|
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
|
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
|
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 |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
oops, that should read MANY receivers, not MY
"mike maghakian" wrote in message ... 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 |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
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 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. ================================================== ========================= Peter and T-man are correct. MM is quite right on the RX340. i'm on my second one here. wish i still had the first one. oldest grandson talked me out of it. the 340 is not for everyone. it's like a Racal or a WJ. you don't just turn it on and listen. there's a lot more to it than that. read the manual and play. it does it all. first rate rig. as for Mike, i have bought, sold, and traded with him. he is one of the good guys in our hobby. Father Michael. |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
In article ,
"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. Compared to other analog radios the dynamic range specification is not good but in practice it is OK. Keep in mind that this is a hybrid radio with an analog front end and DSP back end so the specifications don't translate the same as a comparison between two analog radios. In actuality I have not come across a situation where the dynamic range caused a reception problem. 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." The report of fair audio is absolutely incorrect in all respects. The audio is excellent on AM and SSB. The SSB audio is the best I have heard. Yes you do have to adjust the radio to get good audio. No it is not hard to set the radio up to get good audio for AM or SSB. The radio is very straight forward to operate. 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. The sync does lose lock on rapid deep fades. If you are in the side band selected sync mode you can get some pop-ing noise in the audio on rapid deep fading condition but not in DSB sync mode. Fiddling with the AGC functions can help. I never had a nearby station cause the sync to squeal. The sync is satisfactory 95% of the time. 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. The internal speak is convenient to use when moving the radio around. No the sound is not great but it is OK. I just use a Sony book shelf speaker or headphones with the RX-340 same as I do with the Drake R8B and the AOR7030+ I own. 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? The display is great with all functions shown at the same time, it looks good, and is easy to read at a distance. My only gripe is that they used a bulb for the S meter that can and did burn out. I replaced the bulb with LEDs and that problem is solved. 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! Quoting bad information on the web and not using the radio himself makes for a lame pointless review. I've own this radio for years now and am very happy with it. I don't see the price going down on it either. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
mike maghakian wrote: 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 Stop screaming.. you woke me up. |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
dxAcehole wrote:
Stop screaming.. you woke me up. It would take a lot more than screaming to wake YOU up. Unfortunately, miracles are few and far between these days. mike |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
m II wrote: dxAcehole wrote: Stop screaming.. you woke me up. It would take a lot more than screaming to wake YOU up. Unfortunately, miracles are few and far between these days. Yes, I can understand that those miracles are indeed few and far between in CanaDuh these days! Me, I'm in the US of A where miracles are commonplace. You may now return to smoking crack, you fruit-loop 'tard boy. dxAce Michigan USA |
REBUTTAL TO ASININE COMMENTS BY dxASS
dxAcehole wrote:
m II wrote: dxAcehole wrote: Stop screaming.. you woke me up. It would take a lot more than screaming to wake YOU up. Unfortunately, miracles are few and far between these days. Yes, I can understand that those miracles are indeed few and far between in CanaDuh these days! Is that what your Presiduhhnt says? Me, I'm in the US of A where miracles are commonplace. They must be. You found someone to type your postings into the computer. Say hi to your next door neighbour, Manuel, for me...or did you kill him with your axe handle last night? mike |
REBUTTAL TO ASININE COMMENTS BY dxASS
m II wrote: dxAcehole wrote: m II wrote: dxAcehole wrote: Stop screaming.. you woke me up. It would take a lot more than screaming to wake YOU up. Unfortunately, miracles are few and far between these days. Yes, I can understand that those miracles are indeed few and far between in CanaDuh these days! Is that what your Presiduhhnt says? Me, I'm in the US of A where miracles are commonplace. They must be. You found someone to type your postings into the computer. Say hi to your next door neighbour, Manuel, for me...or did you kill him with your axe handle last night? Keep hitting that pipe, fruit-loop! dxAce Michigan USA |
REBUTTAL TO ASININE COMMENTS BY dxASS
dxAce wrote in
: m II wrote: dxAcehole wrote: m II wrote: dxAcehole wrote: Stop screaming.. you woke me up. It would take a lot more than screaming to wake YOU up. Unfortunately, miracles are few and far between these days. Yes, I can understand that those miracles are indeed few and far between in CanaDuh these days! Is that what your Presiduhhnt says? Me, I'm in the US of A where miracles are commonplace. They must be. You found someone to type your postings into the computer. Say hi to your next door neighbour, Manuel, for me...or did you kill him with your axe handle last night? Keep hitting that pipe, fruit-loop! dxAce Michigan USA Those Kanadians really have a hard-on for you. SC |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
John Plimmer wrote: 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! First of all, let me say that it's pointless to fight a "my favorite radio is better than your favorite radio" war. If you like your radio but the other guy hates it, well who cares? The important thing is that YOU enjoy your particular radio and it's obviously doing the job for you. But I'd like to add my 2 cents about the Ten-Tec RX340 anyway. I have a Ten-Tec RX340. I can honestly say it's the best "table top communications receiver" I ever had. Period. I can say this after having owned the following table top radios (in no particular order): Drake R8B Drake R7A JRC NRD-545 JRC NRD-535D JRC NRD-525 JRC NRD-515 AOR AR-3030 ICOM R71A ICOM R70 YAESU FRG-7700 YAESU FRG-8800 HAMMARLUND HQ-180AC HAMMARLUND HQ-100 HALLICRAFTERS S-20R HALLICRAFTERS S-120 HALLICRAFTERS S-118 BTW, I still have the Drake R7A and JRC NRD-515. They are real gems. I'm not going to list all the reasons why the 340 is the best rx I ever owned, there's just too many of them. If you had an RX340 and ditched it, if you prefer a Drake R8 or ICOM R75 or AOR 7030 instead, that's cool. Enjoy your radio and have fun. After all, isn't that the whole point of our hobby? |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
PWBR spoon fed the "experts" the RX340 and now they cannot admit that
the $1500 24-bit ADC 746Pro performs better. So they resort to lying, foul language, bashing Dave/Jan, and "appeal to authority" fallacies. I'm sorry I p4wn3d your "expert" 2 years ago. I hope he gets over it. phil :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phils_radio_articles/ [Files Only] |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
Hi Phil,
I would like to try a 746Pro. I had a 756 Pro & it was pretty nice . I have read the 746Pro performs better ? I am just really nervous about the display backlight going out. I wonder what it costs to fix this "feature" ? Ken wrote: PWBR spoon fed the "experts" the RX340 and now they cannot admit that the $1500 24-bit ADC 746Pro performs better. So they resort to lying, foul language, bashing Dave/Jan, and "appeal to authority" fallacies. I'm sorry I p4wn3d your "expert" 2 years ago. I hope he gets over it. phil :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phils_radio_articles/ [Files Only] |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
In article .com,
"Ken Wilson" wrote: Hi Phil, I would like to try a 746Pro. I had a 756 Pro & it was pretty nice . I have read the 746Pro performs better ? I am just really nervous about the display backlight going out. I wonder what it costs to fix this "feature" ? Ken wrote: PWBR spoon fed the "experts" the RX340 and now they cannot admit that the $1500 24-bit ADC 746Pro performs better. So they resort to lying, foul language, bashing Dave/Jan, and "appeal to authority" fallacies. I'm sorry I p4wn3d your "expert" 2 years ago. I hope he gets over it. phil :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phils_radio_articles/ [Files Only] Oh yeah, as a shortwave listener I'm going to go right out and buy a Ham transceiver but then again Phil promised to come right over and act as a dummy load should I ever get the urge to key up the transmitter. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL
In article . com,
"N9NEO" wrote: Telamon wrote: In article .com, wrote: PWBR spoon fed the "experts" the RX340 and now they cannot admit that the $1500 24-bit ADC 746Pro performs better. So they resort to lying, foul language, bashing Dave/Jan, and "appeal to authority" fallacies. I'm sorry I p4wn3d your "expert" 2 years ago. I hope he gets over it. phil :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phils_radio_articles/ [Files Only] Nice Troll Phil. Sounds like you have a bad case of receiver envy to me. You have my sympathy. I'm still waiting for that R8 Polka button mod you promised and never delivered. -- Telamon Ventura, California Hey Mr Telemon Whats this Polka button mod? Ya think Can I get a Polka button mod for my Racal RA17L? If not maybe one for a Harris 590A? It's a button on your radio to get 50 KW Polka stations. Phil has a doctorate so anything is possible. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
REBUTTAL TO ASININE COMMENTS BY dxASS
On Nov 18, 9:21 am, m II wrote: dxAcehole wrote: m II wrote: dxAcehole wrote: Stop screaming.. you woke me up. It would take a lot more than screaming to wake YOU up. Unfortunately, miracles are few and far between these days. Yes, I can understand that those miracles are indeed few and far between in CanaDuh these days!Is that what your Presiduhhnt says? Me, I'm in the US of A where miracles are commonplace.They must be. You found someone to type your postings into the computer. Say hi to your next door neighbour, Manuel, for me...or did you kill him with your axe handle last night? mike M II - Once again you are clearly 'projecting' your Can-A-Duha-Ian National Pastime on to DX Ace. m ii - was 'manual' the name of your first baby seal ? ~ RHF |
Shortwave {Radio} Listening (SWL) - - - It's About Listening {Enjoying Your Radio}
On Nov 17, 8:38 pm, Telamon wrote: In article , "John Plimmer" wrote: "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! 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 bucksNo people get ****ed off at BS. Mike does not own an RX340 but I do and if it was mediocre I would sell it. -- Telamon Ventura, California Guys - Let Us All Remind Ourselves : One Man's Junk - Is Another Man's Treasure ! .. . . and conversely . . . One Man's Treasure - Is Another Man's Junk ! guy's - now go enjoy your respective radios ~ RHF Shortwave {Radio} Listening (SWL) - - - It's About Listening {The Joy in Listening} Broad-Cast {Radio} Listening (BCL) - - - It's About Listening {Enjoying Your Radio} |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com