|
Portables versus Tabletops
Everyone in this group owns a portable, some many portables. Fewer in
the group own tabletops and even fewer serious tabletops. Most of you are just content to listen to the more powerful stations on the AM shortwave band. A very few are serious DXer's who chase those very faint far off stations at the limit of audibility. What I write about is the owners of portables who are constantly trying to maximise their portables performance with ever larger and more powerful antenna's. This can actually be counterproductive as portables are not designed to take a powerful antenna, rather they are designed to maximise their performance only on the whip antenna. Connecting more than 50ft/15m of wire to a portable is likely to bring on all sorts of problems that will actually reduce good performance. By this I mean that it will overload the front end of the radio and lead to distorted sound and spurious signals all over the place. I say this in relation to most of the portables in the $200 and $100 and less range. The Eton E1 at $500 is an exception and can comfortably operate with a powerful receiving antenna, such as a good active or 500ft/150m of longwire. My Sony 2010 overloaded badly with too much wire and blew the front end twice as a result. Don't put too much wire or too powerful an antenna on a portable. When to upgrade to a tabletop such as the Palstar, Yaesu 100, Icom IC- R75 etc? When you can actually connect a decent antenna and when you want faultless sound from far distant stations. I see a lot of fella's wasting their money on expensive table tops who live in apartments = really a waste of money. A decent portable such as the Redsun RP2100/ Kaito KA2100/CC Crane SW will do just as well. Sadly I see that Universal now only offer two tabletops for current sale: the Icom R75 at $600 and the AOR 7030+ at $1500. The number of SW listeners have really declined over the years. But that is where I advocate buying a transceiver, as there is a wide variety on offer in all price ranges, and that is why I myself have used transceivers in the last three years. Of course there is always the preowned market and eBay for used tabletop receivers. Having waffled on about all that, there is a new branch of our wonderful hobby appearing, and that is the "ultralight" receivers. The creme de la creme of which appears to be the Eton E100. These chaps modify this tiny little radio and get the most astonishing reception out of them, but I hasten to add that a good tabletop is always better. So have fun, enjoy your radio's 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 Icom IC-7700, Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods ERGO software Drake SW8. Sangean 803A Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100 Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270 Kiwa MW Loop. http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx |
Portables versus Tabletops
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:31:07 -0700, plimmer wrote:
Everyone in this group owns a portable, some many portables. Fewer in the group own tabletops and even fewer serious tabletops. Most of you are just content to listen to the more powerful stations on the AM shortwave band. A very few are serious DXer's who chase those very faint far off stations at the limit of audibility. I have an R8B that I keep in my office and use it when Ace reports Diego Garcia or a pirate; otherwise it gathers dust. I have an R75 bedside I use to listen to Mark Levin and Michael Savage on, while drifting off. I have an SW2 and an HF-150 in storage, waiting for the return of sunspots. When that happens, I'll have everything blazing on the Coast Guard and the USAF, maybe some DEA Atlas type stuff. I'm getting an amateur license later this month, so I'll be getting something with 6-2-70cm and HF, probably for the Family Truckster. My portables are used as portables. An E10 and an RFB40 in the bathrooms, an ATS606A in the backpack, an SG622 for the yard, and a Yachtboy 300 for backup (terrible audio). |
Portables versus Tabletops
Dear John,
Your posts are always enjoyable to read and this one is no exception. You are correct when you indicate that some shortwave listeners are trying to do "too much" with portable receivers - these radios are just not designed to be DX machines. (How would you modify a Kia Rio so that it could compete in the French Grand Prix or Indianapolis 500 motor race? The short answer is "you couldn't." And the same holds true for portable shortwave receivers, with the POSSIBLE exception of the Eton E1, the Grundig Satellit 800, or the Drake SW-8 - and a couple of Lowe semi-portables.) It is a pity that more SWLs do not own tabletop models. I suspect that this is partly due to their cost but it may be that, as tabletops do indeed require "top" antennas and dedication (there is a LONG learning curve - I've been learning for fifty years now), many (most?) people are just not willing to make the effort in this age of "instant gratification." Frankly, this is not a good time to buy a tabletop (unless you are a "radio collector" or are upgrading/replacing a unit) as we are now at the bottom of the eleven-year sunspot cycle. Conditions are mediocre at best and this would surely discourage most newcomers to tabletops; expecting lots of exotic signals, they would be most disappointed when they heard little more than their portable, with its whip, could supply. That's not to say that a good tabletop/antenna combination would not do that, it's just that I do not believe many people would be willing to take the time to learn HOW to do it. That said, however, I should encourage shortwave listeners who are fairly serious about the hobby to consider purchase of a good tabletop (and the ICOM and, especially the AOR in my opinion, are two excellent receivers at relatively affordable prices). As you stated, the antenna is of PRIME importance. After all, it is the ANTENNA that picks up the signals; the radio merely translates those signals to something we can hear. Of course, as you said, the antenna MUST be matched to the receiver. Apartment dwellers need not necessarily be excluded from owning a tabletop, however; there are always tricks to erecting a suitable antenna in such a location and it has been done many, many times. I encourage all here to learn as much about shortwave/MW antennas as they can. Certainly there is no lack of information on the web and there are many books on the subject as well. Obviously there is a major place for portable receivers in our armamentarium but they are no substitute for a good tabletop/antenna combination nor should anyone ever consider that they might be. We must get over the desire for that "instant gratification." The hobby of DXing with the proper equipment will give you FAR more pleasure, entertainment, and enjoyment than the relatively small effort it takes in learning it. Best, Joe On Jul 10, 2:31*pm, wrote: Everyone in this group owns a portable, some many portables. Fewer in the group own tabletops and even fewer serious tabletops. Most of you are just content to listen to the more powerful stations on the AM shortwave band. A very few are serious DXer's who chase those very faint far off stations at the limit of audibility. What I write about is the owners of portables who are constantly trying to maximise their portables performance with ever larger and more powerful antenna's. This can actually be counterproductive as portables are not designed to take a powerful antenna, rather they are designed to maximise their performance only on the whip antenna. Connecting more than 50ft/15m of wire to a portable is likely to bring on all sorts of problems that will actually reduce good performance. By this I mean that it will overload the front end of the radio and lead to distorted sound and spurious signals all over the place. I say this in relation to most of the portables in the $200 and $100 and less range. The Eton E1 at $500 is an exception and can comfortably operate with a powerful receiving antenna, such as a good active or 500ft/150m of longwire. My Sony 2010 overloaded badly with too much wire and blew the front end twice as a result. Don't put too much wire or too powerful an antenna on a portable. When to upgrade to a tabletop such as the Palstar, Yaesu 100, Icom IC- R75 etc? When you can actually connect a decent antenna and when you want faultless sound from far distant stations. I see a lot of fella's wasting their money on expensive table tops who live in apartments = really a waste of money. A decent portable such as the Redsun RP2100/ Kaito KA2100/CC Crane SW will do just as well. Sadly I see that Universal now only offer two tabletops for current sale: the Icom R75 at $600 and the AOR 7030+ at $1500. The number of SW listeners have really declined over the years. But that is where I advocate buying a transceiver, as there is a wide variety on offer in all price ranges, and that is why I myself have used transceivers in the last three years. Of course there is always the preowned market and eBay for used tabletop receivers. Having waffled on about all that, there is a new branch of our wonderful hobby appearing, and that is the "ultralight" receivers. The creme de la creme of which appears to be the Eton E100. These chaps modify this tiny little radio and get the most astonishing reception out of them, but I hasten to add that a good tabletop is always better. So have fun, enjoy your radio's 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 Icom IC-7700, Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods ERGO software Drake SW8. Sangean 803A Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100 Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270 Kiwa MW Loop.http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx |
Portables versus Tabletops
On Jul 10, 12:39*pm, Dave wrote:
I'm getting an amateur license later this month, so I'll be getting something with 6-2-70cm and HF, probably for the Family Truckster. Assuming you want one radio for HF, 2, 6 and 70cm there is only one real choice...the Kenwood TS-2000. It is an outstanding radio offering features in one box that no one else can match. Yes, you could get an Icom 706 MK2G, but I would advise you to spend a few more dollars for the 2000. The Kenwood does many things very well, but probably is not the best at any of them. Mine is used for 2, 6 and 70cm, and for cross band repeating when I can't be in the air chair. I use the 950sdx for HF. Best of luck with your license, and let me know if I can help you with your new hobby. 73 3D |
Portables versus Tabletops
|
Portables versus Tabletops
In article
, Joe Analssandrini wrote: SNIP That said, however, I should encourage shortwave listeners who are fairly serious about the hobby to consider purchase of a good tabletop (and the ICOM and, especially the AOR in my opinion, are two excellent receivers at relatively affordable prices). As you stated, the antenna is of PRIME importance. After all, it is the ANTENNA that picks up the signals; the radio merely translates those signals to something we can hear. SNIP Again calm down. The radio is half the equation and is just as important as the antenna. Think of an antenna, transmission line, and radio as a receiving system. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Portables versus Tabletops
3D wrote:
On Jul 10, 12:39 pm, Dave wrote: I'm getting an amateur license later this month, so I'll be getting something with 6-2-70cm and HF, probably for the Family Truckster. Assuming you want one radio for HF, 2, 6 and 70cm there is only one real choice...the Kenwood TS-2000. It is an outstanding radio offering features in one box that no one else can match. Yes, you could get an Icom 706 MK2G, but I would advise you to spend a few more dollars for the 2000. The Kenwood does many things very well, but probably is not the best at any of them. Mine is used for 2, 6 and 70cm, and for cross band repeating when I can't be in the air chair. I use the 950sdx for HF. Best of luck with your license, and let me know if I can help you with your new hobby. 73 3D Thanks. I will look into the Kenwood. Is it OK to use automated send/receive on the QRP CW bands? Is it even possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of spurious emissions? Would it be easier to just learn code? |
Portables versus Tabletops
On Jul 10, 3:39*pm, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:31:07 -0700, plimmer wrote: Everyone in this group owns a portable, some many portables. Fewer in the group own tabletops and even fewer serious tabletops. Most of you are just content to listen to the more powerful stations on the AM shortwave band. A very few are serious DXer's who chase those very faint far off stations at the limit of audibility. I have an R8B that I keep in my office and use it when Ace reports Diego Garcia or a pirate; otherwise it gathers dust. I have an R75 bedside I use to listen to Mark Levin and Michael Savage on, while drifting off. I have an SW2 and an HF-150 in storage, waiting for the return of sunspots. *When that happens, I'll have everything blazing on the Coast Guard and the USAF, maybe some DEA Atlas type stuff. I'm getting an amateur license later this month, so I'll be getting something with 6-2-70cm and HF, probably for the Family Truckster. My portables are used as portables. *An E10 and an RFB40 in the bathrooms, an ATS606A in the backpack, an SG622 for the yard, and a Yachtboy 300 for backup (terrible audio). I don't have big expensive tabletop receivers... but I use my Panasonic RF2200 as a tabletop.... it is really too big to call a portable in my opinion... but I guess it is since it also uses batteries if you wish, so I guess many people would consider it a portable. I won;t argue.. It is portable... but I wouldn't toss it into a backpack... just too much radio for that. Portables for me are my Eton E5 (Grundig G5), Sony ICF 7600D (ICF 2002), Kaito KA1102, Eton E100, Kaito KA11 With a Degen fold up DE 31 MS active antenna and TG34 Active antenna from tquchina on Ebay. Not as good as the Sony antenna... but...taking the size and price into consideration... those antennas are respectable performers in my opinion. Cato |
Portables versus Tabletops
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:40:58 -0700, Dave wrote:
Is it OK to use automated send/receive on the QRP CW bands? Is it even possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of spurious emissions? Would it be easier to just learn code? I didn't see any answers to these questions posted, so I'll have a go at it. In order of their appearance: I presume that by "automated send/receive" you are referring to the use of a computer and software to send and receive CW, as opposed to sending by hand and receiving by ear. This is "OK" as far as being well within FCC rules (and again I have made an assumption that you are in the USA and will be subject to FCC rules, based on your apparently being a customer of DSL Extreme, a U.S. ISP). There are, however, a few issues with this if you're going to be operating QRP from portable locations. For example, you must power not only your radio but also the computer you're using to send and receive code. This kind of limits your operating to the life of the battery in your laptop, unless you're going to haul a relatively large battery around with you to power the lappy and radio. Also, FWIW, it's not too difficult to tell the difference between hand-sent code and code generated by a machine, and there are unfortunately some snobbish types out there who will not answer you if you're using machine-sent CW. These seem to be the same folks who harbor grudges about codeless licenses and the best way for the rest of us to deal with them is probably to just ignore them just as they ignore others, continue to make contacts with those who are not code test or license-class bigots, and not let them ruin our enjoyment of the hobby...but one should be aware that these people are out there. Is it possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of spurious emissions? Of course it is! Check out the Elecraft K2 for one example. Or some of Ten-Tec's QRP stuff. For that matter, there are many homebrew QRP CW rig designs scattered around various web sites, and many QRP groups to query as to which designs are worth building and which are better avoided for one reason or another. Hook up with such a group - K3WWP has a decent list of them on his website at the following URL: http://home.alltel.net/johnshan/links_ss_qrpc.html You might also find his page on QRP equipment helpful. Follow the link on the left side of the page whose URL appears above. Anyway, hook up with one or more of these groups, and pick the brains of the experienced QRP ops there regarding QRP rig designs that are based on sound engineering principles and are consistent with common amateur radio practice - they're they guys with the experience and knowledge to help you avoid dirty transmitter designs and steer you toward something you'll be happy with and proud to put on the air. As for whether it would be easier to just learn code - it would certainly make it easier to operate in CW mode if you have a working knowledge of the code. For one thing, it eliminates the dependency on a computer or other electronic device - most of which have a difficult time "decoding" received signals unless they are quite strong and are well-keyed...and even if the signal is very strong, no decoder can clean up a lousy "fist" at the sending end. However, the task of learning the code is much easier for some people than it is for others (it only took me about 28 years, some guys have needed a couple of days to learn it), so in the end, the answer to this question depends on how quickly and easily you can learn the code. Hope this helps. 73 DE John Kasupski, KC2HMZ |
Portables versus Tabletops
John Kasupski wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:40:58 -0700, Dave wrote: Is it OK to use automated send/receive on the QRP CW bands? Is it even possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of spurious emissions? Would it be easier to just learn code? I didn't see any answers to these questions posted, so I'll have a go at it. In order of their appearance: I presume that by "automated send/receive" you are referring to the use of a computer and software to send and receive CW, as opposed to sending by hand and receiving by ear. This is "OK" as far as being well within FCC rules (and again I have made an assumption that you are in the USA and will be subject to FCC rules, based on your apparently being a customer of DSL Extreme, a U.S. ISP). There are, however, a few issues with this if you're going to be operating QRP from portable locations. For example, you must power not only your radio but also the computer you're using to send and receive code. This kind of limits your operating to the life of the battery in your laptop, unless you're going to haul a relatively large battery around with you to power the lappy and radio. Also, FWIW, it's not too difficult to tell the difference between hand-sent code and code generated by a machine, and there are unfortunately some snobbish types out there who will not answer you if you're using machine-sent CW. These seem to be the same folks who harbor grudges about codeless licenses and the best way for the rest of us to deal with them is probably to just ignore them just as they ignore others, continue to make contacts with those who are not code test or license-class bigots, and not let them ruin our enjoyment of the hobby...but one should be aware that these people are out there. Is it possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of spurious emissions? Of course it is! Check out the Elecraft K2 for one example. Or some of Ten-Tec's QRP stuff. For that matter, there are many homebrew QRP CW rig designs scattered around various web sites, and many QRP groups to query as to which designs are worth building and which are better avoided for one reason or another. Hook up with such a group - K3WWP has a decent list of them on his website at the following URL: http://home.alltel.net/johnshan/links_ss_qrpc.html You might also find his page on QRP equipment helpful. Follow the link on the left side of the page whose URL appears above. Anyway, hook up with one or more of these groups, and pick the brains of the experienced QRP ops there regarding QRP rig designs that are based on sound engineering principles and are consistent with common amateur radio practice - they're they guys with the experience and knowledge to help you avoid dirty transmitter designs and steer you toward something you'll be happy with and proud to put on the air. As for whether it would be easier to just learn code - it would certainly make it easier to operate in CW mode if you have a working knowledge of the code. For one thing, it eliminates the dependency on a computer or other electronic device - most of which have a difficult time "decoding" received signals unless they are quite strong and are well-keyed...and even if the signal is very strong, no decoder can clean up a lousy "fist" at the sending end. However, the task of learning the code is much easier for some people than it is for others (it only took me about 28 years, some guys have needed a couple of days to learn it), so in the end, the answer to this question depends on how quickly and easily you can learn the code. Hope this helps. 73 DE John Kasupski, KC2HMZ Thanks. I learned Morse incorrectly in the Boy Scouts (dit-dah, dah, dit-dit-dit, etc.) about 48 years ago. I will relearn it strictly by sound and cadence, using that little MFJ doodad. I really would like to use my Eee PC for some kind of extremely mobile, but sophisticated, setup. Thank-you again. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com