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