On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:28:38 -0400, "Mike" wrote:

"Dick Chisel" wrote in message
om...
Lisa Simpson wrote:
Actually, it was a DX-160, and yes, I wound up selling it to Universal
Radio
because I can't stand bandpass tuning, so I plan on selling this too
after I
check it to make sure it actually receives . . .

"John S." wrote in message
ups.com...


Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but didn't you pick up a
DX150 not too long ago? Use it for a day and become frustrated because
it used bandspread tuning?

Lisa Simpson wrote "bandpass" tuning.

John S. wrote "bandspread" tuning.

Two very different things.


Neither of which are illogical or frustrating! So I'm really curious to
hear Lisa Simpson's explanation.

Mike

I can't speak for Lisa Simpson however I suspect that Lisa got into
radio by first using a radio that has PLL/digital tuning and it has to
do with being able to easily discern what frequency you are tuned to.
Anyone remember making cheat sheets what it says on the dial vs what
the frequency is, letting a receiver warm up then using a cyrstal
calibrator to get the initial set point for the bandspread??

) writes:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:28:38 -0400, "Mike" wrote:

"Dick Chisel" wrote in message
. com...
Lisa Simpson wrote:
Actually, it was a DX-160, and yes, I wound up selling it to Universal
Radio
because I can't stand bandpass tuning, so I plan on selling this too
after I
check it to make sure it actually receives . . .

"John S." wrote in message
ups.com...


Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but didn't you pick up a
DX150 not too long ago? Use it for a day and become frustrated because
it used bandspread tuning?

Lisa Simpson wrote "bandpass" tuning.

John S. wrote "bandspread" tuning.

Two very different things.


Neither of which are illogical or frustrating! So I'm really curious to
hear Lisa Simpson's explanation.

Mike

I can't speak for Lisa Simpson however I suspect that Lisa got into
radio by first using a radio that has PLL/digital tuning and it has to
do with being able to easily discern what frequency you are tuned to.
Anyone remember making cheat sheets what it says on the dial vs what
the frequency is, letting a receiver warm up then using a cyrstal
calibrator to get the initial set point for the bandspread??

But on that level of receiver, it wasn't just a matter of "well the station
is closer to the 5 than the 4.5" but the 5 wasn't even where it should
have been.

My first receiver, a Hallicrafter's S-120A (the "A" is significant
because it was transistorized), I bought in July of 1971 and I spent all
my accumulated allowance and birthday money on it. It was such a low
end receiver that it didn't even have a place for a crystal calibrator.

They were horrible receivers back then, and they still are, yet I think
there is something special about them compared to the fancy receivers
everyone has nowadays.

Mihael

wrote in message

Anyone remember making cheat sheets what it says on the dial vs what
the frequency is, letting a receiver warm up then using a cyrstal
calibrator to get the initial set point for the bandspread??

I still use receivers like that.


--

Regards
B.H.
Southern, MN USA
Radios- R-5000, NRD525,SP-600,SX-28,Eton E1

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm

Brian's Basement
http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/6.htm

Remove your HAT to reply directly

Yup, quite true. Not against older receivers, like my DX-302, but
bandSPREAD (yes, I incorrectly said bandPASS earlier, I spologize to those
of you that can't seem to get past that) is just stupid.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:28:38 -0400, "Mike" wrote:

"Dick Chisel" wrote in message
om...
Lisa Simpson wrote:
Actually, it was a DX-160, and yes, I wound up selling it to Universal
Radio
because I can't stand bandpass tuning, so I plan on selling this too
after I
check it to make sure it actually receives . . .

"John S." wrote in message
ups.com...


Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but didn't you pick up a
DX150 not too long ago? Use it for a day and become frustrated
because
it used bandspread tuning?

Lisa Simpson wrote "bandpass" tuning.

John S. wrote "bandspread" tuning.

Two very different things.


Neither of which are illogical or frustrating! So I'm really curious
to
hear Lisa Simpson's explanation.

Mike

I can't speak for Lisa Simpson however I suspect that Lisa got into
radio by first using a radio that has PLL/digital tuning and it has to
do with being able to easily discern what frequency you are tuned to.
Anyone remember making cheat sheets what it says on the dial vs what
the frequency is, letting a receiver warm up then using a cyrstal
calibrator to get the initial set point for the bandspread??

"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
...
Yup, quite true. Not against older receivers, like my DX-302, but
bandSPREAD (yes, I incorrectly said bandPASS earlier, I spologize to those
of you that can't seem to get past that) is just stupid.

Yes they can take some getting used to.

BH

"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
...
Yup, quite true. Not against older receivers, like my DX-302, but
bandSPREAD (yes, I incorrectly said bandPASS earlier, I spologize to those
of you that can't seem to get past that) is just stupid.

You have obviously never used a radio with a proper bandspread.

My Hallicrafters S-120 does it the wrong way - a separate Bandspread tuner
and knob that you use after tuning the main knob roughly where you want it.

My Grundig Satellit 2100 does it right. With the flip of a switch, it
breaks out the standard shortwave meter bands - 25, 31, 41 etc . - and
actually s p r e a d s them out, taking them from about 1 inch on the
tuning dial to almost 6 inches each. The calibration is spot on, and it
becomes easier than tuning in local FM stations. Where you had 5 stations
in a quarter turn of the tuning knob, you now have 1 station in a half turn.
Selectivity is incredible, and fading is largely eliminated - even without a
sync - because you can get exactly centered on the signal so easily.

Mike

In article , "Mike"
wrote:

"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
...
Yup, quite true. Not against older receivers, like my DX-302, but
bandSPREAD (yes, I incorrectly said bandPASS earlier, I spologize to those
of you that can't seem to get past that) is just stupid.

You have obviously never used a radio with a proper bandspread.

My Hallicrafters S-120 does it the wrong way - a separate Bandspread tuner
and knob that you use after tuning the main knob roughly where you want it.

My Grundig Satellit 2100 does it right. With the flip of a switch, it
breaks out the standard shortwave meter bands - 25, 31, 41 etc . - and
actually s p r e a d s them out, taking them from about 1 inch on the
tuning dial to almost 6 inches each. The calibration is spot on, and it
becomes easier than tuning in local FM stations. Where you had 5 stations
in a quarter turn of the tuning knob, you now have 1 station in a half turn.
Selectivity is incredible, and fading is largely eliminated - even without a
sync - because you can get exactly centered on the signal so easily.

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

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

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"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

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