REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

In a recent receiver article, Phil of R75 fame made some negative comments
on the TT RX-340. I asked my friend who is an RX-340 expert to comment.
these are not my comments but the source is someone whose opinion is above
question on this subject. Unless you have really used and understand the
340, you don't know what you are talking about.

here is what he wrote me:
*********************************

What is he talking about? He NEVER has tried an RX-340, or any of the other
radios he compares in his charts OTHER THAN that OVERRATED R-75. He has his
head up his ass on the following issues:

1. The RX-340, he says, has poor dynamic range. This declaration is
deceptive! In truth, the dynamic range of the 340 is excellent in almost
every aspect except in one type of monitoring condition in which it IS poor:
in VERY CLOSE-IN conditions--less than 2KHz--under extreme duress. In those
instances, yes, the d r is poor! He's right only in these instances.
Fortunately for any RX-340 user, these conditions rarely are encountered
because the filtering is superb, the front end is excellent, and blocking is
good. Here's an example of where the RX-340's d r WILL behave poorly.
Let's say you have an RX-340. You have it attached to a high-performance,
outside antenna. You are tuned to 882 kHz trying to hear a very weak
transatlantic/transpacific medium wave signal from half-way around the world
at s3 or s4 on your meter. You are located in Eastchester NY, only 6 miles
away from 50 KW WCBS NYC on 880 kHz, just two kHz away from the weak station
you are after and they are hitting your s-meter at 80 db over s-9. (BTW,
that's a rock-crushingly strong signal next to a weakling of a signal.)
With this being the case the 340 will, very annoyingly, splatter out the
weak signal and will most likely "de-sense" for about 5 kHz on either side
of 880 kHz. Not good. So, yes, Phil is right to criticize the 340 as
having poor d r, but only under these circumstances. It is a limitation of
the 16 bit DSP processor in the 340 being compromised in this aspect of
performance.

2. Phil says the RX-340 has fair audio. Never having had any real-world,
hands on experience with an 340 he relies on a discredited internet report
by written by Jan Alverstad of Norway. This report was discredited by REAL
RX-340 owners because Alverstad admits to not spending the proper amount of
time needed to adjust and learn the radio!! So he makes a report slamming
the audio in narrow SSB as poor when he didn't know that the AGC, the
Variable IF Gain control and the PBT MUST be "set-up" BEFORE you can recover
good audio. He would have had better results if he bothered to spend time
reading the manual. No, the 340 is not hard at all to use. It doesn't take
a lot of time to learn it. But you cannot just use it out of the box like
you can with most other radios. The first-time 340 user HAS to read the
manual first--it's friggin' common sense on a complicated, unconventional
radio!! The audio, especially in SSB is not just good, it is outstanding.
Refer to Larry Magne's review in PWBR in regards to what he calls
"breathtakingly low distortion in SSB."

3. The SAM is fair, Phil says. In my opinion, he's right to a certain
extent. But it isn't ALWAYS fair. Most of the time, about 80 percent of
the time, the SAM works well, but not as well as the R8-B. The 340 synch
quirks has been well-documented by PWBR, 340 "gurus" Albert Belle Isle and
Carl Moreschi, and by myself on eHam. And as for the remaining 20 percent
of the time? The SAM is indeed only fair. This is because when the desired
signal goes into a rapid, deep fade, the synch "lets go" of the signal
causing a disruptive clicking which grows tiresome and distracting. Using a
long hang time setting helps iron this out considerably. There is another
situation--part of the 20 percent--that causes the SAM to misbehave. When
there is an extremely, key word: extremely, strong, nearby signal 5 kHz away
from the one you are tuned to, the synch throws a fit. It starts to "pop"
and "screech" loudly. Really no excuse for a great radio to have. TenTec
failed on this. But overall the synch is just OK. This feature is the
340's major fault; it's ONLY major fault luckily. What redeems the 340 and
prevents me from hating it for its fair synch is that the radio delivers
outstanding manual ECSS, better than any other radio I have ever owned.
When all of the parameters are properly adjusted--PBT, AGC speed, IF Gain
setting, BW--the recovered audio is similar to the audio of the HF-225 with
its synch on and in the HiFI mode.

4. The internal speaker is poor. No qualms here, he's right. But big
****ting deal. Who wants to use a small 3" top-firing speaker on a $4,000
radio? Put a REALLY good speaker on the 340--I use and LOVE the Sounds
Sweet--and you'll be happy.

5. The display, Phil says, is fair. WHAT??? The display is a thing of
beauty. The readablitlty is great; the S-Meter is very large and pleasing
and esay to read and is professional and accurate. The contrast/brightness
is fully adjustable. The read-out is HUGE. Why does he say that the
display is fair? He never sat in fron of a 340 so where does he get his
info from?

Phil, not having any hands-on, real-world experience using an 340, takes
ANECDOTAL information from PWBR and on-line reviews and publishes them out
of context. This is the most egregious thing to do when claiming to be
writing a review of receiver performance specs. It is a disservice to the
hobby!

REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

mike maghakian wrote:

In a recent receiver article, Phil of R75 fame made some negative comments
on the TT RX-340. I asked my friend who is an RX-340 expert to comment.
these are not my comments but the source is someone whose opinion is above
question on this subject. Unless you have really used and understand the
340, you don't know what you are talking about.

I used one for about a month. It went back home to Tennessee.
All I can really say is that that's some pretty expensive sheet metal work.



here is what he wrote me:
*********************************

What is he talking about? He NEVER has tried an RX-340, or any of the other
radios he compares in his charts OTHER THAN that OVERRATED R-75. He has his
head up his ass on the following issues:

1. The RX-340, he says, has poor dynamic range. This declaration is
deceptive! In truth, the dynamic range of the 340 is excellent in almost
every aspect except in one type of monitoring condition in which it IS poor:
in VERY CLOSE-IN conditions--less than 2KHz--under extreme duress. In those
instances, yes, the d r is poor! He's right only in these instances.
Fortunately for any RX-340 user, these conditions rarely are encountered
because the filtering is superb, the front end is excellent, and blocking is
good. Here's an example of where the RX-340's d r WILL behave poorly.
Let's say you have an RX-340. You have it attached to a high-performance,
outside antenna. You are tuned to 882 kHz trying to hear a very weak
transatlantic/transpacific medium wave signal from half-way around the world
at s3 or s4 on your meter. You are located in Eastchester NY, only 6 miles
away from 50 KW WCBS NYC on 880 kHz, just two kHz away from the weak station
you are after and they are hitting your s-meter at 80 db over s-9. (BTW,
that's a rock-crushingly strong signal next to a weakling of a signal.)
With this being the case the 340 will, very annoyingly, splatter out the
weak signal and will most likely "de-sense" for about 5 kHz on either side
of 880 kHz. Not good. So, yes, Phil is right to criticize the 340 as
having poor d r, but only under these circumstances. It is a limitation of
the 16 bit DSP processor in the 340 being compromised in this aspect of
performance.

2. Phil says the RX-340 has fair audio. Never having had any real-world,
hands on experience with an 340 he relies on a discredited internet report
by written by Jan Alverstad of Norway. This report was discredited by REAL
RX-340 owners because Alverstad admits to not spending the proper amount of
time needed to adjust and learn the radio!! So he makes a report slamming
the audio in narrow SSB as poor when he didn't know that the AGC, the
Variable IF Gain control and the PBT MUST be "set-up" BEFORE you can recover
good audio. He would have had better results if he bothered to spend time
reading the manual. No, the 340 is not hard at all to use. It doesn't take
a lot of time to learn it. But you cannot just use it out of the box like
you can with most other radios. The first-time 340 user HAS to read the
manual first--it's friggin' common sense on a complicated, unconventional
radio!! The audio, especially in SSB is not just good, it is outstanding.
Refer to Larry Magne's review in PWBR in regards to what he calls
"breathtakingly low distortion in SSB."

3. The SAM is fair, Phil says. In my opinion, he's right to a certain
extent. But it isn't ALWAYS fair. Most of the time, about 80 percent of
the time, the SAM works well, but not as well as the R8-B. The 340 synch
quirks has been well-documented by PWBR, 340 "gurus" Albert Belle Isle and
Carl Moreschi, and by myself on eHam. And as for the remaining 20 percent
of the time? The SAM is indeed only fair. This is because when the desired
signal goes into a rapid, deep fade, the synch "lets go" of the signal
causing a disruptive clicking which grows tiresome and distracting. Using a
long hang time setting helps iron this out considerably. There is another
situation--part of the 20 percent--that causes the SAM to misbehave. When
there is an extremely, key word: extremely, strong, nearby signal 5 kHz away
from the one you are tuned to, the synch throws a fit. It starts to "pop"
and "screech" loudly. Really no excuse for a great radio to have. TenTec
failed on this. But overall the synch is just OK. This feature is the
340's major fault; it's ONLY major fault luckily. What redeems the 340 and
prevents me from hating it for its fair synch is that the radio delivers
outstanding manual ECSS, better than any other radio I have ever owned.
When all of the parameters are properly adjusted--PBT, AGC speed, IF Gain
setting, BW--the recovered audio is similar to the audio of the HF-225 with
its synch on and in the HiFI mode.

4. The internal speaker is poor. No qualms here, he's right. But big
****ting deal. Who wants to use a small 3" top-firing speaker on a $4,000
radio? Put a REALLY good speaker on the 340--I use and LOVE the Sounds
Sweet--and you'll be happy.

5. The display, Phil says, is fair. WHAT??? The display is a thing of
beauty. The readablitlty is great; the S-Meter is very large and pleasing
and esay to read and is professional and accurate. The contrast/brightness
is fully adjustable. The read-out is HUGE. Why does he say that the
display is fair? He never sat in fron of a 340 so where does he get his
info from?

Phil, not having any hands-on, real-world experience using an 340, takes
ANECDOTAL information from PWBR and on-line reviews and publishes them out
of context. This is the most egregious thing to do when claiming to be
writing a review of receiver performance specs. It is a disservice to the
hobby!

REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

Whew! we sure can get hot under the collar when we own a mega buck radio!
It's just natural human nature when you have spent over 4k for a radio that
you are going to defend it to the hilt.

Fact is that two of my serious DX mates owned them and sold them off as
mediocre DX machines.

Fact also is that the Icom R75 is amazing value for money in a top class DX
machine for around 500 bucks
--
John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
RX Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
Drake SW8 & ERGO software
Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100
BW XCR 30, Sangean 803A.
GE circa 50's radiogram
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof mini-whip
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
. ..
In a recent receiver article, Phil of R75 fame made some negative comments
on the TT RX-340. I asked my friend who is an RX-340 expert to comment.
these are not my comments but the source is someone whose opinion is above
question on this subject. Unless you have really used and understand the
340, you don't know what you are talking about.

here is what he wrote me:
*********************************

What is he talking about? He NEVER has tried an RX-340, or any of the
other radios he compares in his charts OTHER THAN that OVERRATED R-75. He
has his head up his ass on the following issues:

1. The RX-340, he says, has poor dynamic range. This declaration is
deceptive! In truth, the dynamic range of the 340 is excellent in almost
every aspect except in one type of monitoring condition in which it IS
poor: in VERY CLOSE-IN conditions--less than 2KHz--under extreme duress.
In those instances, yes, the d r is poor! He's right only in these
instances. Fortunately for any RX-340 user, these conditions rarely are
encountered because the filtering is superb, the front end is excellent,
and blocking is good. Here's an example of where the RX-340's d r WILL
behave poorly. Let's say you have an RX-340. You have it attached to a
high-performance, outside antenna. You are tuned to 882 kHz trying to
hear a very weak transatlantic/transpacific medium wave signal from
half-way around the world at s3 or s4 on your meter. You are located in
Eastchester NY, only 6 miles away from 50 KW WCBS NYC on 880 kHz, just two
kHz away from the weak station you are after and they are hitting your
s-meter at 80 db over s-9. (BTW, that's a rock-crushingly strong signal
next to a weakling of a signal.) With this being the case the 340 will,
very annoyingly, splatter out the weak signal and will most likely
"de-sense" for about 5 kHz on either side of 880 kHz. Not good. So, yes,
Phil is right to criticize the 340 as having poor d r, but only under
these circumstances. It is a limitation of the 16 bit DSP processor in
the 340 being compromised in this aspect of performance.

2. Phil says the RX-340 has fair audio. Never having had any real-world,
hands on experience with an 340 he relies on a discredited internet report
by written by Jan Alverstad of Norway. This report was discredited by
REAL RX-340 owners because Alverstad admits to not spending the proper
amount of time needed to adjust and learn the radio!! So he makes a
report slamming the audio in narrow SSB as poor when he didn't know that
the AGC, the Variable IF Gain control and the PBT MUST be "set-up" BEFORE
you can recover good audio. He would have had better results if he
bothered to spend time reading the manual. No, the 340 is not hard at all
to use. It doesn't take a lot of time to learn it. But you cannot just
use it out of the box like you can with most other radios. The first-time
340 user HAS to read the manual first--it's friggin' common sense on a
complicated, unconventional radio!! The audio, especially in SSB is not
just good, it is outstanding. Refer to Larry Magne's review in PWBR in
regards to what he calls "breathtakingly low distortion in SSB."

3. The SAM is fair, Phil says. In my opinion, he's right to a certain
extent. But it isn't ALWAYS fair. Most of the time, about 80 percent of
the time, the SAM works well, but not as well as the R8-B. The 340 synch
quirks has been well-documented by PWBR, 340 "gurus" Albert Belle Isle
and Carl Moreschi, and by myself on eHam. And as for the remaining 20
percent of the time? The SAM is indeed only fair. This is because when
the desired signal goes into a rapid, deep fade, the synch "lets go" of
the signal causing a disruptive clicking which grows tiresome and
distracting. Using a long hang time setting helps iron this out
considerably. There is another situation--part of the 20 percent--that
causes the SAM to misbehave. When there is an extremely, key word:
extremely, strong, nearby signal 5 kHz away from the one you are tuned to,
the synch throws a fit. It starts to "pop" and "screech" loudly. Really
no excuse for a great radio to have. TenTec failed on this. But overall
the synch is just OK. This feature is the 340's major fault; it's ONLY
major fault luckily. What redeems the 340 and prevents me from hating it
for its fair synch is that the radio delivers outstanding manual ECSS,
better than any other radio I have ever owned. When all of the parameters
are properly adjusted--PBT, AGC speed, IF Gain setting, BW--the recovered
audio is similar to the audio of the HF-225 with its synch on and in the
HiFI mode.

4. The internal speaker is poor. No qualms here, he's right. But big
****ting deal. Who wants to use a small 3" top-firing speaker on a $4,000
radio? Put a REALLY good speaker on the 340--I use and LOVE the Sounds
Sweet--and you'll be happy.

5. The display, Phil says, is fair. WHAT??? The display is a thing of
beauty. The readablitlty is great; the S-Meter is very large and pleasing
and esay to read and is professional and accurate. The
contrast/brightness is fully adjustable. The read-out is HUGE. Why does
he say that the display is fair? He never sat in fron of a 340 so where
does he get his info from?

Phil, not having any hands-on, real-world experience using an 340, takes
ANECDOTAL information from PWBR and on-line reviews and publishes them out
of context. This is the most egregious thing to do when claiming to be
writing a review of receiver performance specs. It is a disservice to the
hobby!

REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

mike maghakian wrote:
In a recent receiver article, Phil of R75 fame made some negative comments
on the TT RX-340. I asked my friend who is an RX-340 expert to comment.
these are not my comments but the source is someone whose opinion is above
question on this subject. Unless you have really used and understand the
340, you don't know what you are talking about.

here is what he wrote me:
*********************************

What is he talking about? He NEVER has tried an RX-340, or any of the other
radios he compares in his charts OTHER THAN that OVERRATED R-75. He has his
head up his ass on the following issues:

1. The RX-340, he says, has poor dynamic range. This declaration is
deceptive! In truth, the dynamic range of the 340 is excellent in almost
every aspect except in one type of monitoring condition in which it IS poor:
in VERY CLOSE-IN conditions--less than 2KHz--under extreme duress. In those
instances, yes, the d r is poor! He's right only in these instances.
Fortunately for any RX-340 user, these conditions rarely are encountered
because the filtering is superb, the front end is excellent, and blocking is
good. Here's an example of where the RX-340's d r WILL behave poorly.
Let's say you have an RX-340. You have it attached to a high-performance,
outside antenna. You are tuned to 882 kHz trying to hear a very weak
transatlantic/transpacific medium wave signal from half-way around the world
at s3 or s4 on your meter. You are located in Eastchester NY, only 6 miles
away from 50 KW WCBS NYC on 880 kHz, just two kHz away from the weak station
you are after and they are hitting your s-meter at 80 db over s-9. (BTW,
that's a rock-crushingly strong signal next to a weakling of a signal.)
With this being the case the 340 will, very annoyingly, splatter out the
weak signal and will most likely "de-sense" for about 5 kHz on either side
of 880 kHz. Not good. So, yes, Phil is right to criticize the 340 as
having poor d r, but only under these circumstances. It is a limitation of
the 16 bit DSP processor in the 340 being compromised in this aspect of
performance.

2. Phil says the RX-340 has fair audio. Never having had any real-world,
hands on experience with an 340 he relies on a discredited internet report
by written by Jan Alverstad of Norway. This report was discredited by REAL
RX-340 owners because Alverstad admits to not spending the proper amount of
time needed to adjust and learn the radio!! So he makes a report slamming
the audio in narrow SSB as poor when he didn't know that the AGC, the
Variable IF Gain control and the PBT MUST be "set-up" BEFORE you can recover
good audio. He would have had better results if he bothered to spend time
reading the manual. No, the 340 is not hard at all to use. It doesn't take
a lot of time to learn it. But you cannot just use it out of the box like
you can with most other radios. The first-time 340 user HAS to read the
manual first--it's friggin' common sense on a complicated, unconventional
radio!! The audio, especially in SSB is not just good, it is outstanding.
Refer to Larry Magne's review in PWBR in regards to what he calls
"breathtakingly low distortion in SSB."

3. The SAM is fair, Phil says. In my opinion, he's right to a certain
extent. But it isn't ALWAYS fair. Most of the time, about 80 percent of
the time, the SAM works well, but not as well as the R8-B. The 340 synch
quirks has been well-documented by PWBR, 340 "gurus" Albert Belle Isle and
Carl Moreschi, and by myself on eHam. And as for the remaining 20 percent
of the time? The SAM is indeed only fair. This is because when the desired
signal goes into a rapid, deep fade, the synch "lets go" of the signal
causing a disruptive clicking which grows tiresome and distracting. Using a
long hang time setting helps iron this out considerably. There is another
situation--part of the 20 percent--that causes the SAM to misbehave. When
there is an extremely, key word: extremely, strong, nearby signal 5 kHz away
from the one you are tuned to, the synch throws a fit. It starts to "pop"
and "screech" loudly. Really no excuse for a great radio to have. TenTec
failed on this. But overall the synch is just OK. This feature is the
340's major fault; it's ONLY major fault luckily. What redeems the 340 and
prevents me from hating it for its fair synch is that the radio delivers
outstanding manual ECSS, better than any other radio I have ever owned.
When all of the parameters are properly adjusted--PBT, AGC speed, IF Gain
setting, BW--the recovered audio is similar to the audio of the HF-225 with
its synch on and in the HiFI mode.

4. The internal speaker is poor. No qualms here, he's right. But big
****ting deal. Who wants to use a small 3" top-firing speaker on a $4,000
radio? Put a REALLY good speaker on the 340--I use and LOVE the Sounds
Sweet--and you'll be happy.

5. The display, Phil says, is fair. WHAT??? The display is a thing of
beauty. The readablitlty is great; the S-Meter is very large and pleasing
and esay to read and is professional and accurate. The contrast/brightness
is fully adjustable. The read-out is HUGE. Why does he say that the
display is fair? He never sat in fron of a 340 so where does he get his
info from?

Phil, not having any hands-on, real-world experience using an 340, takes
ANECDOTAL information from PWBR and on-line reviews and publishes them out
of context. This is the most egregious thing to do when claiming to be
writing a review of receiver performance specs. It is a disservice to the
hobby!

Sorry, to tell you, but Phil is dead right !

REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

wrote:
mike maghakian wrote:
In a recent receiver article, Phil of R75 fame made some negative comments
on the TT RX-340. I asked my friend who is an RX-340 expert to comment.
these are not my comments but the source is someone whose opinion is above
question on this subject. Unless you have really used and understand the
340, you don't know what you are talking about.

here is what he wrote me:
*********************************

What is he talking about? He NEVER has tried an RX-340, or any of the other
radios he compares in his charts OTHER THAN that OVERRATED R-75. He has his
head up his ass on the following issues:

1. The RX-340, he says, has poor dynamic range. This declaration is
deceptive! In truth, the dynamic range of the 340 is excellent in almost
every aspect except in one type of monitoring condition in which it IS poor:
in VERY CLOSE-IN conditions--less than 2KHz--under extreme duress. In those
instances, yes, the d r is poor! He's right only in these instances.
Fortunately for any RX-340 user, these conditions rarely are encountered
because the filtering is superb, the front end is excellent, and blocking is
good. Here's an example of where the RX-340's d r WILL behave poorly.
Let's say you have an RX-340. You have it attached to a high-performance,
outside antenna. You are tuned to 882 kHz trying to hear a very weak
transatlantic/transpacific medium wave signal from half-way around the world
at s3 or s4 on your meter. You are located in Eastchester NY, only 6 miles
away from 50 KW WCBS NYC on 880 kHz, just two kHz away from the weak station
you are after and they are hitting your s-meter at 80 db over s-9. (BTW,
that's a rock-crushingly strong signal next to a weakling of a signal.)
With this being the case the 340 will, very annoyingly, splatter out the
weak signal and will most likely "de-sense" for about 5 kHz on either side
of 880 kHz. Not good. So, yes, Phil is right to criticize the 340 as
having poor d r, but only under these circumstances. It is a limitation of
the 16 bit DSP processor in the 340 being compromised in this aspect of
performance.

2. Phil says the RX-340 has fair audio. Never having had any real-world,
hands on experience with an 340 he relies on a discredited internet report
by written by Jan Alverstad of Norway. This report was discredited by REAL
RX-340 owners because Alverstad admits to not spending the proper amount of
time needed to adjust and learn the radio!! So he makes a report slamming
the audio in narrow SSB as poor when he didn't know that the AGC, the
Variable IF Gain control and the PBT MUST be "set-up" BEFORE you can recover
good audio. He would have had better results if he bothered to spend time
reading the manual. No, the 340 is not hard at all to use. It doesn't take
a lot of time to learn it. But you cannot just use it out of the box like
you can with most other radios. The first-time 340 user HAS to read the
manual first--it's friggin' common sense on a complicated, unconventional
radio!! The audio, especially in SSB is not just good, it is outstanding.
Refer to Larry Magne's review in PWBR in regards to what he calls
"breathtakingly low distortion in SSB."

3. The SAM is fair, Phil says. In my opinion, he's right to a certain
extent. But it isn't ALWAYS fair. Most of the time, about 80 percent of
the time, the SAM works well, but not as well as the R8-B. The 340 synch
quirks has been well-documented by PWBR, 340 "gurus" Albert Belle Isle and
Carl Moreschi, and by myself on eHam. And as for the remaining 20 percent
of the time? The SAM is indeed only fair. This is because when the desired
signal goes into a rapid, deep fade, the synch "lets go" of the signal
causing a disruptive clicking which grows tiresome and distracting. Using a
long hang time setting helps iron this out considerably. There is another
situation--part of the 20 percent--that causes the SAM to misbehave. When
there is an extremely, key word: extremely, strong, nearby signal 5 kHz away
from the one you are tuned to, the synch throws a fit. It starts to "pop"
and "screech" loudly. Really no excuse for a great radio to have. TenTec
failed on this. But overall the synch is just OK. This feature is the
340's major fault; it's ONLY major fault luckily. What redeems the 340 and
prevents me from hating it for its fair synch is that the radio delivers
outstanding manual ECSS, better than any other radio I have ever owned.
When all of the parameters are properly adjusted--PBT, AGC speed, IF Gain
setting, BW--the recovered audio is similar to the audio of the HF-225 with
its synch on and in the HiFI mode.

4. The internal speaker is poor. No qualms here, he's right. But big
****ting deal. Who wants to use a small 3" top-firing speaker on a $4,000
radio? Put a REALLY good speaker on the 340--I use and LOVE the Sounds
Sweet--and you'll be happy.

5. The display, Phil says, is fair. WHAT??? The display is a thing of
beauty. The readablitlty is great; the S-Meter is very large and pleasing
and esay to read and is professional and accurate. The contrast/brightness
is fully adjustable. The read-out is HUGE. Why does he say that the
display is fair? He never sat in fron of a 340 so where does he get his
info from?

Phil, not having any hands-on, real-world experience using an 340, takes
ANECDOTAL information from PWBR and on-line reviews and publishes them out
of context. This is the most egregious thing to do when claiming to be
writing a review of receiver performance specs. It is a disservice to the
hobby!

Sorry, to tell you, but Phil is dead right !

I picked one up at the hamfest over here a few months back. It didn't
weigh nearly what I thought it would. Not like a Harris 590 or a
Racal. So for dollars/pound I would have to say it's an industry
leader.

I'm listening to 3867.5 sideband on my Racal RA-17L now (using bfo) and
it sounds pretty darn good. I don't think I need a TenTec for now.

73
NEO

REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

mike maghakian wrote:
In a recent receiver article, Phil of R75 fame made some negative comments
on the TT RX-340. I asked my friend who is an RX-340 expert to comment.
these are not my comments but the source is someone whose opinion is above
question on this subject. Unless you have really used and understand the
340, you don't know what you are talking about.

here is what he wrote me:
*********************************

What is he talking about? He NEVER has tried an RX-340, or any of the other
radios he compares in his charts OTHER THAN that OVERRATED R-75. He has his
head up his ass on the following issues:

1. The RX-340, he says, has poor dynamic range. This declaration is
deceptive! In truth, the dynamic range of the 340 is excellent in almost
every aspect except in one type of monitoring condition in which it IS poor:
in VERY CLOSE-IN conditions--less than 2KHz--under extreme duress. In those
instances, yes, the d r is poor! He's right only in these instances.
Fortunately for any RX-340 user, these conditions rarely are encountered
because the filtering is superb, the front end is excellent, and blocking is
good. Here's an example of where the RX-340's d r WILL behave poorly.
Let's say you have an RX-340. You have it attached to a high-performance,
outside antenna. You are tuned to 882 kHz trying to hear a very weak
transatlantic/transpacific medium wave signal from half-way around the world
at s3 or s4 on your meter. You are located in Eastchester NY, only 6 miles
away from 50 KW WCBS NYC on 880 kHz, just two kHz away from the weak station
you are after and they are hitting your s-meter at 80 db over s-9. (BTW,
that's a rock-crushingly strong signal next to a weakling of a signal.)
With this being the case the 340 will, very annoyingly, splatter out the
weak signal and will most likely "de-sense" for about 5 kHz on either side
of 880 kHz. Not good. So, yes, Phil is right to criticize the 340 as
having poor d r, but only under these circumstances. It is a limitation of
the 16 bit DSP processor in the 340 being compromised in this aspect of
performance.

2. Phil says the RX-340 has fair audio. Never having had any real-world,
hands on experience with an 340 he relies on a discredited internet report
by written by Jan Alverstad of Norway. This report was discredited by REAL
RX-340 owners because Alverstad admits to not spending the proper amount of
time needed to adjust and learn the radio!! So he makes a report slamming
the audio in narrow SSB as poor when he didn't know that the AGC, the
Variable IF Gain control and the PBT MUST be "set-up" BEFORE you can recover
good audio. He would have had better results if he bothered to spend time
reading the manual. No, the 340 is not hard at all to use. It doesn't take
a lot of time to learn it. But you cannot just use it out of the box like
you can with most other radios. The first-time 340 user HAS to read the
manual first--it's friggin' common sense on a complicated, unconventional
radio!! The audio, especially in SSB is not just good, it is outstanding.
Refer to Larry Magne's review in PWBR in regards to what he calls
"breathtakingly low distortion in SSB."

3. The SAM is fair, Phil says. In my opinion, he's right to a certain
extent. But it isn't ALWAYS fair. Most of the time, about 80 percent of
the time, the SAM works well, but not as well as the R8-B. The 340 synch
quirks has been well-documented by PWBR, 340 "gurus" Albert Belle Isle and
Carl Moreschi, and by myself on eHam. And as for the remaining 20 percent
of the time? The SAM is indeed only fair. This is because when the desired
signal goes into a rapid, deep fade, the synch "lets go" of the signal
causing a disruptive clicking which grows tiresome and distracting. Using a
long hang time setting helps iron this out considerably. There is another
situation--part of the 20 percent--that causes the SAM to misbehave. When
there is an extremely, key word: extremely, strong, nearby signal 5 kHz away
from the one you are tuned to, the synch throws a fit. It starts to "pop"
and "screech" loudly. Really no excuse for a great radio to have. TenTec
failed on this. But overall the synch is just OK. This feature is the
340's major fault; it's ONLY major fault luckily. What redeems the 340 and
prevents me from hating it for its fair synch is that the radio delivers
outstanding manual ECSS, better than any other radio I have ever owned.
When all of the parameters are properly adjusted--PBT, AGC speed, IF Gain
setting, BW--the recovered audio is similar to the audio of the HF-225 with
its synch on and in the HiFI mode.

4. The internal speaker is poor. No qualms here, he's right. But big
****ting deal. Who wants to use a small 3" top-firing speaker on a $4,000
radio? Put a REALLY good speaker on the 340--I use and LOVE the Sounds
Sweet--and you'll be happy.

5. The display, Phil says, is fair. WHAT??? The display is a thing of
beauty. The readablitlty is great; the S-Meter is very large and pleasing
and esay to read and is professional and accurate. The contrast/brightness
is fully adjustable. The read-out is HUGE. Why does he say that the
display is fair? He never sat in fron of a 340 so where does he get his
info from?

Phil, not having any hands-on, real-world experience using an 340, takes
ANECDOTAL information from PWBR and on-line reviews and publishes them out
of context. This is the most egregious thing to do when claiming to be
writing a review of receiver performance specs. It is a disservice to the
hobby!

In two adjacent messages you have tried to convince us that the three
opinions of Phil, Jan and Dave about this radio are wrong and your one
opinion is somehow the right one. I'm not sure I understand why you
are getting so wound up about what is little more than anecdotal
evidence about one radio with a very small following. Unless of course
you possibly have another reason. Maybe you are getting ready to sell
one on Ebay and just saw the market value take hit. If so, maybe you
should take a lesson from your friend Radiomart and ignore the comments
of others and just get on with business. Or maybe you just can't stand
the thought of three people having an opinion that differs from yours.

My all-time favorite radio is the Kenwood R5000 and it had it's share
of warts which were repeated by many reviewers. Whether we like how
the radio feels, know how it works and know the bands are really the
most important criteria for picking one receiver over another.

Your opinion about that radio is just another one to be added to the
list. But you do seem to be outnumbered.

REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
I'm not sure I understand why you
are getting so wound up about what is little more than anecdotal
evidence about one radio with a very small following. Unless of course
you possibly have another reason. Maybe you are getting ready to sell
one on Ebay and just saw the market value take hit.


Not every counter intuitive opinion indicates ulterior motive.

Mike's character, from those of us who have had ongoing exchanges
with him, suggest that his motives are anything but disingenuous.

I'm trying to figure out his motives for launching two tirades against
three other individuals because they expressed an opinion that differed
from his. Those individuals give the impression of being at least as
qualified as he is to express an opinion on a radio.

I think that Mike should not get so wound up because not everyone else
shares his view of that radio. From what I've read not many are really
that impressed with it. But if it's a radio that he likes and enjoys
tuning the bands with then more power to him.

REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

In article . com,
wrote:

mike maghakian wrote:
In a recent receiver article, Phil of R75 fame made some negative
comments on the TT RX-340. I asked my friend who is an RX-340
expert to comment. these are not my comments but the source is
someone whose opinion is above question on this subject. Unless you
have really used and understand the 340, you don't know what you
are talking about.

here is what he wrote me: *********************************

What is he talking about? He NEVER has tried an RX-340, or any of
the other radios he compares in his charts OTHER THAN that
OVERRATED R-75. He has his head up his ass on the following
issues:

1. The RX-340, he says, has poor dynamic range. This declaration
is deceptive! In truth, the dynamic range of the 340 is excellent
in almost every aspect except in one type of monitoring condition
in which it IS poor: in VERY CLOSE-IN conditions--less than
2KHz--under extreme duress. In those instances, yes, the d r is
poor! He's right only in these instances. Fortunately for any
RX-340 user, these conditions rarely are encountered because the
filtering is superb, the front end is excellent, and blocking is
good. Here's an example of where the RX-340's d r WILL behave
poorly. Let's say you have an RX-340. You have it attached to a
high-performance, outside antenna. You are tuned to 882 kHz trying
to hear a very weak transatlantic/transpacific medium wave signal
from half-way around the world at s3 or s4 on your meter. You are
located in Eastchester NY, only 6 miles away from 50 KW WCBS NYC on
880 kHz, just two kHz away from the weak station you are after and
they are hitting your s-meter at 80 db over s-9. (BTW, that's a
rock-crushingly strong signal next to a weakling of a signal.) With
this being the case the 340 will, very annoyingly, splatter out the
weak signal and will most likely "de-sense" for about 5 kHz on
either side of 880 kHz. Not good. So, yes, Phil is right to
criticize the 340 as having poor d r, but only under these
circumstances. It is a limitation of the 16 bit DSP processor in
the 340 being compromised in this aspect of performance.

2. Phil says the RX-340 has fair audio. Never having had any
real-world, hands on experience with an 340 he relies on a
discredited internet report by written by Jan Alverstad of Norway.
This report was discredited by REAL RX-340 owners because Alverstad
admits to not spending the proper amount of time needed to adjust
and learn the radio!! So he makes a report slamming the audio in
narrow SSB as poor when he didn't know that the AGC, the Variable
IF Gain control and the PBT MUST be "set-up" BEFORE you can recover
good audio. He would have had better results if he bothered to
spend time reading the manual. No, the 340 is not hard at all to
use. It doesn't take a lot of time to learn it. But you cannot
just use it out of the box like you can with most other radios.
The first-time 340 user HAS to read the manual first--it's friggin'
common sense on a complicated, unconventional radio!! The audio,
especially in SSB is not just good, it is outstanding. Refer to
Larry Magne's review in PWBR in regards to what he calls
"breathtakingly low distortion in SSB."

3. The SAM is fair, Phil says. In my opinion, he's right to a
certain extent. But it isn't ALWAYS fair. Most of the time, about
80 percent of the time, the SAM works well, but not as well as the
R8-B. The 340 synch quirks has been well-documented by PWBR, 340
"gurus" Albert Belle Isle and Carl Moreschi, and by myself on eHam.
And as for the remaining 20 percent of the time? The SAM is
indeed only fair. This is because when the desired signal goes
into a rapid, deep fade, the synch "lets go" of the signal causing
a disruptive clicking which grows tiresome and distracting. Using
a long hang time setting helps iron this out considerably. There
is another situation--part of the 20 percent--that causes the SAM
to misbehave. When there is an extremely, key word: extremely,
strong, nearby signal 5 kHz away from the one you are tuned to, the
synch throws a fit. It starts to "pop" and "screech" loudly.
Really no excuse for a great radio to have. TenTec failed on this.
But overall the synch is just OK. This feature is the 340's major
fault; it's ONLY major fault luckily. What redeems the 340 and
prevents me from hating it for its fair synch is that the radio
delivers outstanding manual ECSS, better than any other radio I
have ever owned. When all of the parameters are properly
adjusted--PBT, AGC speed, IF Gain setting, BW--the recovered audio
is similar to the audio of the HF-225 with its synch on and in the
HiFI mode.

4. The internal speaker is poor. No qualms here, he's right. But
big ****ting deal. Who wants to use a small 3" top-firing speaker
on a $4,000 radio? Put a REALLY good speaker on the 340--I use and
LOVE the Sounds Sweet--and you'll be happy.

5. The display, Phil says, is fair. WHAT??? The display is a
thing of beauty. The readablitlty is great; the S-Meter is very
large and pleasing and esay to read and is professional and
accurate. The contrast/brightness is fully adjustable. The
read-out is HUGE. Why does he say that the display is fair? He
never sat in fron of a 340 so where does he get his info from?

Phil, not having any hands-on, real-world experience using an 340,
takes ANECDOTAL information from PWBR and on-line reviews and
publishes them out of context. This is the most egregious thing to
do when claiming to be writing a review of receiver performance
specs. It is a disservice to the hobby!

In two adjacent messages you have tried to convince us that the three
opinions of Phil, Jan and Dave about this radio are wrong and your
one opinion is somehow the right one. I'm not sure I understand why
you are getting so wound up about what is little more than anecdotal
evidence about one radio with a very small following. Unless of
course you possibly have another reason. Maybe you are getting ready
to sell one on Ebay and just saw the market value take hit. If so,
maybe you should take a lesson from your friend Radiomart and ignore
the comments of others and just get on with business. Or maybe you
just can't stand the thought of three people having an opinion that
differs from yours.

My all-time favorite radio is the Kenwood R5000 and it had it's share
of warts which were repeated by many reviewers. Whether we like how
the radio feels, know how it works and know the bands are really the
most important criteria for picking one receiver over another.

Your opinion about that radio is just another one to be added to the
list. But you do seem to be outnumbered.

Mike is pretty much on target on his comments. The other people
referenced are entirely off base. I've owned one for years, love the
performance and I'm not selling it.

I'd rather be a part of the correct minority than part of the incorrect
majority.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
 

EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE:


I HAVE NEVER OWNED A 340
I DON'T THINK I NEED TO BUY A 340
I DON'T HAVE ONE TO SELL
I DIDN'T WRITE THOSE COMMENTS, MY FRIEND DID !!!!!
MY FRIEND HAS OWNED HIS 340 FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND HAS BEEN IN THE HOBBY OVER
25 YEARS AND HAS OWNED MY IMPRESSIVE RECEIVERS INCLUDING THE WJ COUSIN TO
THE 340
MY FRIEND KNOWS THINGS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE 340 THAT MOST PEOPLE WILL
NEVER READ IN PRINT