dxAce raised the point that he would prefer to upgrade to a 1000 foot
antenna rather than upgrade to a better radio. This is a bit like
which came
first? the chicken or the egg? I have had extensive experience of
using
1000ft longwires or beverage antenna's on my DXpeditions over the
years and
indeed they do pull in the signals something awesome. But they also
pull in
more interfering stations that want to blot out your faint DX target,
and
also whatever QRM/RFI noise is floating around, they pull more of that
in
too.

So at the end of the day it still means it is better to DX with a top
end
radio that suppresses and minimises the offending signals and QRM that
are
interfering with your faint DX target.

Over the years I gradually upgraded my radio's to what I thought was
the
ultimate, a Drake R8B. I was quite satisfied with that until I was
loaned a
Rohde & Schwarz. Although the R & S did not have any more bells and
whistles
than my Drake, it was so clearly superior to my R8B that from then on
I
hankered after a better radio. The R&S just pulled in faint stations
that
did not even register on the R8B and then was also better able to
resolve to
audibility stations that were interfered with much better than the
R8B.

So I watched developments and then my good friend Guy pointed me
towards the
Icom IC-756PROIII, which I later acquired. This radio was indeed
better than
my R8B, see:
http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
So the 756Pro3 has really proved itself in the field, culminating in
the
catch of a lifetime: 1410 Khz, CFUN, Vancouver BC, Canada, some 14,000
miles
away from the Seefontein DX site. Whether or not I would have got this
catch
on my old R8B is a moot point - I don't think so as it was extremely
faint
and on the border of audibility, and my DX mates didn't get it either.
So I
am happy that the 756Pro3 paid for itself and that is why I am now
upgrading
to the new Icom IC-7700 which should be here in April. If I get only
one
more rare catch I will be satisfied that the 7700 has been a
worthwhile
investment.

But to keep things in perspective, I think the things that are
important to
good DX reception are, in order of importance:
1st.] A decent antenna, the best you can afford or rig up.
2nd.] Location. Most of us live in the city or suburbs and are either
in
condo's or on limited size plots, so our options are limited. That is
why
serious DXer's go to a lot of trouble and expense to find the "ideal"
DX
location. When you find a decent place, the results are VERY
rewarding.
3rd.] The radio. again, get the best you can afford. The results just
get
better and better.

I would liken our hobby to any sport. If you take golf and Tiger Woods
for
example. He has only the latest and most expensive cutting edge
equipment.
If he gets the latest $3000 putter and it allows him that extra inch
nearer
the hole, he is satisfied. So it is with radio gear and antenna's.

Have fun and good DX

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.
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof mini-whip
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

wrote:

dxAce raised the point that he would prefer to upgrade to a 1000 foot
antenna rather than upgrade to a better radio. This is a bit like
which came
first? the chicken or the egg? I have had extensive experience of
using
1000ft longwires or beverage antenna's on my DXpeditions over the
years and
indeed they do pull in the signals something awesome. But they also
pull in
more interfering stations that want to blot out your faint DX target,
and
also whatever QRM/RFI noise is floating around, they pull more of that
in
too.

So at the end of the day it still means it is better to DX with a top
end
radio that suppresses and minimises the offending signals and QRM that
are
interfering with your faint DX target.

Over the years I gradually upgraded my radio's to what I thought was
the
ultimate, a Drake R8B. I was quite satisfied with that until I was
loaned a
Rohde & Schwarz. Although the R & S did not have any more bells and
whistles
than my Drake, it was so clearly superior to my R8B that from then on
I
hankered after a better radio. The R&S just pulled in faint stations
that
did not even register on the R8B and then was also better able to
resolve to
audibility stations that were interfered with much better than the
R8B.

So I watched developments and then my good friend Guy pointed me
towards the
Icom IC-756PROIII, which I later acquired. This radio was indeed
better than
my R8B, see:
http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
So the 756Pro3 has really proved itself in the field, culminating in
the
catch of a lifetime: 1410 Khz, CFUN, Vancouver BC, Canada, some 14,000
miles
away from the Seefontein DX site.

That would be longpath then, pretty good.

On Mar 2, 9:45*pm, dxAce wrote:

That would be longpath then, pretty good.

Oops! Sorry = error!!!
That should read 10,000 miles/16,000 km's, so it is shortpath on a
darkness run. The path lies over the Atlantic and enters Canada near
St. John's and passes near Quebec then over the Prairies, past
Calgary, over the Rockies to Vancouver.

John Plimmer, Montagu, South Africa

On Mar 2, 11:18 am, wrote:
dxAce raised the point that he would prefer to upgrade to a 1000 foot
antenna rather than upgrade to a better radio. This is a bit like
which came
first? the chicken or the egg? I have had extensive experience of
using
1000ft longwires or beverage antenna's on my DXpeditions over the
years and
indeed they do pull in the signals something awesome. But they also
pull in
more interfering stations that want to blot out your faint DX target,
and
also whatever QRM/RFI noise is floating around, they pull more of that
in
too.

So at the end of the day it still means it is better to DX with a top
end
radio that suppresses and minimises the offending signals and QRM that
are
interfering with your faint DX target.

Over the years I gradually upgraded my radio's to what I thought was
the
ultimate, a Drake R8B. I was quite satisfied with that until I was
loaned a
Rohde & Schwarz. Although the R & S did not have any more bells and
whistles
than my Drake, it was so clearly superior to my R8B that from then on
I
hankered after a better radio. The R&S just pulled in faint stations
that
did not even register on the R8B and then was also better able to
resolve to
audibility stations that were interfered with much better than the
R8B.

So I watched developments and then my good friend Guy pointed me
towards the
Icom IC-756PROIII, which I later acquired. This radio was indeed
better than
my R8B, see:http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
So the 756Pro3 has really proved itself in the field, culminating in
the
catch of a lifetime: 1410 Khz, CFUN, Vancouver BC, Canada, some 14,000
miles
away from the Seefontein DX site. Whether or not I would have got this
catch
on my old R8B is a moot point - I don't think so as it was extremely
faint
and on the border of audibility, and my DX mates didn't get it either.
So I
am happy that the 756Pro3 paid for itself and that is why I am now
upgrading
to the new Icom IC-7700 which should be here in April. If I get only
one
more rare catch I will be satisfied that the 7700 has been a
worthwhile
investment.

But to keep things in perspective, I think the things that are
important to
good DX reception are, in order of importance:
1st.] A decent antenna, the best you can afford or rig up.
2nd.] Location. Most of us live in the city or suburbs and are either
in
condo's or on limited size plots, so our options are limited. That is
why
serious DXer's go to a lot of trouble and expense to find the "ideal"
DX
location. When you find a decent place, the results are VERY
rewarding.
3rd.] The radio. again, get the best you can afford. The results just
get
better and better.

I would liken our hobby to any sport. If you take golf and Tiger Woods
for
example. He has only the latest and most expensive cutting edge
equipment.
If he gets the latest $3000 putter and it allows him that extra inch
nearer
the hole, he is satisfied. So it is with radio gear and antenna's.

Have fun and good DX

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.
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof mini-whiphttp://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

It's been my experience with the Wellbrook ALA100 that more is more. I
have found increasing the length of a long wire to have diminishing
returns.

This would be a question for Andy Ikin at Wellbrook, but I believe the
ALA100 is gaining aperture based on the area of the loop. Making a
long wire longer should be a linear improvement, not a square power.
In the case of the ALA100, you would be increasing the length up to
the point where the loop is not longer considered small. For a long
wire, is their any improvement after reaching half a wavelength?

I find it hard to believe I could improve over my AR7030 reception,
outside of some fancy external synch scheme.

Regarding R&S, generally "pro" receivers assume you have a preamp by
the antenna. I find it hard to believe out of the box it is more
sensitive than commercial gear that doesn't presume a preamp will be
used.

wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:18 am, wrote:
dxAce raised the point that he would prefer to upgrade to a 1000 foot
antenna rather than upgrade to a better radio. This is a bit like
which came
first? the chicken or the egg? I have had extensive experience of
using
1000ft longwires or beverage antenna's on my DXpeditions over the
years and
indeed they do pull in the signals something awesome. But they also
pull in
more interfering stations that want to blot out your faint DX target,
and
also whatever QRM/RFI noise is floating around, they pull more of that
in
too.

So at the end of the day it still means it is better to DX with a top
end
radio that suppresses and minimises the offending signals and QRM that
are
interfering with your faint DX target.

Over the years I gradually upgraded my radio's to what I thought was
the
ultimate, a Drake R8B. I was quite satisfied with that until I was
loaned a
Rohde & Schwarz. Although the R & S did not have any more bells and
whistles
than my Drake, it was so clearly superior to my R8B that from then on
I
hankered after a better radio. The R&S just pulled in faint stations
that
did not even register on the R8B and then was also better able to
resolve to
audibility stations that were interfered with much better than the
R8B.

So I watched developments and then my good friend Guy pointed me
towards the
Icom IC-756PROIII, which I later acquired. This radio was indeed
better than
my R8B, see:http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
So the 756Pro3 has really proved itself in the field, culminating in
the
catch of a lifetime: 1410 Khz, CFUN, Vancouver BC, Canada, some 14,000
miles
away from the Seefontein DX site. Whether or not I would have got this
catch
on my old R8B is a moot point - I don't think so as it was extremely
faint
and on the border of audibility, and my DX mates didn't get it either.
So I
am happy that the 756Pro3 paid for itself and that is why I am now
upgrading
to the new Icom IC-7700 which should be here in April. If I get only
one
more rare catch I will be satisfied that the 7700 has been a
worthwhile
investment.

But to keep things in perspective, I think the things that are
important to
good DX reception are, in order of importance:
1st.] A decent antenna, the best you can afford or rig up.
2nd.] Location. Most of us live in the city or suburbs and are either
in
condo's or on limited size plots, so our options are limited. That is
why
serious DXer's go to a lot of trouble and expense to find the "ideal"
DX
location. When you find a decent place, the results are VERY
rewarding.
3rd.] The radio. again, get the best you can afford. The results just
get
better and better.

I would liken our hobby to any sport. If you take golf and Tiger Woods
for
example. He has only the latest and most expensive cutting edge
equipment.
If he gets the latest $3000 putter and it allows him that extra inch
nearer
the hole, he is satisfied. So it is with radio gear and antenna's.

Have fun and good DX

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.
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof mini-whiphttp://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

It's been my experience with the Wellbrook ALA100 that more is more. I
have found increasing the length of a long wire to have diminishing
returns.

This would be a question for Andy Ikin at Wellbrook, but I believe the
ALA100 is gaining aperture based on the area of the loop. Making a
long wire longer should be a linear improvement, not a square power.
In the case of the ALA100, you would be increasing the length up to
the point where the loop is not longer considered small. For a long
wire, is their any improvement after reaching half a wavelength?

You're kidding, right?

On Mar 2, 2:05 pm, dxAce wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:18 am, wrote:
dxAce raised the point that he would prefer to upgrade to a 1000 foot
antenna rather than upgrade to a better radio. This is a bit like
which came
first? the chicken or the egg? I have had extensive experience of
using
1000ft longwires or beverage antenna's on my DXpeditions over the
years and
indeed they do pull in the signals something awesome. But they also
pull in
more interfering stations that want to blot out your faint DX target,
and
also whatever QRM/RFI noise is floating around, they pull more of that
in
too.

So at the end of the day it still means it is better to DX with a top
end
radio that suppresses and minimises the offending signals and QRM that
are
interfering with your faint DX target.

Over the years I gradually upgraded my radio's to what I thought was
the
ultimate, a Drake R8B. I was quite satisfied with that until I was
loaned a
Rohde & Schwarz. Although the R & S did not have any more bells and
whistles
than my Drake, it was so clearly superior to my R8B that from then on
I
hankered after a better radio. The R&S just pulled in faint stations
that
did not even register on the R8B and then was also better able to
resolve to
audibility stations that were interfered with much better than the
R8B.

So I watched developments and then my good friend Guy pointed me
towards the
Icom IC-756PROIII, which I later acquired. This radio was indeed
better than
my R8B, see:http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
So the 756Pro3 has really proved itself in the field, culminating in
the
catch of a lifetime: 1410 Khz, CFUN, Vancouver BC, Canada, some 14,000
miles
away from the Seefontein DX site. Whether or not I would have got this
catch
on my old R8B is a moot point - I don't think so as it was extremely
faint
and on the border of audibility, and my DX mates didn't get it either.
So I
am happy that the 756Pro3 paid for itself and that is why I am now
upgrading
to the new Icom IC-7700 which should be here in April. If I get only
one
more rare catch I will be satisfied that the 7700 has been a
worthwhile
investment.

But to keep things in perspective, I think the things that are
important to
good DX reception are, in order of importance:
1st.] A decent antenna, the best you can afford or rig up.
2nd.] Location. Most of us live in the city or suburbs and are either
in
condo's or on limited size plots, so our options are limited. That is
why
serious DXer's go to a lot of trouble and expense to find the "ideal"
DX
location. When you find a decent place, the results are VERY
rewarding.
3rd.] The radio. again, get the best you can afford. The results just
get
better and better.

I would liken our hobby to any sport. If you take golf and Tiger Woods
for
example. He has only the latest and most expensive cutting edge
equipment.
If he gets the latest $3000 putter and it allows him that extra inch
nearer
the hole, he is satisfied. So it is with radio gear and antenna's.

Have fun and good DX

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.
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof mini-whiphttp://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

It's been my experience with the Wellbrook ALA100 that more is more. I
have found increasing the length of a long wire to have diminishing
returns.

This would be a question for Andy Ikin at Wellbrook, but I believe the
ALA100 is gaining aperture based on the area of the loop. Making a
long wire longer should be a linear improvement, not a square power.
In the case of the ALA100, you would be increasing the length up to
the point where the loop is not longer considered small. For a long
wire, is their any improvement after reaching half a wavelength?

You're kidding, right?

It would help if you asked the question in a more intelligent manner.
For instance, kidding about what in particular?

If it is the use of preamps with high end gear, this is obvious. Just
look at the high end icom gear. It is no where near as sensitive as a
say a HT. But you design a HT to have a small antenna, while your
R8600 will have larger iron attached. Also historically, preamps have
become quieter as technology improves. So with pro gear, you upgrade
the preamp and still keep the radio. The AR7030 is designed so that
you can turn the internal preamp off. This is not for dynamic range
consideration since the radio already has a wide dynamic range.
Rather, it is to allow for low noise preamps, multicouplers, etc.

You are welcome. Glad to be of service.

wrote:

On Mar 2, 2:05 pm, dxAce wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:18 am, wrote:
dxAce raised the point that he would prefer to upgrade to a 1000 foot
antenna rather than upgrade to a better radio. This is a bit like
which came
first? the chicken or the egg? I have had extensive experience of
using
1000ft longwires or beverage antenna's on my DXpeditions over the
years and
indeed they do pull in the signals something awesome. But they also
pull in
more interfering stations that want to blot out your faint DX target,
and
also whatever QRM/RFI noise is floating around, they pull more of that
in
too.

So at the end of the day it still means it is better to DX with a top
end
radio that suppresses and minimises the offending signals and QRM that
are
interfering with your faint DX target.

Over the years I gradually upgraded my radio's to what I thought was
the
ultimate, a Drake R8B. I was quite satisfied with that until I was
loaned a
Rohde & Schwarz. Although the R & S did not have any more bells and
whistles
than my Drake, it was so clearly superior to my R8B that from then on
I
hankered after a better radio. The R&S just pulled in faint stations
that
did not even register on the R8B and then was also better able to
resolve to
audibility stations that were interfered with much better than the
R8B.

So I watched developments and then my good friend Guy pointed me
towards the
Icom IC-756PROIII, which I later acquired. This radio was indeed
better than
my R8B, see:http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
So the 756Pro3 has really proved itself in the field, culminating in
the
catch of a lifetime: 1410 Khz, CFUN, Vancouver BC, Canada, some 14,000
miles
away from the Seefontein DX site. Whether or not I would have got this
catch
on my old R8B is a moot point - I don't think so as it was extremely
faint
and on the border of audibility, and my DX mates didn't get it either.
So I
am happy that the 756Pro3 paid for itself and that is why I am now
upgrading
to the new Icom IC-7700 which should be here in April. If I get only
one
more rare catch I will be satisfied that the 7700 has been a
worthwhile
investment.

But to keep things in perspective, I think the things that are
important to
good DX reception are, in order of importance:
1st.] A decent antenna, the best you can afford or rig up.
2nd.] Location. Most of us live in the city or suburbs and are either
in
condo's or on limited size plots, so our options are limited. That is
why
serious DXer's go to a lot of trouble and expense to find the "ideal"
DX
location. When you find a decent place, the results are VERY
rewarding.
3rd.] The radio. again, get the best you can afford. The results just
get
better and better.

I would liken our hobby to any sport. If you take golf and Tiger Woods
for
example. He has only the latest and most expensive cutting edge
equipment.
If he gets the latest $3000 putter and it allows him that extra inch
nearer
the hole, he is satisfied. So it is with radio gear and antenna's.

Have fun and good DX

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.
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof mini-whiphttp://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

It's been my experience with the Wellbrook ALA100 that more is more. I
have found increasing the length of a long wire to have diminishing
returns.

This would be a question for Andy Ikin at Wellbrook, but I believe the
ALA100 is gaining aperture based on the area of the loop. Making a
long wire longer should be a linear improvement, not a square power.
In the case of the ALA100, you would be increasing the length up to
the point where the loop is not longer considered small. For a long
wire, is their any improvement after reaching half a wavelength?

You're kidding, right?

It would help if you asked the question in a more intelligent manner.
For instance, kidding about what in particular?

Your last sentence. Hope you listen better than you can read :-)

In article
,
wrote:

dxAce raised the point that he would prefer to upgrade to a 1000 foot
antenna rather than upgrade to a better radio. This is a bit like
which came first? the chicken or the egg? I have had extensive
experience of using 1000ft longwires or beverage antenna's on my
DXpeditions over the years and indeed they do pull in the signals
something awesome. But they also pull in more interfering stations
that want to blot out your faint DX target, and also whatever QRM/RFI
noise is floating around, they pull more of that in too.

So at the end of the day it still means it is better to DX with a top
end radio that suppresses and minimises the offending signals and QRM
that are interfering with your faint DX target.

Over the years I gradually upgraded my radio's to what I thought was
the ultimate, a Drake R8B. I was quite satisfied with that until I
was loaned a Rohde & Schwarz. Although the R & S did not have any
more bells and whistles than my Drake, it was so clearly superior to
my R8B that from then on I hankered after a better radio. The R&S
just pulled in faint stations that did not even register on the R8B
and then was also better able to resolve to audibility stations that
were interfered with much better than the R8B.

So I watched developments and then my good friend Guy pointed me
towards the Icom IC-756PROIII, which I later acquired. This radio was
indeed better than my R8B, see:
http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx So the 756Pro3
has really proved itself in the field, culminating in the catch of a
lifetime: 1410 Khz, CFUN, Vancouver BC, Canada, some 14,000 miles
away from the Seefontein DX site. Whether or not I would have got
this catch on my old R8B is a moot point - I don't think so as it was
extremely faint and on the border of audibility, and my DX mates
didn't get it either. So I am happy that the 756Pro3 paid for itself
and that is why I am now upgrading to the new Icom IC-7700 which
should be here in April. If I get only one more rare catch I will be
satisfied that the 7700 has been a worthwhile investment.

But to keep things in perspective, I think the things that are
important to good DX reception are, in order of importance: 1st.] A
decent antenna, the best you can afford or rig up. 2nd.] Location.
Most of us live in the city or suburbs and are either in condo's or
on limited size plots, so our options are limited. That is why
serious DXer's go to a lot of trouble and expense to find the "ideal"
DX location. When you find a decent place, the results are VERY
rewarding. 3rd.] The radio. again, get the best you can afford. The
results just get better and better.

I would liken our hobby to any sport. If you take golf and Tiger
Woods for example. He has only the latest and most expensive cutting
edge equipment. If he gets the latest $3000 putter and it allows him
that extra inch nearer the hole, he is satisfied. So it is with radio
gear and antenna's.

Have fun and good DX

You bring up a good argument but tangled in it are a number of factors
that all affect reception.

The chicken and egg question is easy. The antenna is the egg and it
comes first. All antennas are not created equal and are designed to
achieve certian objectives in reception just like radios. In the extreme
the antenna can be highly directional where the desired signal can be
specifically enlarged relative to other signals and noise. In the radio
it is mainly blocking and bandpass filtering. Both antenna
directionality and gain or radio gain, blocking, and selectivity can get
you where you want to go to get that DX.

I'm familiar with Rohde & Schwarz signal generators but not their
receivers. You don't mention the model number of the receiver but I can
speculate on a few things. One would be cost. Chances are the R&S
receiver costs 10 to 30 times the Drake. Two would be that the R&S would
not have such niceties as sync detection or tone controls.

I don't think going to ham transceivers is the way to go unless you are
a ham or are working toward being one. I'm not interested in being a ham
and I don't want to buy a transceiver.

DSP can be a good thing but it depends on how it is engineered. I have
both kinds of radios and the DSP type appears to have no advantage in AM
mode. The DSP radio does appear to work better for SSB. I would expect
that for digital modes the DSP would clearly be superior. Here the
crucial parameter at play I believe is bandwidth. Designed properly DSP
IF and AF filtering is generally much better than analog and so in
application where this is more important the DSP radios can perform
better. Anyone who has operated a radio with several filters has most
likely noticed that as you decrease the bandwidth the receiver noise
floor drops improving signal to noise. Since DSP filters can have very
steep walls and depth over analog filtering you would expect improved
signal to noise and better reception where narrow bandwidths are in play.

There are always performance tradeoffs and you only address what a DX'er
might want and certainly not what I would want in a receiver. What I
want is good performance and good sound. Many DSP implementations have
lousy sound quality with a lot of distortion. Here I noticed that with
DSP you can have a signal in the clear without the pops and hiss and yet
not be able to understand what is being said. I have listened to tapes
of DSP radio reception and noticed that besides not being able to
understand many of the words in speech that it was very difficult to
listen to the recordings after a while. Even when I had a transcript of
what was said and replayed the DSP recordings over again I still could
not make out some of the words. I also found it very tiring to listen to
DSP sound. I'll take the pops, whistles, and hiss over the DSP
distortion anytime.

Here is an observation I have made on DSP sound. Have you ever listed to
a coast to coast show with one of those reverse speech guys on? I don't
know about other people but sometimes listening to DSP SW recordings was
not unlike listening to those reverse speech recordings.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article
,
wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:18 am, wrote:
dxAce raised the point that he would prefer to upgrade to a 1000 foot
antenna rather than upgrade to a better radio. This is a bit like
which came
first? the chicken or the egg? I have had extensive experience of
using
1000ft longwires or beverage antenna's on my DXpeditions over the
years and
indeed they do pull in the signals something awesome. But they also
pull in
more interfering stations that want to blot out your faint DX target,
and
also whatever QRM/RFI noise is floating around, they pull more of that
in
too.

So at the end of the day it still means it is better to DX with a top
end
radio that suppresses and minimises the offending signals and QRM that
are
interfering with your faint DX target.

Over the years I gradually upgraded my radio's to what I thought was
the
ultimate, a Drake R8B. I was quite satisfied with that until I was
loaned a
Rohde & Schwarz. Although the R & S did not have any more bells and
whistles
than my Drake, it was so clearly superior to my R8B that from then on
I
hankered after a better radio. The R&S just pulled in faint stations
that
did not even register on the R8B and then was also better able to
resolve to
audibility stations that were interfered with much better than the
R8B.

So I watched developments and then my good friend Guy pointed me
towards the
Icom IC-756PROIII, which I later acquired. This radio was indeed
better than
my R8B, see:http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
So the 756Pro3 has really proved itself in the field, culminating in
the
catch of a lifetime: 1410 Khz, CFUN, Vancouver BC, Canada, some 14,000
miles
away from the Seefontein DX site. Whether or not I would have got this
catch
on my old R8B is a moot point - I don't think so as it was extremely
faint
and on the border of audibility, and my DX mates didn't get it either.
So I
am happy that the 756Pro3 paid for itself and that is why I am now
upgrading
to the new Icom IC-7700 which should be here in April. If I get only
one
more rare catch I will be satisfied that the 7700 has been a
worthwhile
investment.

But to keep things in perspective, I think the things that are
important to
good DX reception are, in order of importance:
1st.] A decent antenna, the best you can afford or rig up.
2nd.] Location. Most of us live in the city or suburbs and are either
in
condo's or on limited size plots, so our options are limited. That is
why
serious DXer's go to a lot of trouble and expense to find the "ideal"
DX
location. When you find a decent place, the results are VERY
rewarding.
3rd.] The radio. again, get the best you can afford. The results just
get
better and better.

I would liken our hobby to any sport. If you take golf and Tiger Woods
for
example. He has only the latest and most expensive cutting edge
equipment.
If he gets the latest $3000 putter and it allows him that extra inch
nearer
the hole, he is satisfied. So it is with radio gear and antenna's.

Have fun and good DX

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.
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof
mini-whiphttp://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

It's been my experience with the Wellbrook ALA100 that more is more. I
have found increasing the length of a long wire to have diminishing
returns.

Yes, other signals and noise come from all directions. The antenna would
have to be more directional along with increased gain to be more
effective.

This would be a question for Andy Ikin at Wellbrook, but I believe the
ALA100 is gaining aperture based on the area of the loop.

Yes.

Making a long wire longer should be a linear improvement, not a
square power. In the case of the ALA100, you would be increasing the
length up to the point where the loop is not longer considered small.
For a long wire, is their any improvement after reaching half a
wavelength?

A feed line connected to the end of a half-wave antenna would receive
very little at the half-wave frequency. Optimum would be 1/4 wave.

I find it hard to believe I could improve over my AR7030 reception,
outside of some fancy external synch scheme.

That's a very good radio.

Regarding R&S, generally "pro" receivers assume you have a preamp by
the antenna. I find it hard to believe out of the box it is more
sensitive than commercial gear that doesn't presume a preamp will be
used.

R&S make test equipment and not SW receivers as far as I know. Chances
are John used a receiver that is designed to test received signals and
is very expensive.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article
,
wrote:

On Mar 2, 2:05 pm, dxAce wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:18 am, wrote:
dxAce raised the point that he would prefer to upgrade to a 1000 foot
antenna rather than upgrade to a better radio. This is a bit like
which came
first? the chicken or the egg? I have had extensive experience of
using
1000ft longwires or beverage antenna's on my DXpeditions over the
years and
indeed they do pull in the signals something awesome. But they also
pull in
more interfering stations that want to blot out your faint DX target,
and
also whatever QRM/RFI noise is floating around, they pull more of that
in
too.

So at the end of the day it still means it is better to DX with a top
end
radio that suppresses and minimises the offending signals and QRM that
are
interfering with your faint DX target.

Over the years I gradually upgraded my radio's to what I thought was
the
ultimate, a Drake R8B. I was quite satisfied with that until I was
loaned a
Rohde & Schwarz. Although the R & S did not have any more bells and
whistles
than my Drake, it was so clearly superior to my R8B that from then on
I
hankered after a better radio. The R&S just pulled in faint stations
that
did not even register on the R8B and then was also better able to
resolve to
audibility stations that were interfered with much better than the
R8B.

So I watched developments and then my good friend Guy pointed me
towards the
Icom IC-756PROIII, which I later acquired. This radio was indeed
better than
my R8B, see:http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
So the 756Pro3 has really proved itself in the field, culminating in
the
catch of a lifetime: 1410 Khz, CFUN, Vancouver BC, Canada, some 14,000
miles
away from the Seefontein DX site. Whether or not I would have got this
catch
on my old R8B is a moot point - I don't think so as it was extremely
faint
and on the border of audibility, and my DX mates didn't get it either.
So I
am happy that the 756Pro3 paid for itself and that is why I am now
upgrading
to the new Icom IC-7700 which should be here in April. If I get only
one
more rare catch I will be satisfied that the 7700 has been a
worthwhile
investment.

But to keep things in perspective, I think the things that are
important to
good DX reception are, in order of importance:
1st.] A decent antenna, the best you can afford or rig up.
2nd.] Location. Most of us live in the city or suburbs and are either
in
condo's or on limited size plots, so our options are limited. That is
why
serious DXer's go to a lot of trouble and expense to find the "ideal"
DX
location. When you find a decent place, the results are VERY
rewarding.
3rd.] The radio. again, get the best you can afford. The results just
get
better and better.

I would liken our hobby to any sport. If you take golf and Tiger Woods
for
example. He has only the latest and most expensive cutting edge
equipment.
If he gets the latest $3000 putter and it allows him that extra inch
nearer
the hole, he is satisfied. So it is with radio gear and antenna's.

Have fun and good DX

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.
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof
mini-whiphttp://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

It's been my experience with the Wellbrook ALA100 that more is more. I
have found increasing the length of a long wire to have diminishing
returns.

This would be a question for Andy Ikin at Wellbrook, but I believe the
ALA100 is gaining aperture based on the area of the loop. Making a
long wire longer should be a linear improvement, not a square power.
In the case of the ALA100, you would be increasing the length up to
the point where the loop is not longer considered small. For a long
wire, is their any improvement after reaching half a wavelength?

You're kidding, right?

It would help if you asked the question in a more intelligent manner.
For instance, kidding about what in particular?

SNIP

Specifically, a long wire high in the air would not be very directional
where a long wire near the ground would have beverage characteristics.

The beverage would have better signal to noise if pointed at the desired
signal where the very high wire would not.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California