Anyone tried the CCRadio2 from CCrane? This is no UltraLite but it is
supposed to be one of the top performing portables.

Supposedly it has a tuned antenna - From one web site: "The twin coil
ferrite is actually tuned to the desired AM frequency via a varactor
diode automatically for about seven seconds after frequency is
changed."

Made by Sangean. It sounds interesting. One review site:
http://www.radiointel.com/review-ccrane_ccr2.htm

Jim

On Apr 14, 8:26*pm, wrote:
Anyone tried the CCRadio2 from CCrane? This is no UltraLite but it is
supposed to be one of the top performing portables.

Supposedly it has a tuned antenna - From one web site: "The twin coil
ferrite is actually tuned to the desired AM frequency via a varactor
diode automatically for about seven seconds after frequency is
changed."

Made by Sangean. It sounds interesting. One review site:http://www.radiointel.com/review-ccrane_ccr2.htm

Jim

No SSB or Sync don't waste your money on this Chinese junk.

On Apr 14, 10:24*pm, Douche BAG wrote:
On Apr 14, 8:26*pm, wrote:

Anyone tried the CCRadio2 from CCrane? This is no UltraLite but it is
supposed to be one of the top performing portables.

Supposedly it has a tuned antenna - From one web site: "The twin coil
ferrite is actually tuned to the desired AM frequency via a varactor
diode automatically for about seven seconds after frequency is
changed."

Made by Sangean. It sounds interesting. One review site:http://www.radiointel.com/review-ccrane_ccr2.htm

Jim

No SSB or Sync don't waste your money on this Chinese junk.

I thought it is a Sangean product,Taiwan. CCradio2 is an AM/FM/
Weather bands only. No HF coverage-therefore no Sync or SSB.

wrote:

No SSB or Sync don't waste your money on this Chinese junk.

Sangean is pretty good for Chinese junk. They are in Tiawan, not the PRC.

They got into shortwave radios when they bought the rights to the Sony
ICF-2001, which they sold as the ATS-803, and the Radio Shack DX-440.

Since then they have made various models, some better, some worse.

I thought it is a Sangean product,Taiwan. CCradio2 is an AM/FM/
Weather bands only. No HF coverage-therefore no Sync or SSB.

I don't see how you would use them on AM anyway.

I live in Jerusalem, which is a very hi-tech and therefore very electricaly
noisy city. The BBC has an AM broadcasting station on 1323 kHz in Cyprus.
I normally can not hear it with anything I have, except for a Drake SPR-4.

Note that I also have a Kenwood R5000 and a TS-430, which has a similar
receiver. Both have had the extra BCB attenuation removed which was installed
by Kenwood in their US models. It does make a difference, around 10db in either
of them, but in the long run, it did not change what I could hear and could
not.

When I lived in Philly, I was 3 miles from the KYW 1060AM transmitter, and
it was needed to prevent overload. Here there is lots of noise, but no
really strong (as in picked up by telephones, etc) signals.

So besides answering the question with a positive, I can answer it with a
negative, don't buy a SW, especially ham, receiver and expect it to perform
well on the AM BCB.

With that said, what about the GE Superradios? They have their various
faults, but they are good AM performers and relatively cheap. If you can
find one at a yard sale or thrift shop, so much the better.

I have an SRIII, which is not very useful here due to its inability to
pull stations out of the noise. In a less noisy environment, it would
perform well, certainly in comparison to its price.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
wrote:

No SSB or Sync don't waste your money on this Chinese junk.

Sangean is pretty good for Chinese junk. They are in Tiawan, not the PRC.

They got into shortwave radios when they bought the rights to the Sony
ICF-2001, which they sold as the ATS-803, and the Radio Shack DX-440.

Since then they have made various models, some better, some worse.

I thought it is a Sangean product,Taiwan. CCradio2 is an AM/FM/
Weather bands only. No HF coverage-therefore no Sync or SSB.

I don't see how you would use them on AM anyway.

I live in Jerusalem, which is a very hi-tech and therefore very electricaly
noisy city. The BBC has an AM broadcasting station on 1323 kHz in Cyprus.
I normally can not hear it with anything I have, except for a Drake SPR-4.

Note that I also have a Kenwood R5000 and a TS-430, which has a similar
receiver. Both have had the extra BCB attenuation removed which was installed
by Kenwood in their US models. It does make a difference, around 10db in either
of them, but in the long run, it did not change what I could hear and could
not.

When I lived in Philly, I was 3 miles from the KYW 1060AM transmitter, and
it was needed to prevent overload. Here there is lots of noise, but no
really strong (as in picked up by telephones, etc) signals.

So besides answering the question with a positive, I can answer it with a
negative, don't buy a SW, especially ham, receiver and expect it to perform
well on the AM BCB.

With that said, what about the GE Superradios? They have their various
faults, but they are good AM performers and relatively cheap. If you can
find one at a yard sale or thrift shop, so much the better.

I have an SRIII, which is not very useful here due to its inability to
pull stations out of the noise. In a less noisy environment, it would
perform well, certainly in comparison to its price.

Geoff.


Dude, you're being jammed. Jerusalem is no more high tech (no more
noise prone) than any other modern city, where mediumwave still works
reasonably well and HF is still quite clean.

Why do they always blow up the power plants?

dave wrote:

Dude, you're being jammed. Jerusalem is no more high tech (no more
noise prone) than any other modern city, where mediumwave still works
reasonably well and HF is still quite clean.

No, it's loaded with broadband noise up until just below 14mHz. Lots of
computers, digital devices and DSL internet. EU radiation standards which
are a lot looser and easier to cheat.


Why do they always blow up the power plants?

Who? If you are referring to Gaza, they get most of their power from Israel
and neglect to pay for it. In fact the one power plant that is there was just
damaged by the locals. It wasn't much of one, it produced less than 1/3 of
what they used.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Bob Dobbs wrote:

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

~~~

don't buy a SW, especially ham, receiver and expect it to perform
well on the AM BCB.

Why not?
I didn't initially buy any of my HAM rigs for use on AMBCB,
however a couple have turned out to perform very nicely there.
They're very stable (TCXO), have adjustable IF bandwidth and shift,
one of them has a convenient band scan to spot stations,
another actually has a spectrum scope to look at the band.
And even though that band is always full at night
it helps to see what's out there during the day.

First, there was a long period when ham equipment wasn't particularly
good on AM, since most hams were using SSB. So no wider filters for
AM, sometimes there wasn't even an AM detector, and certainly no
synchronous detector that everyone seems to think should be mandatory
now. I suspect that has changed a bit recently, since some of the
techniques used to improve the design allows for adding better AM
reception without any real cost, and a lot of the ham manufacturers
like to be able to offer lots of bells and whistles, whether or not
they are needed.

Another obvious reason is that for a long time any receivers in amateur
radio equipment covered only the ham bands. That was a good thing,
since you got much better bandspread; if you wanted general coverage
you would have started with one of those to begin with. That too has
changed, now it's as easy to have a general coverage receiver as it is
to have a ham band only receiver, and again it's a selling point.

But, according to some, there may be attenuation that comes into play
on the AM broadcast band, or some other limitation as the frequency goes
down. Or, RF amplification may be left off, so the receiver can
better deal with the strong local signals.

I can't really imagine a manufacturer not using the existing receiver
circuitry for the AM broadcast band, since it's just a matter of
extending the frequency range. But maybe there are some out there
that toss in another IC for the AM band, resulting in no special
performance. I remember getting into an argument with a local about
whether their shortwave portable receiver would actually be outstanding on
the FM band. In that case, whatever great design is used on the shortwave
bands is lost, since a whole different circuit is needed for FM, and
thus they add a whole other FM receiver, usually an IC, which doesn't
have to be anything special; you are paying extra money for the shortwave,
not the FM band.

But, maybe the main reason was in the paragraph about the Superradio.
That one gets lost of praise, but it really is a pretty generic design.
The one thing it does have is a good loopstick antenna, and that's
certainly one area where ham equipment lacks. None will have any sort
of built in antenna, so one will need something external. That may often
be seen as some wire hanging off the antenna jack, and while that works, a
directional antenna is pretty useful on the AM broadcast band.

A receiver that has a built in antenna is going to be matched to that
small antenna, while a general coverage receiver with no built in antenna
may require external circuitry to best use a small antenna.

Michael

On Apr 15, 9:30*am, Michael Black wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Bob Dobbs wrote:
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

~~~

don't buy a SW, especially ham, receiver and expect it to perform
well on the AM BCB.

Why not?
I didn't initially buy any of my HAM rigs for use on AMBCB,
however a couple have turned out to perform very nicely there.
They're very stable (TCXO), have adjustable IF bandwidth and shift,
one of them has a convenient band scan to spot stations,
another actually has a spectrum scope to look at the band.
And even though that band is always full at night
it helps to see what's out there during the day.

First, there was a long period when ham equipment wasn't particularly
good on AM, since most hams were using SSB. *So no wider filters for
AM, sometimes there wasn't even an AM detector, and certainly no
synchronous detector that everyone seems to think should be mandatory
now. *I suspect that has changed a bit recently, since some of the
techniques used to improve the design allows for adding better AM
reception without any real cost, and a lot of the ham manufacturers
like to be able to offer lots of bells and whistles, whether or not
they are needed.

Another obvious reason is that for a long time any receivers in amateur
radio equipment covered only the ham bands. *That was a good thing,
since you got much better bandspread; if you wanted general coverage
you would have started with one of those to begin with. *That too has
changed, now it's as easy to have a general coverage receiver as it is
to have a ham band only receiver, and again it's a selling point.

But, according to some, there may be attenuation that comes into play
on the AM broadcast band, or some other limitation as the frequency goes
down. *Or, RF amplification may be left off, so the receiver can
better deal with the strong local signals.

I can't really imagine a manufacturer not using the existing receiver
circuitry for the AM broadcast band, since it's just a matter of
extending the frequency range. *But maybe there are some out there
that toss in another IC for the AM band, resulting in no special
performance. *I remember getting into an argument with a local about
whether their shortwave portable receiver would actually be outstanding on
the FM band. *In that case, whatever great design is used on the shortwave
bands is lost, since a whole different circuit is needed for FM, and
thus they add a whole other FM receiver, usually an IC, which doesn't
have to be anything special; you are paying extra money for the shortwave,
not the FM band.

But, maybe the main reason was in the paragraph about the Superradio.
That one gets lost of praise, but it really is a pretty generic design.
The one thing it does have is a good loopstick antenna, and that's
certainly one area where ham equipment lacks. *None will have any sort
of built in antenna, so one will need something external. *That may often
be seen as some wire hanging off the antenna jack, and while that works, a
directional antenna is pretty useful on the AM broadcast band.

A receiver that has a built in antenna is going to be matched to that
small antenna, while a general coverage receiver with no built in antenna
may require external circuitry to best use a small antenna.

* * Michael

Ditto on the lack of a good antenna for BCB. As always, I suggest a
Wellbrook loop. I've used the ALA100 and home brew loops for NDBs, so
BCB isn't an issue.

Bob Dobbs wrote:
9kc wide in AM mode is the best I can manage.

For shortwave, 2.4 which is what most ham rigs deliver is too narrow,
4 is about the best and 6 is better if there is no adjacent channel
interference.

BCB AM works best with wider filters, depending upon what's close by.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, here I get a half a dozen or so BCB AM
stations, lots of SWBC (mostly on 40m) and the FM band has a station every
100kHz.

None of my HAM rigs have a sync-det, but a couple are stable enough on SSB to
accomplish the same effect. Only one of the SW portables has sync-det and it's
nice because it does DSB too on occasion when that mode is advantageous.

Is it really needed for broadcast band AM? I see very little if any fading
and can not remember it every being a problem.


I still don't know of any amateur rigs that tailor their coverage to BCB
although there are plenty that include it in the 30kc~30Mc spread.

I don't think there are any. It's not something the customers want and
ones sold in the US generally have extra front end antenuation for the
BCB.


They have to have the US amateur band plan restrictions superimposed
for type acceptance to be sold as an amateur HF transmitting device
in the USA (Usually deactivated by diode removal).

That's only for transmit. Very few countries restrict reception of anything
below 30mHz.


I use long outdoor omni antennas on all my amateur radios for AMBCB.
But I do have a tunable loop that works great with the SW portable.


I use a 20 meter long random wire with my r5000 and a 6 meter (high not
band) aluminum pole on my ham rigs. My SPR-4 works fine with the pole.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

Bob Dobbs wrote:
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

~~~

don't buy a SW, especially ham, receiver and expect it to perform
well on the AM BCB.

Why not?
I didn't initially buy any of my HAM rigs for use on AMBCB,
however a couple have turned out to perform very nicely there.
They're very stable (TCXO), have adjustable IF bandwidth and shift,
one of them has a convenient band scan to spot stations,
another actually has a spectrum scope to look at the band.
And even though that band is always full at night
it helps to see what's out there during the day.


The very best ram radio receivers have no coverage outside the ham
bands, where they are bandpass filtered.