On Sep 25, 7:52 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
If by "expanded coverage" you mean the addition of the LW band on the 160,
that is seen by some as a negative. The fifth band added to the same-size
window makes it slightly more crowded and hard to read, and there's nothing
to listen to on LW anymore. Wasted space.

"Roadie" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Sep 24, 6:29 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
Sorry for the blatant shilling, but it's possible someone here may be
interested in this. Yes, it's mine.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=190155553202&...

Jeff

They are a fun to use radio if you enjoy bandspread tuning. There are
more similarities than differences between the 150, 150A, 150B and
160. However, in reference to the auction comments I would say the
150b had a slight edge because of the relatively improved selectivity
from a mechanical filter and the 160 because of extended coverage.

Best of luck with the auction.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I said something like "slight edge". That series is best
viewed as four very similar radios with each subsequent one offering a
small improvement. Whether you listen to LW or not isn't the issue.
The capability of the radio was improved, if slightly.

Not everyone sees it that way. The DX-150A was an improvement over the 150,
but then cost-cutting and marketing kicked in as they began to use ICs,
remove the internal speaker, make the knobs plastic push-on instead of
machined aluminum with a set screw, etc.

It's not always true that subsequent models in a series are better, and a
lot of people feel that the 150A is the one to have in this series.


"Roadie" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 25, 7:52 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
If by "expanded coverage" you mean the addition of the LW band on the
160,
that is seen by some as a negative. The fifth band added to the
same-size
window makes it slightly more crowded and hard to read, and there's
nothing
to listen to on LW anymore. Wasted space.

"Roadie" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Sep 24, 6:29 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
Sorry for the blatant shilling, but it's possible someone here may be
interested in this. Yes, it's mine.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=190155553202&...

Jeff

They are a fun to use radio if you enjoy bandspread tuning. There are
more similarities than differences between the 150, 150A, 150B and
160. However, in reference to the auction comments I would say the
150b had a slight edge because of the relatively improved selectivity
from a mechanical filter and the 160 because of extended coverage.

Best of luck with the auction.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I said something like "slight edge". That series is best
viewed as four very similar radios with each subsequent one offering a
small improvement. Whether you listen to LW or not isn't the issue.
The capability of the radio was improved, if slightly.

On Sep 26, 6:30 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
Not everyone sees it that way. The DX-150A was an improvement over the 150,
but then cost-cutting and marketing kicked in

Every one of those radios were low-end entry level models that would
do passable job of catching signals if you could put up with drift,
inaccurate dial, modest selectivity, image signals and somewhat harsh
audio.

There isn't a radio around that is not subject to heavy marketing, so
I don't see your point.

as they began to use ICs,

So what. Welcome to the world of modern electronics. Should we
critizize the many top-end shortwave receivers of today because they
use IC's as well? Can you imagine the forest of soldered in discreete
components if we didn't use IC's? And can you imagine the cost?



remove the internal speaker,

The external speaker resulted in moderately improved audio quality and
it looked good.

make the knobs plastic push-on instead of
machined aluminum with a set screw, etc.

No big deal on a budget consumer shortwave radio because it works and
looks just as good.


It's not always true that subsequent models in a series are better, and a
lot of people feel that the 150A is the one to have in this series.

"Roadie" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Sep 25, 7:52 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
If by "expanded coverage" you mean the addition of the LW band on the
160,
that is seen by some as a negative. The fifth band added to the
same-size
window makes it slightly more crowded and hard to read, and there's
nothing
to listen to on LW anymore. Wasted space.

"Roadie" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Sep 24, 6:29 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
Sorry for the blatant shilling, but it's possible someone here may be
interested in this. Yes, it's mine.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=190155553202&...

Jeff

They are a fun to use radio if you enjoy bandspread tuning. There are
more similarities than differences between the 150, 150A, 150B and
160. However, in reference to the auction comments I would say the
150b had a slight edge because of the relatively improved selectivity
from a mechanical filter and the 160 because of extended coverage.

Best of luck with the auction.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I said something like "slight edge". That series is best
viewed as four very similar radios with each subsequent one offering a
small improvement. Whether you listen to LW or not isn't the issue.
The capability of the radio was improved, if slightly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've been following this thread for a while, but had to jump in when someone
said to get a speaker from a dead Drake! Now that hurts, because the only
rigs at this QTH are Drakes, and there are no dead one! They all live... LOL

And yes, I bought my first receiver with a paper route income. It was an
Hallicrafters SX-11 that cost me $15.00. Try to buy one of those now.

Mike/K5VSE


--
Formerly WB6VSE, Senior Tech. Amateur Division
SBE/Linear Systems, Watsonville, CA
Pupule384 On 3922 Nightly
WEB Site: http://members.tripod.com/~sjsharks/index.html
Restoring and using Drake Radios, TR-4, TR-4C, RV-4C,
Drake Twins: "C" line, W-4 Wattmeter, L4-B amplifier
APA 220, USS Okanogan, LSD31, USS Point Defiance
All email scanned with Norton 2008
"In God We Trust"

Mena Mike wrote:

I've been following this thread for a while, but had to jump in when someone
said to get a speaker from a dead Drake! Now that hurts, because the only
rigs at this QTH are Drakes, and there are no dead one! They all live... LOL


Apparently, it was the resident troll.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

RA 14808903
cuhulin

Michael A. Terrell, you came out of that fake phonograph room,eh?

I have been lookin overrrrr my shoulderrrrrrr,,,,,, for a fourrrrr leaf
cloverrrrrrrrrr,,,,,,,,
cuhulin

On Sep 27, 1:05 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Mena Mike wrote:

I've been following this thread for a while, but had to jump in when someone
said to get a speaker from a dead Drake! Now that hurts, because the only
rigs at this QTH are Drakes, and there are no dead one! They all live... LOL

Apparently, it was the resident troll.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

You've been such a lousy ghost writer though. I hate to say it but I'm
firing you.

On Sep 24, 5:29 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
Sorry for the blatant shilling, but it's possible someone here may be
interested in this. Yes, it's mine.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=190155553202&...

Jeff

Junque

On Sep 24, 5:29 am, "Unrevealed Source"
wrote:
Sorry for the blatant shilling, but it's possible someone here may be
interested in this. Yes, it's mine.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=190155553202&...

Jeff

This was, and still is the biggest piece of trash receiver that
unRealistic ever squeezed out of their anal repository. Why would
anyone in their right mind want to collect such junk?

Gosh, let's stay with talking about old classic radios, not this horse
hockey.