wound up liking the 180A better - in part because I do like to cruise
the spectrum and I didn't feel like I lost anything on the ham bands by
going with a GC receiver.

Scott mentioned dial backlash. There must have been a problem with his
radio! Its a direct drive and I can't imagine how you could get
backlash unless the 'disc' had worn spots.

-Bill

Bill M wrote:

I've owned all three and think the 180A is the best of the lot. A
common complaint is the narrow audio on AM but I call that "selectivity"
(wink). Doesn't bother me because my top-end hearing response is
somewhat damaged.

I had a 170 for a short while when I first upgraded from novice and loved
the clock but didn't much like the overall tuning. Lots of backlash,
and the dials were hard to read.

When I traded it for an R-388, it was a night and day improvement... stuff
I could barely head on the 170 was well above the noise floor.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 30 Oct 2011 09:13:16 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Bill M wrote:

I've owned all three and think the 180A is the best of the lot. A
common complaint is the narrow audio on AM but I call that "selectivity"
(wink). Doesn't bother me because my top-end hearing response is
somewhat damaged.

I had a 170 for a short while when I first upgraded from novice and loved
the clock but didn't much like the overall tuning. Lots of backlash,
and the dials were hard to read.

When I traded it for an R-388, it was a night and day improvement... stuff
I could barely head on the 170 was well above the noise floor.
--scott
I had a sensitivity problem with the 170A I had back in the 1970s. It
turned out to be a faulty regulator tube. I replaced it and the
sensitivity returned.
Ed, N5EI