|
DX-120
Ala Cuhulin, I picked up a Realistic DX-120 at a yard sale today for $5.00.
Anyone got any experience with these, or can point me at some related links? |
DX-120
Lisa Simpson wrote: Ala Cuhulin, I picked up a Realistic DX-120 at a yard sale today for $5.00. Anyone got any experience with these, or can point me at some related links? You've been cleaning up lately at those things. First that scanner and now this. Only if you were lucky was yours as clean as this one: http://www.signalharbor.com/dx120.html Those are old. How does it work? |
DX-120
Not quite that clean. The only testing I've done so far it so plug it in to
make sure it lights up; I'll hook up a speaker & antenna to it this weekend & give it a run. Probably end up selling it on ebay, as I can't stand receivers with bandpass tuning! "Beloved Leader" wrote in message ups.com... Lisa Simpson wrote: Ala Cuhulin, I picked up a Realistic DX-120 at a yard sale today for $5.00. Anyone got any experience with these, or can point me at some related links? You've been cleaning up lately at those things. First that scanner and now this. Only if you were lucky was yours as clean as this one: http://www.signalharbor.com/dx120.html Those are old. How does it work? |
DX-120
Lisa Simpson wrote: Ala Cuhulin, I picked up a Realistic DX-120 at a yard sale today for $5.00. Anyone got any experience with these, or can point me at some related links? 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? |
DX-120
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... Lisa Simpson wrote: Ala Cuhulin, I picked up a Realistic DX-120 at a yard sale today for $5.00. Anyone got any experience with these, or can point me at some related links? 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? |
DX-120
IMHO it's illogical.
"Beloved Leader" wrote in message ups.com... Lisa Simpson wrote: I can't stand receivers with bandpass tuning! Why is that? |
DX-120
Beloved Leader wrote: Lisa Simpson wrote: I can't stand receivers with bandpass tuning! Why is that? The argument won't go anywhere I'm afraid........ |
DX-120
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. |
DX-120
"Dick Chisel" wrote in message
m... 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 |
DX-120
Dick Chisel ) writes:
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. Of course, very few receivers of 30 years ago and before had bandpass tuning either. Michael |
DX-120
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?? |
DX-120
) 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 |
DX-120
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 |
DX-120
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?? |
DX-120
"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 |
DX-120
"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 |
DX-120
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 |
DX-120
You are undoubtedly correct! The way it's done on these Realistics is just
asinine IMHO. Perhaps I need to experience a 2100. Do all the Satelit's have that feature? "Mike" wrote in message ... "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 |
DX-120
"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
... You are undoubtedly correct! The way it's done on these Realistics is just asinine IMHO. Perhaps I need to experience a 2100. Do all the Satelit's have that feature? Just the old analog models. 1000, 2000, 2100, 3000 and 3400. Mike |
DX-120
"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 |
DX-120
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 |
DX-120
"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 |
DX-120
"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 |
DX-120
"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 |
DX-120
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 |
DX-120
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 |
DX-120
"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 |
DX-120
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com