Grundig Satellit800
 

Somebody was ragging on the Sat 800 in another thread so I thought I would
start this thread in order to avoid hijacking thier thread.

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's. For program listening it is the best radio I have ever used. The
AM sync also works better than any I have ever have heard. Sound quality?
Yes also the best of any SW radio I have ever listened too. Maybe there is a
reason that it was rated only half a star lower than a Drake R8B in Passport
to World Band Radio. How about the Sony 2010 everyone is so crazy about? Yep
the Sat 800 was rated much higher than that but still I think the 2010 is a
good radio. The large size of the Sat 800 lends itself to great sound, great
ergonomics, and a display that I can read across the room. I even use it to
listen to a local FM music station sometimes. A radio with a dozen submenus,
buttons that each have nine different functions and will fit in a shirt
pocket? Yeah I have some like that... Which radio do I use the most? Yep...
The Sat 800.

Grundig Satellit800
 

Jill,
I agree with you acessment of the 800. It's a nice big receiver, that
works very well and is easy to use.
Jill Stafford wrote:
Somebody was ragging on the Sat 800 in another thread so I thought I would
start this thread in order to avoid hijacking thier thread.

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's. For program listening it is the best radio I have ever used. The
AM sync also works better than any I have ever have heard. Sound quality?
Yes also the best of any SW radio I have ever listened too. Maybe there is a
reason that it was rated only half a star lower than a Drake R8B in Passport
to World Band Radio. How about the Sony 2010 everyone is so crazy about? Yep
the Sat 800 was rated much higher than that but still I think the 2010 is a
good radio. The large size of the Sat 800 lends itself to great sound, great
ergonomics, and a display that I can read across the room. I even use it to
listen to a local FM music station sometimes. A radio with a dozen submenus,
buttons that each have nine different functions and will fit in a shirt
pocket? Yeah I have some like that... Which radio do I use the most? Yep...
The Sat 800.

Grundig Satellit800
 

In article ,
"Jill Stafford" wrote:

Somebody was ragging on the Sat 800 in another thread so I thought I would
start this thread in order to avoid hijacking thier thread.

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's. For program listening it is the best radio I have ever used. The
AM sync also works better than any I have ever have heard. Sound quality?
Yes also the best of any SW radio I have ever listened too. Maybe there is a
reason that it was rated only half a star lower than a Drake R8B in Passport
to World Band Radio. How about the Sony 2010 everyone is so crazy about? Yep
the Sat 800 was rated much higher than that but still I think the 2010 is a
good radio. The large size of the Sat 800 lends itself to great sound, great
ergonomics, and a display that I can read across the room. I even use it to
listen to a local FM music station sometimes. A radio with a dozen submenus,
buttons that each have nine different functions and will fit in a shirt
pocket? Yeah I have some like that... Which radio do I use the most? Yep...
The Sat 800.

Yeah, you started two threads and posted it three times under two
different handles.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Grundig Satellit800
 

I had one for a few years and didn't think it was anything special. My Sony
2010 performed better and my $60 Grundig S350 was a close match. Finally
sold it on Ebay for 100 bucks more than I bought it new. Gotta love Ebay and
foreign buyers with money to burn...

"Jill Stafford" wrote in message
...

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's.

Grundig Satellit800
 

Sorry about the multiple posts. I still have not seen but one of my posts
show up here. Not sure what's behind that.

S350 a close match to the Sat 800? The S350 I had was the driftiest radio I
have ever laid my hands on. Maybe you have a good one.




"myxl55" wrote in message
...
I had one for a few years and didn't think it was anything special. My
Sony
2010 performed better and my $60 Grundig S350 was a close match. Finally
sold it on Ebay for 100 bucks more than I bought it new. Gotta love Ebay
and
foreign buyers with money to burn...

"Jill Stafford" wrote in message
...

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the
last
Sat 800's.

Grundig Satellit800
 

In article ,
"Jill Stafford" wrote:

Somebody was ragging on the Sat 800 in another thread so I thought I would
start this thread in order to avoid hijacking thier thread.

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's. For program listening it is the best radio I have ever used. The
AM sync also works better than any I have ever have heard. Sound quality?
Yes also the best of any SW radio I have ever listened too. Maybe there is a
reason that it was rated only half a star lower than a Drake R8B in Passport
to World Band Radio. How about the Sony 2010 everyone is so crazy about? Yep
the Sat 800 was rated much higher than that but still I think the 2010 is a
good radio. The large size of the Sat 800 lends itself to great sound, great
ergonomics, and a display that I can read across the room. I even use it to
listen to a local FM music station sometimes. A radio with a dozen submenus,
buttons that each have nine different functions and will fit in a shirt
pocket? Yeah I have some like that... Which radio do I use the most? Yep...
The Sat 800.

The 800 *is* a great radio - probably the best voice program listening
shortwave radio ever made. It's music performance on FM is not so hot
due to the relatively small speaker size, and the bass control has
little effect. The Sat 650 - which I also have - sounds *much* better
on FM, but unfortunately it's a mediocre performer on shortwave.

This radio was obviously made for voice, which it excels at. The Sync
is outstanding, and the filters are right out of the R8 - which I also
have.

I have loads of radios, but the 800 remains my "reference" radio.
Sometimes my Sat 2100 all analog radio gets a better signal than the
800, even though they are side by side on the table. It also has a
warmer, "tube like" sound even though it is not a tube set.

Mike

Grundig Satellit800
 

Mike wrote:


This radio was obviously made for voice, which it excels at. The Sync
is outstanding, and the filters are right out of the R8 - which I also
have.


Mike


The filters in the 800 are not "right out of the R8". The Sat 800 has a 455
kHz 2nd IF while the R8 uses 50 kHz. The Sat 800 uses ceramic filter while
the R8 uses LC filters.

The designers may have chosen to use the same bandwidths, but the filters
are not the same.

craigm

Grundig Satellit800
 

In article ,
craigm wrote:

The filters in the 800 are not "right out of the R8". The Sat 800 has a 455
kHz 2nd IF while the R8 uses 50 kHz.

Which are not filters and have nothing to do with anything.

The Sat 800 uses ceramic filter while
the R8 uses LC filters.

The designers may have chosen to use the same bandwidths, but the filters
are not the same.

Since the R8/SW8/S800 were designed by the same people (Drake), the
bandwidth filters are the same. That's what I was talking about.

Mike

Grundig Satellit800
 

Mike ) writes:
In article ,
craigm wrote:

The filters in the 800 are not "right out of the R8". The Sat 800 has a 455
kHz 2nd IF while the R8 uses 50 kHz.

Which are not filters and have nothing to do with anything.

The Sat 800 uses ceramic filter while
the R8 uses LC filters.

The designers may have chosen to use the same bandwidths, but the filters
are not the same.

Since the R8/SW8/S800 were designed by the same people (Drake), the
bandwidth filters are the same. That's what I was talking about.

But there is more to a filter than bandwidth. You can have a nice
narrow filter that turns out to be lousy, because it has no sharp
skirts. So it broadens out really fast, and lets lots of adjacent
signal in, unless it's terribly weak.

"Selectivity" is often easy to get, but the shape factor is what
separates the quality filters from the rest.

Comparing bandwidths often doesn't mean anything.

And the frequency of the IF may indeed be a factor. Not maybe
in itself, but in the design that goes with it.

The previous poster is implying that the ceramic filters at 455KHz
may be relatively run of the mill, that whatever the stated selectivity
the skirts aren't sharp. Dropping to 50KHz has always allowed Drake
to make filters out of coils and capacitors, and that provides more
leeway in design. They aren't picking some premade filter out of
a catalog.

It's not really an issue of IF frequency, but it's easier to make
good LC filters at 50KHz than 455KHz, which makes sense since it's
a lower frequency. But it is the type of filter that matters. If
the Satellite used a Collins mechanical filter at 455KHz, paying
the premium for a premium filter, the shape factor is far better
than the average ceramic filter, and could beat out the Drake's
50KHz filter.

Michael

Grundig Satellit800
 

In article ,
"Jill Stafford" wrote:

Sorry about the multiple posts. I still have not seen but one of my posts
show up here. Not sure what's behind that.

S350 a close match to the Sat 800? The S350 I had was the driftiest radio I
have ever laid my hands on. Maybe you have a good one.

Maybe the news server you use is slow to show your posts.

It's more likely you accidently caused your own posts to be filtered out
or not show.

You should consider using a dedicated news reader instead of Outlook.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon... Off Topic
 

Maybe the news server you use is slow to show your posts.

They seem to show up right away except this time...


It's more likely you accidently caused your own posts to be filtered out
or not show.

I checked my filters and nothing should have kept out the posts.


You should consider using a dedicated news reader instead of Outlook.

I have been fairly well served and pleased with Outlook Express except this
one time. I'm not a Microsoft poster child in fact I use Firefox about
99.99% of the time.

I appreciate your advice but I'm still curious why my posts didn't show up.
That's why I changed my account a few times. I thought maybe I was being
blocked for bad posts or something. Oh well...

Thanks again...

Grundig Satellit800
 

Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.


"Jill Stafford" wrote in message
...
Somebody was ragging on the Sat 800 in another thread so I thought I would
start this thread in order to avoid hijacking thier thread.

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's. For program listening it is the best radio I have ever used.
The
AM sync also works better than any I have ever have heard. Sound quality?
Yes also the best of any SW radio I have ever listened too. Maybe there is
a
reason that it was rated only half a star lower than a Drake R8B in
Passport
to World Band Radio. How about the Sony 2010 everyone is so crazy about?
Yep
the Sat 800 was rated much higher than that but still I think the 2010 is
a
good radio. The large size of the Sat 800 lends itself to great sound,
great
ergonomics, and a display that I can read across the room. I even use it
to
listen to a local FM music station sometimes. A radio with a dozen
submenus,
buttons that each have nine different functions and will fit in a shirt
pocket? Yeah I have some like that... Which radio do I use the most?
Yep...
The Sat 800.

Grundig Satellit800
 

Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.

Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.




"Jill Stafford" wrote in message
...
Somebody was ragging on the Sat 800 in another thread so I thought I would
start this thread in order to avoid hijacking thier thread.

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's. For program listening it is the best radio I have ever used.
The
AM sync also works better than any I have ever have heard. Sound quality?
Yes also the best of any SW radio I have ever listened too. Maybe there is
a
reason that it was rated only half a star lower than a Drake R8B in
Passport
to World Band Radio. How about the Sony 2010 everyone is so crazy about?
Yep
the Sat 800 was rated much higher than that but still I think the 2010 is
a
good radio. The large size of the Sat 800 lends itself to great sound,
great
ergonomics, and a display that I can read across the room. I even use it
to
listen to a local FM music station sometimes. A radio with a dozen
submenus,
buttons that each have nine different functions and will fit in a shirt
pocket? Yeah I have some like that... Which radio do I use the most?
Yep...
The Sat 800.

Grundig Satellit800
 

) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.

Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.

Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.
And often people would then plug in external speakers, for better sound
but also to get the speaker away from where it can mechanically modulate
the receivers local oscillator. The better receivers didn't even
bother, expecting you to use an external speaker that would be better
than could be offered inside.

However small and portable receivers have become, most are not using
them as portable radios. It's no problem at all to plug an external
speaker in, and then sound quality of the speaker will never be a factor.

ANd of course, decades ago, the external speakers that matched the radios
often weren't that great. An open-backed metal case, or a piece of cheap
plastic? The only advantage would have been if they put some money into
the speaker. But now, one can buy low end but compact stereo speakers that
are far better than those old matching external speakers.

Grundig Satellit800
 

Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.

Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.

Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.
And often people would then plug in external speakers, for better sound
but also to get the speaker away from where it can mechanically modulate
the receivers local oscillator. The better receivers didn't even
bother, expecting you to use an external speaker that would be better
than could be offered inside.

However small and portable receivers have become, most are not using
them as portable radios. It's no problem at all to plug an external
speaker in, and then sound quality of the speaker will never be a factor.

ANd of course, decades ago, the external speakers that matched the radios
often weren't that great. An open-backed metal case, or a piece of cheap
plastic? The only advantage would have been if they put some money into
the speaker. But now, one can buy low end but compact stereo speakers that
are far better than those old matching external speakers.

Grundig Satellit800
 

Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.

Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.

Neither of us were commenting on the speaker alone. We were talking
about the radio as a complete unit having excellent sound reproduction
abilities.


Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.

Nonsese. Just look at all of the am and shortwave floor and table
model radios some of which came with huge speakers and most all of
which used wooden cases.

And often people would then plug in external speakers, for better sound
but also to get the speaker away from where it can mechanically modulate
the receivers local oscillator. The better receivers didn't even
bother, expecting you to use an external speaker that would be better
than could be offered inside.

Actually the better receiver makers did bother to design a complete
unit that did not require that any aural shortcomings be repaired at
additional expense of the owner. That silliness came later.



However small and portable receivers have become, most are not using
them as portable radios. It's no problem at all to plug an external
speaker in, and then sound quality of the speaker will never be a factor.

You are missing the point about the RF5000 again. And the Satellit 800
is touted as being an excellent armchair listeners radio. It isn't as
designed. It is good but not at the same level as a 30 year old
Panasonic shortwave radio that can be had for $100.00 in excellent
condition on Ebay.



ANd of course, decades ago, the external speakers that matched the radios
often weren't that great. An open-backed metal case, or a piece of cheap
plastic? The only advantage would have been if they put some money into
the speaker. But now, one can buy low end but compact stereo speakers that
are far better than those old matching external speakers.

I have no idea what cheap cheesy radios from 50 plus years ago you are
talking about. The good ones were in wooden cases cost a fair amount
of money when new and had excellent audio that did not have to be fixed
by the owner.

Grundig Satellit800
 

) writes:
Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.

Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.

Neither of us were commenting on the speaker alone. We were talking
about the radio as a complete unit having excellent sound reproduction
abilities.



Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.

Nonsese. Just look at all of the am and shortwave floor and table
model radios some of which came with huge speakers and most all of
which used wooden cases.

Nonsense yourself.

You are completely talking about "sound quality" and ignoring far
more important issues.

Grandpa's radio may have had good sound quality, but they had broad
selectivity, bad dials, not great image rejection, and they usually
had very limited shortwave coverage.

I wouldn't even count them as shortwave radios. They were AM broadcast
radios, with incidental shortwave coverage. They may have cost a pretty
penny, but the money wasn't going to capability or features, and in
that they are indeed cheap shortwave radios.

THe HROs didn't have built in speakers. The SP-600 didn't have built
in speakers. None of the Collins receivers. But those were top of
the line shortwave receivers.

Drop down and the cheap Ameco, receivers like the Radio Shack DX-150,
the low end Hallicrafters, they had built in speakers. But then,
they weren't particularly great receivers.

The receivers you think are the cat's meow couldn't be fixed with
something as simple as an external speaker. Yet pick any receiver
today and if you lament the sound quality, it can be easily fixed
by adding an external speaker.

Yes, in some cases there may be an issue with a particularly bad
audio amplifer. But the bottom line is a small speaker in a small
plastic case, that can be easily remedied.

I took issue with this because it keeps coming up. "I like this
receiver, if only it had a better speaker". If the speaker is
the only issue, then add that external speaker and then you've
got the ideal speaker.

Michael

Grundig Satellit800
 

Grundig Satellit800
 

Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.

Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.

Neither of us were commenting on the speaker alone. We were talking
about the radio as a complete unit having excellent sound reproduction
abilities.



Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.

Nonsese. Just look at all of the am and shortwave floor and table
model radios some of which came with huge speakers and most all of
which used wooden cases.

Nonsense yourself.

You are completely talking about "sound quality" and ignoring far
more important issues.

Grandpa's radio may have had good sound quality, but they had broad
selectivity, bad dials, not great image rejection, and they usually
had very limited shortwave coverage.

I wouldn't even count them as shortwave radios. They were AM broadcast
radios, with incidental shortwave coverage. They may have cost a pretty
penny, but the money wasn't going to capability or features, and in
that they are indeed cheap shortwave radios.

Hmm...that's interesting. All manner of people who used them to listen
to shortwave radio must have been mistaken. Maybe those BBC broadcasts
were simply images of ABC.



THe HROs didn't have built in speakers. The SP-600 didn't have built
in speakers. None of the Collins receivers. But those were top of
the line shortwave receivers.

Pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of receivers that were built
as a complete unit to deliver very enjoyable full audio. Why don't you
try staying on point.



Drop down and the cheap Ameco, receivers like the Radio Shack DX-150,
the low end Hallicrafters, they had built in speakers. But then,
they weren't particularly great receivers.

Again, please try to stay with the discussion or consider dropping out.



The receivers you think are the cat's meow couldn't be fixed with
something as simple as an external speaker.

None of tohse receivers needed to be fixed, including the delightful
Panasonic RF5000. They were designed by the manufacturer to deliver
excellent audio when plugged in. It does seem a silly and wasteful for
someone to pay top dollar for a receiver only to have pay even more
money for supplemental speakers and other audio equipment just to
extract an enjoyable boradcast.


Yet pick any receiver
today and if you lament the sound quality, it can be easily fixed
by adding an external speaker.

It is absurd to have to pay top dollar for a receiver only to have to
pay more money to fix a fundamental design flaw like poor audio.


Yes, in some cases there may be an issue with a particularly bad
audio amplifer. But the bottom line is a small speaker in a small
plastic case, that can be easily remedied.

I took issue with this because it keeps coming up. "I like this
receiver, if only it had a better speaker". If the speaker is
the only issue, then add that external speaker and then you've
got the ideal speaker.

Michael

Grundig Satellit800
 

D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.
Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.

Neither of us were commenting on the speaker alone. We were talking
about the radio as a complete unit having excellent sound reproduction
abilities.

Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.

Nonsese. Just look at all of the am and shortwave floor and table
model radios some of which came with huge speakers and most all of
which used wooden cases.

And often people would then plug in external speakers, for better sound
but also to get the speaker away from where it can mechanically modulate
the receivers local oscillator. The better receivers didn't even
bother, expecting you to use an external speaker that would be better
than could be offered inside.

Actually the better receiver makers did bother to design a complete
unit that did not require that any aural shortcomings be repaired at
additional expense of the owner. That silliness came later.


However small and portable receivers have become, most are not using
them as portable radios. It's no problem at all to plug an external
speaker in, and then sound quality of the speaker will never be a factor.

You are missing the point about the RF5000 again. And the Satellit 800
is touted as being an excellent armchair listeners radio. It isn't as
designed. It is good but not at the same level as a 30 year old
Panasonic shortwave radio that can be had for $100.00 in excellent
condition on Ebay.


ANd of course, decades ago, the external speakers that matched the radios
often weren't that great. An open-backed metal case, or a piece of cheap
plastic? The only advantage would have been if they put some money into
the speaker. But now, one can buy low end but compact stereo speakers that
are far better than those old matching external speakers.

I have no idea what cheap cheesy radios from 50 plus years ago you are
talking about. The good ones were in wooden cases cost a fair amount
of money when new and had excellent audio that did not have to be fixed
by the owner.





You're both comparing apples and oranges. He's referring to the
Hallicrafters, Hammarlunds, Nationals, et al, and you're referring to
the Philco's, Zenith's and Scott's.

The premium Halli's could be outfitted with a factory speaker,
usually in an open backed case, and usually stamped metal. Similarly,
the Hammars, Nationals, were also availed of externals in metal
cabinets. They were anything but high fidelity, though the receivers
were capable of surprisingly good audio. (Many were even designed to use
the audio stage as a phono amplifier. All my Halli's, Hammar's and
Nationals have this function. Such receivers did not have internal
speakers.) Only the entry and low/mid level receivers had internal
speakers.

The real glaring exception was the Hallicrafter's R-12 speaker. It
was big, came in quite a well made wooden cabinet and would make you
drool connected to the right receiver. With an SX-28, you'd never need
another woman again.

The cost was comparable to one, too.

The Philco's, Zenith's, Scott's, and their like, all had internals,
came in furniture grade wooden cabinets. And they, too, were capable of
some really nice audio. And though they were SW capable, they were NOT
communications receivers.

And that's where the confusion lies.

Philco and Zenith beat each other senseless in print over speaker
size. Not unike the horsepower wars that erupted when Ford took on Chevy
with it's own V-8. Bigger was better and sound was everything. Such
receivers were not particularly selective, which made them inadequate
for tough captures that SX-28 could handle easily. But damn they
sounded good.

The communications receivers, on the other hand focussed more on
performance than furniture, and were capable of significantly better
sensitivity and selectivity than the livingroom consoles. And though the
audio amps in these sets were livingroom entertainment grade, the
speaker that you blew the final audio into was a matter of personal
choice, and an external accessory.

BTW, these cheap, cheesy radios were some of the most expensive
receivers on the market in their day. And at one point, the Hammarlund
Super Pro series topped out at $980, at the dawn of the 50's.
Halli's less so, in accordance with Bill Halligan's mission...but they
were not cheap. And most of the comm receivers were more expensive than
the livingroom consoles by Zenith, Philco and the like.


All we were talking about were shortwave receivers with decent
reception capabilities that delivered very enjoyable audio out of the
box. We were not talking about communications receivers which are
completely different in more than one respect. Usually they are
capable of digging out signals from poor conditions but the audio is
usually average to sub-par ewven after speakers are added. It's an
apples and oranges comparison that has value only as a way of extending
discussions.

Grundig Satellit800
 

Grundig Satellit800
 

D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.
Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.
Neither of us were commenting on the speaker alone. We were talking
about the radio as a complete unit having excellent sound reproduction
abilities.

Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.
Nonsese. Just look at all of the am and shortwave floor and table
model radios some of which came with huge speakers and most all of
which used wooden cases.

And often people would then plug in external speakers, for better sound
but also to get the speaker away from where it can mechanically modulate
the receivers local oscillator. The better receivers didn't even
bother, expecting you to use an external speaker that would be better
than could be offered inside.
Actually the better receiver makers did bother to design a complete
unit that did not require that any aural shortcomings be repaired at
additional expense of the owner. That silliness came later.


However small and portable receivers have become, most are not using
them as portable radios. It's no problem at all to plug an external
speaker in, and then sound quality of the speaker will never be a factor.
You are missing the point about the RF5000 again. And the Satellit 800
is touted as being an excellent armchair listeners radio. It isn't as
designed. It is good but not at the same level as a 30 year old
Panasonic shortwave radio that can be had for $100.00 in excellent
condition on Ebay.


ANd of course, decades ago, the external speakers that matched the radios
often weren't that great. An open-backed metal case, or a piece of cheap
plastic? The only advantage would have been if they put some money into
the speaker. But now, one can buy low end but compact stereo speakers that
are far better than those old matching external speakers.
I have no idea what cheap cheesy radios from 50 plus years ago you are
talking about. The good ones were in wooden cases cost a fair amount
of money when new and had excellent audio that did not have to be fixed
by the owner.




You're both comparing apples and oranges. He's referring to the
Hallicrafters, Hammarlunds, Nationals, et al, and you're referring to
the Philco's, Zenith's and Scott's.

The premium Halli's could be outfitted with a factory speaker,
usually in an open backed case, and usually stamped metal. Similarly,
the Hammars, Nationals, were also availed of externals in metal
cabinets. They were anything but high fidelity, though the receivers
were capable of surprisingly good audio. (Many were even designed to use
the audio stage as a phono amplifier. All my Halli's, Hammar's and
Nationals have this function. Such receivers did not have internal
speakers.) Only the entry and low/mid level receivers had internal
speakers.

The real glaring exception was the Hallicrafter's R-12 speaker. It
was big, came in quite a well made wooden cabinet and would make you
drool connected to the right receiver. With an SX-28, you'd never need
another woman again.

The cost was comparable to one, too.

The Philco's, Zenith's, Scott's, and their like, all had internals,
came in furniture grade wooden cabinets. And they, too, were capable of
some really nice audio. And though they were SW capable, they were NOT
communications receivers.

And that's where the confusion lies.

Philco and Zenith beat each other senseless in print over speaker
size. Not unike the horsepower wars that erupted when Ford took on Chevy
with it's own V-8. Bigger was better and sound was everything. Such
receivers were not particularly selective, which made them inadequate
for tough captures that SX-28 could handle easily. But damn they
sounded good.

The communications receivers, on the other hand focussed more on
performance than furniture, and were capable of significantly better
sensitivity and selectivity than the livingroom consoles. And though the
audio amps in these sets were livingroom entertainment grade, the
speaker that you blew the final audio into was a matter of personal
choice, and an external accessory.

BTW, these cheap, cheesy radios were some of the most expensive
receivers on the market in their day. And at one point, the Hammarlund
Super Pro series topped out at $980, at the dawn of the 50's.
Halli's less so, in accordance with Bill Halligan's mission...but they
were not cheap. And most of the comm receivers were more expensive than
the livingroom consoles by Zenith, Philco and the like.


All we were talking about were shortwave receivers with decent
reception capabilities that delivered very enjoyable audio out of the
box. We were not talking about communications receivers which are
completely different in more than one respect.




You weren't. He was. And that was my first point.

Please read the message before attempting to compose a response. The
original poster in this thread said the Panasonic RF5000 delivered
excellent audio, to which I agreed. At no point did he or I drag the
irrelevant comparison of communications receivers into the discussion.
Good grief.





Usually they are
capable of digging out signals from poor conditions but the audio is
usually average to sub-par ewven after speakers are added.


Actually, it was the added speaker that was average to sub par.

Still an improvement to a communications receiver which may not have
had a speaker to begin with. But if the audio quality is still
substandard, then why bother.

Factory produced accessory speakers for comm sets were of shaped
response. For intelligibility rather than high fidelity. However the
detector and audio stage of many of the comm receivers of the period to
which you refer WERE of exceptional audio quality. Only the speaker set
them apart, sonically, from the livingroom consoles. To the degree that
the audio stage of these comm receivers was on par with the finest
entertainment systems of the day...used the same tubes and transformers
as the Zenith and Philco sets... and was designed to be used for
connecting a phonograph or record changer. Adding the right speaker was
all that was necessary to complete the system. As the Hallicrafters R-12
was intended to do. But such rigs came with no internal like the less
expensive sets. For a variety of reasons. Users of higher end sets
normally already had one or two receivers in their listening
environments, and already had speakers for them. Including a speaker
with every receiver was not only not necessary, but a waste of
resources, at a time when free spending wasn't a part of the lifestyle.
Another is that users often connected their rigs through a single common
audio output on the desk for all receivers. Such rigs had high impedance
outputs that could either be connected to multitap repeating coils, or
mixing amplifiers. Speakers for every radio were not necesary.

But the receiver audio was, in fact, very good. It was the audio
shaped by the speaker that made the difference between entertainment
quality and comm quality.




It's an apples and oranges comparison that has value only as a way of extending
discussions.



All right. you're not interested in the full picture.



I'm mnore interested in talking about the topic at hand and not
wandering aimlessly around looking for ways to justify ownership of
communications receivers.


Got it.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

Grundig Satellit800
 

This newsgroup has dwindled into every thread turning into ****ing matches
and back biting. Does anybody moderate this group at all? Certainly it must
be or there would be more Viagra advertisements.

I'm wondering how many people are turned off by this hobby when they read
some of theses posts? Please don't anyone answer as it would only be
something negative and mean spirited.

So I guess that's it for the Grundig Sat 800 talk...

By the way, if there is a moderator here and you need some help, I would be
willing to volunteer part of my time to help moderate this group.

Grundig Satellit800
 

In article ,
"Jill Stafford" wrote:

This newsgroup has dwindled into every thread turning into ****ing matches
and back biting. Does anybody moderate this group at all? Certainly it must
be or there would be more Viagra advertisements.

I'm wondering how many people are turned off by this hobby when they read
some of theses posts? Please don't anyone answer as it would only be
something negative and mean spirited.

So I guess that's it for the Grundig Sat 800 talk...

By the way, if there is a moderator here and you need some help, I would be
willing to volunteer part of my time to help moderate this group.

Nobody moderates the news group. You have to learn how to deal with the
public. You set your own lines by filtering the news group so you read
people you want to read and kill file the rest. If you can't do that
with Outlook then get yourself a dedicated news reader.

A news group has to be created with the moderating function. This news
group was created years ago as an open news group.

Problems with moderation is that people want their posts to show up
quickly. When the news servers are working well it is a little slower
than chat.

For you to moderate the news group all posts are mailed to you and then
you post the ones on the news server that meet the stated news group
rules. Are you willing to sit there a good part of the day and night to
do this? Probably not. You could start a white list of people that pass
through your computer to automatically post but you would have to go
back and cancel them if anyone on that list that got out of hand. I
can't think of an automated way to do this that would be satisfactory
and fast. You could cut down the crap on the news group but not all of
it and posting would get delayed.

Any problems that you have personally, computer problems, or ISP
problems, or problems with your news provider Giga news bring the entire
news group to a halt. This happens all the time on moderated news groups.

People already have the option of moderated news groups like the ones on
Yahoo. Go there and create one to your liking. It's easier than creating
a new Usenet news group. People have done this already so go check them
out.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Grundig Satellit800
 

Grundig Satellit800
 

D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.
Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.
Neither of us were commenting on the speaker alone. We were talking
about the radio as a complete unit having excellent sound reproduction
abilities.

Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.
Nonsese. Just look at all of the am and shortwave floor and table
model radios some of which came with huge speakers and most all of
which used wooden cases.

And often people would then plug in external speakers, for better sound
but also to get the speaker away from where it can mechanically modulate
the receivers local oscillator. The better receivers didn't even
bother, expecting you to use an external speaker that would be better
than could be offered inside.
Actually the better receiver makers did bother to design a complete
unit that did not require that any aural shortcomings be repaired at
additional expense of the owner. That silliness came later.


However small and portable receivers have become, most are not using
them as portable radios. It's no problem at all to plug an external
speaker in, and then sound quality of the speaker will never be a factor.
You are missing the point about the RF5000 again. And the Satellit 800
is touted as being an excellent armchair listeners radio. It isn't as
designed. It is good but not at the same level as a 30 year old
Panasonic shortwave radio that can be had for $100.00 in excellent
condition on Ebay.


ANd of course, decades ago, the external speakers that matched the radios
often weren't that great. An open-backed metal case, or a piece of cheap
plastic? The only advantage would have been if they put some money into
the speaker. But now, one can buy low end but compact stereo speakers that
are far better than those old matching external speakers.
I have no idea what cheap cheesy radios from 50 plus years ago you are
talking about. The good ones were in wooden cases cost a fair amount
of money when new and had excellent audio that did not have to be fixed
by the owner.



You're both comparing apples and oranges. He's referring to the
Hallicrafters, Hammarlunds, Nationals, et al, and you're referring to
the Philco's, Zenith's and Scott's.

The premium Halli's could be outfitted with a factory speaker,
usually in an open backed case, and usually stamped metal. Similarly,
the Hammars, Nationals, were also availed of externals in metal
cabinets. They were anything but high fidelity, though the receivers
were capable of surprisingly good audio. (Many were even designed to use
the audio stage as a phono amplifier. All my Halli's, Hammar's and
Nationals have this function. Such receivers did not have internal
speakers.) Only the entry and low/mid level receivers had internal
speakers.

The real glaring exception was the Hallicrafter's R-12 speaker. It
was big, came in quite a well made wooden cabinet and would make you
drool connected to the right receiver. With an SX-28, you'd never need
another woman again.

The cost was comparable to one, too.

The Philco's, Zenith's, Scott's, and their like, all had internals,
came in furniture grade wooden cabinets. And they, too, were capable of
some really nice audio. And though they were SW capable, they were NOT
communications receivers.

And that's where the confusion lies.

Philco and Zenith beat each other senseless in print over speaker
size. Not unike the horsepower wars that erupted when Ford took on Chevy
with it's own V-8. Bigger was better and sound was everything. Such
receivers were not particularly selective, which made them inadequate
for tough captures that SX-28 could handle easily. But damn they
sounded good.

The communications receivers, on the other hand focussed more on
performance than furniture, and were capable of significantly better
sensitivity and selectivity than the livingroom consoles. And though the
audio amps in these sets were livingroom entertainment grade, the
speaker that you blew the final audio into was a matter of personal
choice, and an external accessory.

BTW, these cheap, cheesy radios were some of the most expensive
receivers on the market in their day. And at one point, the Hammarlund
Super Pro series topped out at $980, at the dawn of the 50's.
Halli's less so, in accordance with Bill Halligan's mission...but they
were not cheap. And most of the comm receivers were more expensive than
the livingroom consoles by Zenith, Philco and the like.

All we were talking about were shortwave receivers with decent
reception capabilities that delivered very enjoyable audio out of the
box. We were not talking about communications receivers which are
completely different in more than one respect.



You weren't. He was. And that was my first point.

Please read the message before attempting to compose a response. The
original poster in this thread said the Panasonic RF5000 delivered
excellent audio, to which I agreed. At no point did he or I drag the
irrelevant comparison of communications receivers into the discussion.
Good grief.



Actually, if YOU read more closely, you'll see that was exactly
what he was doing. The receivers to which he referred, were comm receivers.


Good grief...please go back and re-read the thread before posting
anything else. I was responding to:

"Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A."

And not surprisingly I agreed wholeheartedly.

Someone else wanted to re-direct the discussion to what was initially
an un-described kind shortwave receiver but later became communications
receivers. I had and still have no interest in comparing the
performance of receivers that are designed for such different purposes:
Broadcast receivers and communications receivers. You and the other
individual may have an interest in such a fruitless exercise, but I
don't. Go play your games elsewhere.

Grundig Satellit800
 

Grundig Satellit800
 

Light be the turf O'Heaven.Back to me movie now on Radio tb,Sounder.
cuhulin

Grundig Satellit800
 

Doggy,she is havin a good day,,,,, sleepin down betwixt me knees.Go
figure.
cuhulin