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.

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.

If I had a choice, I'd pick the any of the 150-series units over the
160. The sound quality of the 160s are just awful-The filter is just too
aggressive, with no way to switch it out for casual listening.

-Scott

Scott W. Harvey wrote:


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.

If I had a choice, I'd pick the any of the 150-series units over the
160. The sound quality of the 160s are just awful-The filter is just too
aggressive, with no way to switch it out for casual listening.

-Scott


There are two caps on the 160 you can replace that will widen up the
audio nicely, without widening the IF bandwidth.

Makes all the difference.

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.

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 -

Roadie wrote:
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?





This series of radios was, indeed, entry level. Some would say they
were below that. At the time, they were relatively inexpensive,
reasonably well made, and when you turned them on, they made a sound.
For a lot of hobbyists, that was enough. And for them, this series of
radios was a benchmark of performance. Truth is, for most people who
bought these radios, they were the most radio they'd ever owned. And
pinnacles of serious listening hardware.

Just as some models are, today.

Then there were the hot rodders, who could modify them enough to make
them sing and dance with some of the mid level Hallicrafters.

For those of us who grew up on S-40's, the RS DX series was a nice
step laterally. Better cosmetics. Smaller footprint. Often more
features. And this alone was enough to think of them as a step-up.

But for those raised on HQ's and their like, these were nice rigs to
give beginners with the hopes that they would spark an interest in the
hobby, and an interest in better radios.

Which, they did.

The DX series were those radios that everyone remembers, and everyone
has an opinion of. And most everyone left behind fairly early on. They
served their purpose by putting reliable, working radios in the hands of
beginners at a price point.

To those who went on and left them behind, the debate over the rise
and decline of the line is almost surreal.

..........................................They
served their purpose by putting reliable, working radios in the hands of
beginners at a price point.

To those who went on and left them behind, the debate over the rise and
decline of the line is almost surreal.


Finally, a common horse sense posting!

Please be polite people. Life is too short to be ****y.

Don Quixote de la Mancha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote

Well said. We all have our "first radio" that spurred our interest in those
early days. Those that could afford, or maybe had a father that could, a
higher-end Hallicrafters or Hammarlund, were lucky and got spoiled. A lot
of us though had to save up our paper-route money to buy our own radio, and
these were still expensive for a 13-year kid.

I think you're giving the radio itself a bit of a short sell. These are
really very good radios. They are extremely sensitive, and (contrary to one
poster) have great image rejection which nearly cancels out the disadvantage
of single-conversion. They are very quiet with a low noise floor, and the
audio is pretty good. Put up a good outside longwire and you get excellent
results. And because they'll pull just about anything out there, they are a
lot of fun to cruise the bands with.

These are indeed "real radios" that were on par with some of the entry-level
Hallicrafters or similar, and thus (I believe) deserve some discussion of
variants and differences. A lot of people love these radios, and it's not
all nostalgia.



Roadie wrote:

This series of radios was, indeed, entry level. Some would say they were
below that. At the time, they were relatively inexpensive, reasonably well
made, and when you turned them on, they made a sound. For a lot of
hobbyists, that was enough. And for them, this series of radios was a
benchmark of performance. Truth is, for most people who bought these
radios, they were the most radio they'd ever owned. And pinnacles of
serious listening hardware.

Just as some models are, today.

Then there were the hot rodders, who could modify them enough to make
them sing and dance with some of the mid level Hallicrafters.

For those of us who grew up on S-40's, the RS DX series was a nice step
laterally. Better cosmetics. Smaller footprint. Often more features. And
this alone was enough to think of them as a step-up.

But for those raised on HQ's and their like, these were nice rigs to
give beginners with the hopes that they would spark an interest in the
hobby, and an interest in better radios.

Which, they did.

The DX series were those radios that everyone remembers, and everyone
has an opinion of. And most everyone left behind fairly early on. They
served their purpose by putting reliable, working radios in the hands of
beginners at a price point.

To those who went on and left them behind, the debate over the rise and
decline of the line is almost surreal.