It makes perfect sense to have to guess at, or calculate, the frequency
you're tuned to, when it would have been just as easy to actually display
the actual frequency you're listening to?

"Mike" wrote in message
...
"Telamon" wrote in message

...
That makes no sense unless you are also using a BFO in some mode like
side band.

No, it makes perfect sense. Have you used such a radio? BTW, the 2100
has
no BFO anyways.

I continue to be amazed by peoples lack of appreciation for sync
detection.

I appreciate sync detection just fine, having 2 radios that use it - a
Drake
R8 and a Satellit 800. The 800's sync is much better than the R8's
because
the 800 has selectable sideband. The R8 is double only. Note I'm
talking
about an original R8, NOT an R8B!

Mike

"Lisa Simpson" ) writes:
It makes perfect sense to have to guess at, or calculate, the frequency
you're tuned to, when it would have been just as easy to actually display
the actual frequency you're listening to?

Assuming you are talking about radios without digital displays, I should
point out that they weren't left off old radios for some vague reason.

They were left off because digital displays would require a huge chassis
for all the tubes to make the digital display, and of course that would
drive up the cost so it would be beyond the means of most people.

You could go with a mechanical digital dial, but you then either have
the National HRO (complete with plug-in coils for each band) which
was expensive, but still didn't give linear readout. It cost too
much, and was too complicated, to make each band linear, so the
fine numbers on the dial were just really good logging scales (and
reasonably decent readout).

There were expensive receivers like the R390 that had mechanical
digital dials. They fixed the problem by having the dial cover a fixed
and small range (500KHz), and then adding a converter ahead of it
to get all the bands. It was much easier to get linear tuning,
so the digital dial reflected the frequency accurately, with such
a scheme. But it cost money to pay people to get the tuning linear,
and thus no hobbyist could afford those receivers until they were
available in surplus.

Note that the same scheme did provide pretty good dials without
the mechanical digital readout. But again, it was far easier to
calibrate the dial every 1KHz (and be accurate) when the tuning
only covered a small range and didn't change when the band changed.

In the old days, dial accuracy and precision went up the more you
spent on a receiver.

What's misleading is that solid state electronics have made digital
dials easy and cheap and small, so much so that it's now easier
to use them than trying to do an analog dial. But just because
a receiver has a digital readout now doesn't actually mean it's a good
receiver. They are just as bad as the low end receivers of decades
ago, albeit with a better dial.

A good receiver can be expensive.

Michael

"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
...
It makes perfect sense to have to guess at, or calculate, the frequency
you're tuned to, when it would have been just as easy to actually display
the actual frequency you're listening to?

There is no guessing at all. The dial looks like this:

9 . . . . 9.5 . . . . 10

etc., and it's perfectly calibrated.

Yes, digital is better, but this is one the best analog tuning radios ever
made. I *much* prefer tuning an analog radio to a digital one. Way less
noise, and just a better "feel".

Look, I have lots of radios he E. H. Scott Allwave 23, a Drake R8,
Grundig Satellits 650, 700, 800, 2100, Grundig YB400, Grundig S350, Tecsun
BCL 2000, Kaito/Degen 1102s, Panasonic RF-2200, etc. etc. Digital radios
are great for identifying a signal's exact frequency, but nothing beats an
analog radio for just tuning around to see what's on!

Mike

"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
...
It makes perfect sense to have to guess at, or calculate, the frequency
you're tuned to, when it would have been just as easy to actually display
the actual frequency you're listening to?


"would have been just as easy"? You're either trolling or clueless.

Frank Dresser

Whatever. I finally got around to testing it; hooked it up to my
Eavesdropper antenna, and it seems to receive well; am listening to "AM920"
right now, Frank Sinatra music! One of the regulars on the "realisticdx"
Yahoo newsgroup has offered $20 + shipping, so looks like he's the proud new
owner!

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
...
It makes perfect sense to have to guess at, or calculate, the frequency
you're tuned to, when it would have been just as easy to actually
display
the actual frequency you're listening to?


"would have been just as easy"? You're either trolling or clueless.

Frank Dresser

In article , "Mike"
wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
That makes no sense unless you are also using a BFO in some mode like
side band.

No, it makes perfect sense. Have you used such a radio? BTW, the 2100 has
no BFO anyways.

I continue to be amazed by peoples lack of appreciation for sync
detection.

I appreciate sync detection just fine, having 2 radios that use it - a Drake
R8 and a Satellit 800. The 800's sync is much better than the R8's because
the 800 has selectable sideband. The R8 is double only. Note I'm talking
about an original R8, NOT an R8B!

Nice radios. Drake's are the best.

You wrote:
Selectivity is incredible, and fading is largely eliminated - even
without a sync - because you can get exactly centered on the signal
so easily.

Please explain how precisely tuning in a station improves reception
during selective fading. This makes no sense to me.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
Nice radios. Drake's are the best.

Well, an R8B would be the best. My R8 is not the best radio I have.

Please explain how precisely tuning in a station improves reception
during selective fading. This makes no sense to me.

I can't explain it. All I know is that the 2100 using the bandspread
sometimes gives me a better signal than the 800 using the sync. They are
both using their internal whip antennas, and are side by side on the table.
The 2100 performs *much* better than the 800 without using the 800's sync.
Selective fading is much less drastic. Turning on the sync on the 800
*usually* makes it perform better than the 2100, but not *always*.

Mike

In article , "Mike"
wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...
Nice radios. Drake's are the best.

Well, an R8B would be the best. My R8 is not the best radio I have.

Please explain how precisely tuning in a station improves reception
during selective fading. This makes no sense to me.

I can't explain it. All I know is that the 2100 using the
bandspread sometimes gives me a better signal than the 800 using the
sync. They are both using their internal whip antennas, and are
side by side on the table. The 2100 performs *much* better than the
800 without using the 800's sync. Selective fading is much less
drastic. Turning on the sync on the 800 *usually* makes it perform
better than the 2100, but not *always*.

You are comparing two radios with different circuitry and
specifications. What you are seeing (hearing) is most likely a
difference in radio performance. Speculating for a moment I could guess
that the 2100 might have greater dynamic range or maybe a faster AGC
that can follow the a rapid fade over the SAT 800 but there is no way I
can understand the statement that precise tuning can equal using sync
detection. Using a standard AM detector and tuning a station spot on
compared to being slightly off tuned is not going to make an
improvement in a fading signal that using a sync detector is going to
make.

Generally, I have found that precise tuning allows a sync detector to
maintain lock on a weak signal.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California