Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 12:18*pm, BDK wrote:

My NRD-515 tunes in 100 HZ steps and SSB would be really annoying if it
didn't have the (modified) delta tune for pitch control. 10HZ is fine,
but 1HZ, is better.

If you have perfect pitch, it is essential! :-D

Bruce
*******
-

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On 3/8/10 14:54 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:28 pm, wrote:
In ,
says...





On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

Yes. We've noticed that.

Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?

Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. Unless
you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of
two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. I have a 10.1Mp - because
that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate.
I often find myself reducing it for manageability.

Having a higher pixel count allows for more editing choices, as
well. Especially when shooting in the field when things are moving
VERY quickly, you can crop out more unnecessary material with less
loss of resolution. There are limits, of course. But as a rule, more
pixels means more options.



As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into
decent glass. That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution
than doubling your pixel count.

When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 1:10*pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 3/8/10 14:54 , bpnjensen wrote:





On Mar 8, 12:28 pm, *wrote:
In ,
says...

On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe..
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

* * Yes. We've noticed that.

Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?

Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. *Unless
you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of
two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. *I have a 10.1Mp - because
that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate.
I often find myself reducing it for manageability.

* *Having a higher pixel count allows for more editing choices, as
well. Especially when shooting in the field when things are moving
VERY quickly, you can crop out more unnecessary material with less
loss of resolution. There are limits, of course. But as a rule, more
pixels means more options.



As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into
decent glass. *That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution
than doubling your pixel count.

* *When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

* *To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly, and a great analogy. Whatever collects and delivers the
photons most effectively is what gets the results.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:10 pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 3/8/10 14:54 , bpnjensen wrote:





On Mar 8, 12:28 pm, wrote:
In ,
says...
On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.
Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.
And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.
What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.
Yes. We've noticed that.
Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?
Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. Unless
you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of
two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. I have a 10.1Mp - because
that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate.
I often find myself reducing it for manageability.
Having a higher pixel count allows for more editing choices, as
well. Especially when shooting in the field when things are moving
VERY quickly, you can crop out more unnecessary material with less
loss of resolution. There are limits, of course. But as a rule, more
pixels means more options.



As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into
decent glass. That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution
than doubling your pixel count.
When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly, and a great analogy. Whatever collects and delivers the
photons most effectively is what gets the results.

This is why I'm strongly considering changing over from Nikon DSLRs to
the Micro 4/3 format.

I can get an adapter that'll let me use all my Alpa lenses including
fast 50, 100 and 150mm apochromats on the micro 4/3 camera.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 7, 6:56*pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
Clive wrote:
Even on CW or
SSB I doubt most listeners can even detect 100 cycles of instability.

I can definitely tell when some station is ten or more kcs off where I'm tuned,
and go to the RIT automatically. If they continue to drift, I might chase them
awhile, but usually move on, suggesting they sober up and quit leaning on the
VFO knob.

My receiver is stable to less than a twentieth of a cycle over several months.
(Using WWV as a reference)

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

What radio can do that? And what is the master oscillator consist of-
does it contain a cesium/rubidium stage?

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 10:16*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 4:32*am, dave wrote:





Bob Dobbs wrote:
Clive wrote:
Even on CW or
SSB I doubt most listeners can even detect 100 cycles of instability..

I can definitely tell when some station is ten or more kcs off where I'm tuned,
and go to the RIT automatically. If they continue to drift, I might chase them
awhile, but usually move on, suggesting they sober up and quit leaning on the
VFO knob.

My receiver is stable to less than a twentieth of a cycle over several months.
(Using WWV as a reference)

100 Hz is a noticeable change in pitch. *A 50 Hz step makes listening to
music on SSB very difficult. *I do my major DXing through a 250 Hz
filter, so if you drift you go bye-bye.

No kidding. *I find even 10 Hz offset uncomfortable to listen to in
music.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That depends on the music!

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 11:07*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:48*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:





On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote:

On Mar 8, 6:20 am, *wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe..
But most of it is hype and the *EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil *("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which the
has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much as
(if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a *bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I
can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. *The stability
and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S-
AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice.

* *Did you get the crystal oven on that one?

The S-AM on
this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear
what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds
like.

* *I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference
is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are
still there, but the audio doesn't shatter.

* *If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If
not, it's not that big a deal.

* *I use my rigs without sync more than with.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks, Peter - well, that's about what I thought - the Kiwa-modified
S-AM on the R75 definitely helps soften the blow of the fades (the
distortion disappears for all practical purposes), and the AGC when
the RF Gain is turned back a wee bit fills in and remedies all but the
deepest fades. *I just figured the Drake/AOR/etc. did it better. *Not
having ever heard one in person (NOBODY sells or demos them around
this metropolis), I just don't know for sure. *In fact, you can't find
any shortwave receiver sales at all anymore except the usual lowball
Etons at RS. *HRO has nothing but tranceivers anymore.

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eton is even lower than most people think of it.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 7:48*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote:





On Mar 8, 6:20 am, *wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the *EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil *("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which the
has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much as
(if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a *bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I
can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. *The stability
and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S-
AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice.

* *Did you get the crystal oven on that one?

The S-AM on
this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear
what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds
like.

* *I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference
is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are
still there, but the audio doesn't shatter.

* *If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If
not, it's not that big a deal.

* *I use my rigs without sync more than with.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, BTW - no crystal oven. I have never noticed a single stability
issue at all.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 1:30*pm, wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:07*am, bpnjensen wrote:





On Mar 8, 7:48*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote:

On Mar 8, 6:20 am, *wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the *EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil *("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which the
has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much as
(if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a *bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I
can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. *The stability
and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S-
AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice.

* *Did you get the crystal oven on that one?

The S-AM on
this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear
what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds
like.

* *I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference
is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are
still there, but the audio doesn't shatter.

* *If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If
not, it's not that big a deal.

* *I use my rigs without sync more than with.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks, Peter - well, that's about what I thought - the Kiwa-modified
S-AM on the R75 definitely helps soften the blow of the fades (the
distortion disappears for all practical purposes), and the AGC when
the RF Gain is turned back a wee bit fills in and remedies all but the
deepest fades. *I just figured the Drake/AOR/etc. did it better. *Not
having ever heard one in person (NOBODY sells or demos them around
this metropolis), I just don't know for sure. *In fact, you can't find
any shortwave receiver sales at all anymore except the usual lowball
Etons at RS. *HRO has nothing but tranceivers anymore.

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* *Eton is even lower than most people think of it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, I dunno - lots of people like the E-1 sans XM. Never heard one
myself.

Bruce

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 1:23*pm, wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:56*pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:

My receiver is stable to less than a twentieth of a cycle over several months.
(Using WWV as a reference)

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

*What radio can do that? And what is the master oscillator consist of-
does it contain a cesium/rubidium stage?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I keep wondering how you'd measure such a thing. Leave it on for
several years to see if the oscillator drifts one hertz?

Not to be too precious, but that does not sound like the best use of
one's hobby dollar to me ;-)

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On 3/8/10 15:36 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:48 am, "D. Peter
wrote:
On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote:





On Mar 8, 6:20 am, wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which the
has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much as
(if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I
can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. The stability
and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S-
AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice.

Did you get the crystal oven on that one?

The S-AM on
this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear
what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds
like.

I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference
is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are
still there, but the audio doesn't shatter.

If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If
not, it's not that big a deal.

I use my rigs without sync more than with.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, BTW - no crystal oven. I have never noticed a single stability
issue at all.

Good to know. Thanks.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On 3/8/10 15:37 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:30 pm, wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:07 am, wrote:





On Mar 8, 7:48 am, "D. Peter
wrote:

On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote:

On Mar 8, 6:20 am, wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which the
has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much as
(if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I
can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. The stability
and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S-
AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice.

Did you get the crystal oven on that one?

The S-AM on
this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear
what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds
like.

I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference
is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are
still there, but the audio doesn't shatter.

If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If
not, it's not that big a deal.

I use my rigs without sync more than with.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks, Peter - well, that's about what I thought - the Kiwa-modified
S-AM on the R75 definitely helps soften the blow of the fades (the
distortion disappears for all practical purposes), and the AGC when
the RF Gain is turned back a wee bit fills in and remedies all but the
deepest fades. I just figured the Drake/AOR/etc. did it better. Not
having ever heard one in person (NOBODY sells or demos them around
this metropolis), I just don't know for sure. In fact, you can't find
any shortwave receiver sales at all anymore except the usual lowball
Etons at RS. HRO has nothing but tranceivers anymore.

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eton is even lower than most people think of it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, I dunno - lots of people like the E-1 sans XM. Never heard one
myself.

Bruce


It doesn't sound as impressive as it looks. The audio is
comparable to Sat 700, which wasn't quite as smooth as Sat 500.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 1:43*pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
The S-AM on
this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear
what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds
like.

I think the "really good" sounds like the "so-so", only happens more often.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 1:26*pm, wrote:
On Mar 8, 10:16*am, bpnjensen wrote:





On Mar 8, 4:32*am, dave wrote:

Bob Dobbs wrote:
Clive wrote:
Even on CW or
SSB I doubt most listeners can even detect 100 cycles of instability.

I can definitely tell when some station is ten or more kcs off where I'm tuned,
and go to the RIT automatically. If they continue to drift, I might chase them
awhile, but usually move on, suggesting they sober up and quit leaning on the
VFO knob.

My receiver is stable to less than a twentieth of a cycle over several months.
(Using WWV as a reference)

100 Hz is a noticeable change in pitch. *A 50 Hz step makes listening to
music on SSB very difficult. *I do my major DXing through a 250 Hz
filter, so if you drift you go bye-bye.

No kidding. *I find even 10 Hz offset uncomfortable to listen to in
music.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* That depends on the music!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True, true - I suppose some might even be improved by adjustments of
this type...

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On 3/8/10 15:41 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:23 pm, wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:56 pm, Bob wrote:

My receiver is stable to less than a twentieth of a cycle over several months.
(Using WWV as a reference)

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

What radio can do that? And what is the master oscillator consist of-
does it contain a cesium/rubidium stage?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I keep wondering how you'd measure such a thing. Leave it on for
several years to see if the oscillator drifts one hertz?

Not to be too precious, but that does not sound like the best use of
one's hobby dollar to me ;-)



I worked with one engineer who built a frequency standard using
WWV as a reference. He would hook that up to the air monitor and
compare our carrier to the reference when he did a proof.

With a fairly simple scope you could see the smallest differences
between the two frequencies. He plotted drift over a month at a
time. And could extrapolate out months at a time with surprising
precision.

He showed me how it would be a fairly simple implementation to
use the WWV derived reference signal to control the local
oscillator's stability outright.

When we went to AM stereo, we had a serious issue with platform
motion near the nulls of our 6 tower array. He synced to WWV to
reduce that locally, and did a presentation to the state
broadcasters association describing how platform motion could be
eliminated entirely by syncing to WWV as a standard across the
implementation.

It's not difficult to do. Requires little expense, and can be
applied to every receiver in one's stable.

It's possible for Bob's receivers to be as stable as WWV by
simply using WWV as a controlling reference.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 2:02*pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

* When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

* To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.

If that extra glass means you won't be toting it as often,
such that some unexpected opportunities are missed,
isn't that in a way like having too much antenna,
such that those rare catches get buried in the overload?

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

Some of us travel heavy. I wind up schlepping my tripod and 20 lbs.
of camera into the mountains more often than I care to admit (or
contemplate). OTOH, bigger isn't always better when it comes to glass
- although it can help.

Bruce

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On 3/8/10 16:24 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 2:02 pm, Bob wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.

If that extra glass means you won't be toting it as often,
such that some unexpected opportunities are missed,
isn't that in a way like having too much antenna,
such that those rare catches get buried in the overload?


You can always find obstacles, if you look hard enough.

If you know what you're doing, whether capturing photons in the
environs, or sucking electrons out of the ether, you don't miss
anything. No matter what you're carrying.

I don't even carry a camera bag.


--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

Some of us travel heavy. I wind up schlepping my tripod and 20 lbs.
of camera into the mountains more often than I care to admit (or
contemplate). OTOH, bigger isn't always better when it comes to glass
- although it can help.


By way of comparison, I have to travel light. There simply isn't
room in the aircraft for what I can't hold in my hands. So, a
premium lens is essential. And the right selection of premium glass
is required. For most shooting, two bodies, two lenses. 24-70mm f2.8
on D700, and 70-200mm f2.8 on D300. Covers any territory I may
encounter.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 3:14*pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:23 pm, wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:56 pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:

My receiver is stable to less than a twentieth of a cycle over several months.
(Using WWV as a reference)

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

What radio can do that? And what is the master oscillator consist of-
does it contain a cesium/rubidium stage?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I keep wondering how you'd measure such a thing. *Leave it on for
several years to see if the oscillator drifts one hertz?

It might drift more that a hertz over that extended time frame,
I'm too impatient to see.
Usually check it about every other month on a boring Sunday.

Not to be too precious, but that does not sound like the best use of
one's hobby dollar to me ;-)

I don't dwell on stability to the point of obsession,
It's just one of many assets the radio has going for it.
And the hobby dollar cost, once made, is better justified
for the totality of features than any single one.
At least I'm not constantly pouring cash into the black hole of some other
hobbies. I used to be heavily into film photography g

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

(sigh) the black hole of other hobbies - mine are myriad! and none
are cheap.

BJ

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 3:04*pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:

Oh, I dunno - lots of people like the E-1 sans XM. *Never heard one
myself.

That radio is the best SW portable I've ever had. Mine is the E1XM model
and I even got the antenna module, but don't subscribe and haven't used it since
the free OTA special a couple years ago (channel 130 POTUS 08). I even have a
Sirius capable radio that I decided not to get the antenna module for.

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

I really like satellite radio. I've had it in a couple of rental
cars, and it's da bomb. Gets a little goofy under heavy tree cover,
but the selection of quality music (classical, jazz) is wonderful. A
great replacement for general-listening FM broadcast.

Bruce

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

Cameras, you say? I have a Lot of very old film cameras.A foot locker
full of them and another foot locker about half way full of them.Also, I
have some very old movie cameras and some old camera lenses and other
camera related thingys, some old tripods too.I bought them many years
ago at thrift stores and junk shops, bought them when the prices was
Good.I am and always have been a junk collector, all kinds of junk,
radios too, but it isn't all junk.Some old cameras are very collectible,
check out the Browns catalog about old collectible cameras.

I almost never take any pictures, but when I do, I use my Kodak FX 600
film camera.It works just fine for me.

http://www.devilfinder.com
Collectible Cameras
cuhulin

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 3:31*pm, wrote:
Cameras, you say? I have a Lot of very old film cameras.A foot locker
full of them and another foot locker about half way full of them.Also, I
have some very old movie cameras and some old camera lenses and other
camera related thingys, some old tripods too.I bought them many years
ago at thrift stores and junk shops, bought them when the prices was
Good.I am and always have been a junk collector, all kinds of junk,
radios too, but it isn't all junk.Some old cameras are very collectible,
check out the Browns catalog about old collectible cameras.

I almost never take any pictures, but when I do, I use my Kodak FX 600
film camera.It works just fine for me.

http://www.devilfinder.com
Collectible Cameras
cuhulin

Cuhulin, they're not doing you a damn bit of good stuck in a
footlocker! You should either use them or sell them!

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

Mee, sell my old stuff,,, izza yu kiddin? My perogative is to Hang On to
my old Cameras, and my old Radios, and ALL of my old stuff.Now, iffen
you wants to buy sumpin, I mowed some of my yard thi affernoon.Ahh weel
be glad (I say, Ahh weel be GLAD) tu sell you the grass clippins thet
Ahh bagged uppa anna put en mah plastyk trash/garbage can.Ahh also haz
sum kitchin garbage Ahh weel be GLAD to sayle tu yoo tuu.Better Hurry
uppa now!, teh garbage truk runs termorry mawnin.
cuhulin

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

Ever since I bought my Kodak FX 600 film camers about ten something
years ago, I reckon I have probally used up four, maybe five, film
canisters in that camera.I am not much of a picture taking dude.
cuhulin

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 8, 4:28*pm, wrote:
Mee, sell my old stuff,,, izza yu kiddin? My perogative is to Hang On to
my old Cameras, and my old Radios, and ALL of my old stuff.Now, iffen
you wants to buy sumpin, I mowed some of my yard thi affernoon.Ahh weel
be glad (I say, Ahh weel be GLAD) tu sell you the grass clippins thet
Ahh bagged uppa anna put en mah plastyk trash/garbage can.Ahh also haz
sum kitchin garbage Ahh weel be GLAD to sayle tu yoo tuu.Better Hurry
uppa now!, teh garbage truk runs termorry mawnin. *
cuhulin

OK, well - they just sit there and get older, not doing you or anyone
else any good. When you die, some socialist gummint agency will come
and haul them away for scrap.

As for grass clippings - I have all I need ;-).

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

In article e183029b-5f47-45f3-bfcf-
, says...
On Mar 8, 12:28*pm, BDK wrote:
In article ,
says...





On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

* *Yes. We've noticed that.

Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?

Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. Unless
you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of
two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. I have a 10.1Mp - because
that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate.
I often find myself reducing it for manageability.

As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into
decent glass. That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution
than doubling your pixel count.

Bruce


Don't tell me, he's the one buying them. He should be popping for a new
one soon when the next new models come out. I might try to offer him
what the trade in is, but at the level they are, the trade in is a
decent chunk of change. The lenses carry over, so all he would be
selling me is the 50mm one that usually comes with them.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

On Mar 9, 7:38*am, BDK wrote:
In article e183029b-5f47-45f3-bfcf-
, says...





On Mar 8, 12:28*pm, BDK wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

* *Yes. We've noticed that.

Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?

Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. *Unless
you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of
two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. *I have a 10.1Mp - because
that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate.
I often find myself reducing it for manageability.

As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into
decent glass. *That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution
than doubling your pixel count.

Bruce

Don't tell me, he's the one buying them. He should be popping for a new
one soon when the next new models come out. I might try to offer him
what the trade in is, but at the level they are, the trade in is a
decent chunk of change. The lenses carry over, so all he would be
selling me is the 50mm one that usually comes with them.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some DSLRs come with decent kit lenses. My Canon did not at the time
(Canon hear the outcry, and the new ones Canon provides are
considerably better as starter lenses). So, a kit lens is worth a try
(the internet has lots of reviews, including well-conducted technical
reviews, of glass quality, and some kit lenses fare well enough).

Bruce

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

In article 0161192e-0219-4616-bc73-
, says...
On Mar 8, 12:18*pm, BDK wrote:

My NRD-515 tunes in 100 HZ steps and SSB would be really annoying if it
didn't have the (modified) delta tune for pitch control. 10HZ is fine,
but 1HZ, is better.

If you have perfect pitch, it is essential! :-D

Bruce
*******
-



Apparently I do, since I've never met anyone who is as picky about pitch
as I am. When I was doing RTTY, I had a scope, but it was just something
to watch that was neat looking, I could even tune in FDM stuff by ear. I
got a 5" scope at a pawn shop not too far from where the old Universal
store was for $60. It had a blue filter on it, and visitors were always
impressed by the giant + sign.

I miss the RTTY stuff. I did have about 5 years of that and FAX before a
lot of the good stuff disappeared in January 1990, and about 10 years
later, a lot of SITOR stuff was gone too. There was some really funny
stuff on the marine channels. I have a huge, like 20 feet long, printout
of a list of "issues" on a cruise ship, including the chief engineer
going nuts and attempting to attack people with a wrench. The "issues"
ranged from not enough lifeboats, and the ones they had were rotten, the
food coolers were almost dead, and a bunch of food had spoiled. There
were no life preservers, no fire extinguishers, and on and on, and on.

After a while, I thought, "Why don't they sink the damn thing?"
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.

Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
 

In article fddabec4-088d-4a74-9e3e-
, says...
On Mar 8, 3:14*pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:23 pm, wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:56 pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:

My receiver is stable to less than a twentieth of a cycle over several months.
(Using WWV as a reference)

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

What radio can do that? And what is the master oscillator consist of-
does it contain a cesium/rubidium stage?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I keep wondering how you'd measure such a thing. *Leave it on for
several years to see if the oscillator drifts one hertz?

It might drift more that a hertz over that extended time frame,
I'm too impatient to see.
Usually check it about every other month on a boring Sunday.

Not to be too precious, but that does not sound like the best use of
one's hobby dollar to me ;-)

I don't dwell on stability to the point of obsession,
It's just one of many assets the radio has going for it.
And the hobby dollar cost, once made, is better justified
for the totality of features than any single one.
At least I'm not constantly pouring cash into the black hole of some other
hobbies. I used to be heavily into film photography g

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

(sigh) the black hole of other hobbies - mine are myriad! and none
are cheap.

BJ


I can't think of a good one that is.

Mine a

Guns.
PCs.
Ham and SW radio
Hifi
Cars.
Dogs.

And sooner or later, I'll be biting on an RC truck or helicopter, it's
just a matter of time. I'll go out with the friend who is into all that,
and I get hooked again. About 20 years ago, I got into it pretty heavy,
but the constant wrecking of the car I had got to be ridiculous.
They have some trucks and buggies now, electric ones, that go well over
60 MPH, and if you have the $$, you can go over 80.

If you fly, and have insane money, you can get yourself something like
these, and really fly:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXQVh5IbHc

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...45173757764810
&ei=WnCWS4q7EJneqwL99_mZAw&q=turbine+rc+jet&hl=en# docid=-
5898267244965694370

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...45173757764810
&ei=WnCWS4q7EJneqwL99_mZAw&q=turbine+rc+jet&hl=en# docid=-
2494969889829583173

And what has to be the ultimate:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...45173757764810
&ei=WnCWS4q7EJneqwL99_mZAw&q=turbine+rc+jet&hl=en# docid=-
5948024731098191553


--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.