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 -

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

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 ;-)