RadioBanter - Receiver or Transceiver?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)

- - Receiver or Transceiver? (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/123586-receiver-transceiver.html)

Receiver or Transceiver?

I've been looking at buying a SW radio and was wondering if most receivers
offer more bands (frequencies) than transceivers?

I know I would need to have a license if I want to transmit but if I just
want to listen, then a receiver with plenty of band coverage would be nice.

I ask this because I was told that if I bought just a receiver then I would
be wishing I would have bought a transceiver to enjoy SW as a participant.

Then I read that someone new to SW I might be better off buying a receiver
and to see if they would really want to transmit as well.

Thanks for any and all help on this.

Receiver or Transceiver?

On 17 Aug, 22:31, "Dave" wrote:
I've been looking at buying a SW radio and was wondering if most receivers
offer more bands (frequencies) than transceivers?

I know I would need to have a license if I want to transmit but if I just
want to listen, then a receiver with plenty of band coverage would be nice.

I ask this because I was told that if I bought just a receiver then I would
be wishing I would have bought a transceiver to enjoy SW as a participant.

Then I read that someone new to SW I might be better off buying a receiver
and to see if they would really want to transmit as well.

Thanks for any and all help on this.

Depends on your mileage and ambitions. Current transceivers have
excellent general coverage properties but cost more. The Icom
IC-746Pro, IC-756-series and IC-7000 are excellent receivers but are
much more expensive than a general coverage receiver like the Icom
R75. They all cover at least up to 30 MHz continously, some are VHF
and UHF enabled. I suppose that Kenwood, Yaesu and other transceivers
are equally well equipped for SW DX. But in 95% of the cases you won't
hear more stations on a high-end transceiver than on a budget (R75)
receiver.

Receiver or Transceiver?

I used an Icom 735 transceiver for ten years to SWL and Amateur Radio. I
know it about matched a friend's Kenwood 5000 receiver for sensitivity. So
some transceivers can be excellant for SWLing with a decent outside antenna
setup and low electrical noise.
"Dave" wrote in message
t...
I've been looking at buying a SW radio and was wondering if most receivers
offer more bands (frequencies) than transceivers?

I know I would need to have a license if I want to transmit but if I just
want to listen, then a receiver with plenty of band coverage would be
nice.

I ask this because I was told that if I bought just a receiver then I
would be wishing I would have bought a transceiver to enjoy SW as a
participant.

Then I read that someone new to SW I might be better off buying a receiver
and to see if they would really want to transmit as well.

Thanks for any and all help on this.

Receiver or Transceiver?

On Aug 17, 1:31 pm, "Dave" wrote:
I've been looking at buying a SW radio and was wondering if most receivers
offer more bands (frequencies) than transceivers?

I know I would need to have a license if I want to transmit but if I just
want to listen, then a receiver with plenty of band coverage would be nice.

I ask this because I was told that if I bought just a receiver then I would
be wishing I would have bought a transceiver to enjoy SW as a participant.

Then I read that someone new to SW I might be better off buying a receiver
and to see if they would really want to transmit as well.

Thanks for any and all help on this.

It's almost always a mistake for a new hobbyist to buy a tabletop
radio, whether receiver or transceiver. There are many reasons why
this is so, but key among them is that choosing the right HF rig
involves knowledge of your operating modes and preferences which
generally isn't known until after you've done quite a bit of listening
and figured out what features and modes matter most to you. Then you
may realize you picked the "wrong" radio, and you're out a hefty sum
of cash wishing you had a different rig. Another key reason is that
desktop receivers and transceivers usually require a good outdoor
antenna to operate at all. A portable receiver can operate off its
built-in whip antenna, but most desktop radios will require that you
string up an antenna. There are few disappointments from gear worse
than spending $1000, $2000, perhaps more on a super high-end receiver
or transceiver and discovering that it's stone-deaf to shortwave
signals because you did not plan for a decent antenna system.

A portable is a much better choice to start with unless you already
have a ham license of the correct class to transmit on HF.

Find a local bookstore with "Passport to World Band Radio", check out
their reviews for radios in your price range. Basically, the majority
of decent SW radios cost at least $100, but there are several
exceptional models under $300, so there's no reason to spend more than
that. A $100-$300 budget is where I'd recommend, if that isn't too
much to lay out.

A good choice should:

1) have three or more stars in Passport's ratings
2) It must receive continuously from 3 - 30 Mhz or more with no gaps
3) It must have digital synthesis and digital read-out (avoid analog
dial radios or radios with analog tuning and a frequency counter to
make it look like it's digital, a trick found among the ultra-cheap
models)
4) It must have a jack to accept an outdoor antenna
5) It should support single sideband reception (USB and LSB) unless
you're absolutely certain you will never be interested in utility or
ham monitoring.

Now, if a ham or other friend offers to sell you a highly-rated ham
rig or desktop SWL radio used that meets your requirements, then you
might go for it. Ask around for opinions on the rig. If the price is
right, you might go for it. :) Just don't forget that desktop rigs
mean you should have an outdoor antenna.

Receiver or Transceiver?