) 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