|
modified DX-394
someone told me that they really like their modified DX-394. can other
people with a modified one tell me what they think of it ? I might want to buy one. |
One word, JUNK
"the captain" wrote in message om... someone told me that they really like their modified DX-394. can other people with a modified one tell me what they think of it ? I might want to buy one. |
Don't believe "WG"!
Join the RadioShack dx394 Group at Yahoo Groups and find out the truth. Chuck the captain wrote: someone told me that they really like their modified DX-394. can other people with a modified one tell me what they think of it ? I might want to buy one. |
Not too bad on AM (with mods and after market filter) very wide on SSB.
gil -- Please remove NOSPAM to reply the captain wrote in message om... someone told me that they really like their modified DX-394. can other people with a modified one tell me what they think of it ? I might want to buy one. |
"the captain" wrote in message om... someone told me that they really like their modified DX-394. can other people with a modified one tell me what they think of it ? I might want to buy one. I've owned the B model- very disappointing performance. Synthesizer chuffs, filters are wide with poor skirts. Maybe I'm just spoiled. Dale W4OP |
your answer is useless for me.
you need to be much more specific. please do not reply with useless answers. "WG" wrote in message news:TLm8c.6883$Ct5.4014@edtnps89... One word, JUNK "the captain" wrote in message om... someone told me that they really like their modified DX-394. can other people with a modified one tell me what they think of it ? I might want to buy one. |
You can get much better radios for less money and not have to do any
modifications to them. the DX-394 has a bad drift on SSB and is a basic brick compared to other radios that I have had like my old Drake SSR-1 or my Yeasu FRG-7. My DX-394 is a better radio then my DX-300 was and much better then the old DX-440. I could go on and on but this went around and around about 2 weeks ago. Stick with the professional grade communications receivers from people like Kenwood, Icom, Drake and Yeasu. The ones of the same aria as the 394 are about the same price at Ham Swap Meets with better features and one hell of a lot better sensitive. "the captain" wrote in message om... your answer is useless for me. you need to be much more specific. please do not reply with useless answers. "WG" wrote in message news:TLm8c.6883$Ct5.4014@edtnps89... One word, JUNK "the captain" wrote in message om... someone told me that they really like their modified DX-394. can other people with a modified one tell me what they think of it ? I might want to buy one. |
Comparisons are often invidious. The SSR-1 was made 20 years before the
DX-394. Its published specs suggest it had superior selectivity, similar sensitivity, but had poorer tuning accuracy, resolution, image and IF suppression compared to the stock DX-394. The SSR-1 had no tuning memories; the DX-394 has 160 plus remembers the last frequency tuned on every one of 16 bands and is much easier to tune - the pre-selector auto tracks. A modded DX-394 can have improved selectivity. The FRG-7 is also almost 20 years before the DX-394's time. Interestingly, it, too, was the subject of modifications similar to some performed on the DX-394 - AGC, selectivity and noise limiter being common. Had rec.radio.shortwave been around then, I'm sure it would have had many more. The published specs are skimpy but the stock DX-394 matches on selectivity and betters it by 6dB in sensitivity. FRG-7 tuning is cumbersome and has no memories. There is a 194 member FRG-7 user group on Yahoo vs a nearly 600 member DX-394 group. The DX-394 is a very stable, microprocessor controlled radio, exhibiting negligible drift from turn-on. If WG's has a bad drift, then it's exceptional. However, there have been reports of ment that adversely affects SSB/CW operation - whether factory or user misalignment or aging has caused it remains a mystery. I have 3 of them; one was off by 1kHz but was usable - there was a decidedly different spectral distribution for USB vs LSB speech. If you can afford a higher class radio go for it. If you can't, you'll get a great bang for your buck from a DX-394. For more info about the DX-394 and the myriad mods that can be done to it, join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RADIOSHACKDX394/. Tom WG wrote: You can get much better radios for less money and not have to do any modifications to them. the DX-394 has a bad drift on SSB and is a basic brick compared to other radios that I have had like my old Drake SSR-1 or my Yeasu FRG-7. My DX-394 is a better radio then my DX-300 was and much better then the old DX-440. I could go on and on but this went around and around about 2 weeks ago. Stick with the professional grade communications receivers from people like Kenwood, Icom, Drake and Yeasu. The ones of the same aria as the 394 are about the same price at Ham Swap Meets with better features and one hell of a lot better sensitive. "the captain" wrote in message om... your answer is useless for me. you need to be much more specific. please do not reply with useless answers. "WG" wrote in message news:TLm8c.6883$Ct5.4014@edtnps89... One word, JUNK "the captain" wrote in message om... someone told me that they really like their modified DX-394. can other people with a modified one tell me what they think of it ? I might want to buy one. |
Tom Holden wrote:
Comparisons are often invidious. The SSR-1 was made 20 years before the DX-394. Its published specs suggest it had superior selectivity, similar sensitivity, but had poorer tuning accuracy, resolution, image and IF suppression compared to the stock DX-394. The SSR-1 had no tuning memories; the DX-394 has 160 plus remembers the last frequency tuned on every one of 16 bands and is much easier to tune - the pre-selector auto tracks. A modded DX-394 can have improved selectivity. The FRG-7 is also almost 20 years before the DX-394's time. Interestingly, it, too, was the subject of modifications similar to some performed on the DX-394 - AGC, selectivity and noise limiter being common. Had rec.radio.shortwave been around then, I'm sure it would have had many more. The published specs are skimpy but the stock DX-394 matches on selectivity and betters it by 6dB in sensitivity. FRG-7 tuning is cumbersome and has no memories. There is a 194 member FRG-7 user group on Yahoo vs a nearly 600 member DX-394 group. The DX-394 is a very stable, microprocessor controlled radio, exhibiting negligible drift from turn-on. If WG's has a bad drift, then it's exceptional. However, there have been reports of ment that adversely affects SSB/CW operation - whether factory or user misalignment or aging has caused it remains a mystery. I have 3 of them; one was off by 1kHz but was usable - there was a decidedly different spectral distribution for USB vs LSB speech. If you can afford a higher class radio go for it. If you can't, you'll get a great bang for your buck from a DX-394. For more info about the DX-394 and the myriad mods that can be done to it, join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RADIOSHACKDX394/. Tom Tom - great last name! I think the point is the DX-394 tends to be getting expensive on ebay. I've seen some dx-394's bring $250. Quite a few close in the general range of $200. Personal tastes vary, but I think a used ten-tec rx-320 offers more bang for the buck in the $200-$225 range. |
Mark S. Holden wrote:
Tom Holden wrote: Comparisons are often invidious. The SSR-1 was made 20 years before the DX-394. Its published specs suggest it [snip] Tom - great last name! I think the point is the DX-394 tends to be getting expensive on ebay. I've seen some dx-394's bring $250. Quite a few close in the general range of $200. Personal tastes vary, but I think a used ten-tec rx-320 offers more bang for the buck in the $200-$225 range. Mark - your surname is great, too! There's not one ten-tec RX-320 currently FA on eBay while there are currently 7 DX-394's, and recently, 11! Closing prices for DX-394's have ranged from $96-$275, averaging $164, over the last five months. The RX-320 requires a computer to run it; the DX-394 is complete. Sherwood Engineering rates the Drake R-4C as one of the best receivers of all time. I have a R-4B. 73, Tom |
did you upgrade the internal speaker or use a good external one for
the audio ? I asked about a modified one and you complain that the selectivity is bad without a replacement. you are not giving me the information I need, Can't anyone out there give good useful information. I asked about a PROPERLY modified 394, I don't care if the stock unit is no good. the stock R-5000 IS NO GOOD according to Ranier Liechte and Larry Magne yet people on this group praise the radio. it needs to have the upgraded AM filter. I had a DX-398, did not like it at all, it has no sensitivity and sounds cheesy. I'd rather have a DX398 portable than the DX394. Even with all the mods I could find it was still a poor radio. The memory scheme is completely stupid, there is awful IF bleed-through, it has lousy selectivity without replacement filters, and the audio is only tolerable. |
the captain wrote:
did you upgrade the internal speaker or use a good external one for the audio ? The sound from the stock speaker can be improved by the bass mod, the hum mod, and the ANL defeat mod. Recently Kiwa brought out a kit of parts to do the bass and ANL defeat mods plus replace several polarised electrolytic caps with non-polarised for a further claimed improvement in clarity. If that's not good enough, the external speaker is an easy upgrade but if you want to keep it all in the box, then an internal speaker upgrade is the only option. Personally, I would rather have the better speaker aimed at me - hence external. If you really want to get fancy, plug the Tape Out into a hi-fi system. I asked about a modified one and you complain that the selectivity is bad without a replacement. The stock AM filter sounds very nice with strong signals in the clear. The switchable selectivity mod allows you to switch in the stock SSB filter for use with AM for better discrimination against interference with a sacrifice of audio high frequencies. you are not giving me the information I need, Can't anyone out there give good useful information. I think you have been given some good responses. For more information on the DX-394, join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RADIOSHACKDX394/. I asked about a PROPERLY modified 394, I don't care if the stock unit is no good. the stock R-5000 IS NO GOOD according to Ranier Liechte and Larry Magne yet people on this group praise the radio. it needs to have the upgraded AM filter. I had a DX-398, did not like it at all, it has no sensitivity and sounds cheesy. I have not had a DX-398 and cannot compare first hand but one's a portable and the other is a tabletop radio - I would think the intended use would be the determining factor. I'd rather have a DX398 portable than the DX394. Even with all the mods I could find it was still a poor radio. The memory scheme is completely stupid, there is awful IF bleed-through, it has lousy selectivity without replacement filters, and the audio is only tolerable. |
Tom Holden wrote:
Sherwood Engineering rates the Drake R-4C as one of the best receivers of all time. I have a R-4B. Have you ever used the FS4 synthesizer with your R-4B? I saw some plans for building a homebrew version of the FS4 but I can't find the website anymore. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
starman wrote:
Tom Holden wrote: Sherwood Engineering rates the Drake R-4C as one of the best receivers of all time. I have a R-4B. Have you ever used the FS4 synthesizer with your R-4B? I saw some plans for building a homebrew version of the FS4 but I can't find the website anymore. Nope. |
starman wrote:
Tom Holden wrote: Sherwood Engineering rates the Drake R-4C as one of the best receivers of all time. I have a R-4B. Have you ever used the FS4 synthesizer with your R-4B? I saw some plans for building a homebrew version of the FS4 but I can't find the website anymore. Found these references to articles in Ham Radio - don't know if it's homebrew or a review of the FS-4: Aug-72 6 Frequency Synthesizer for the Drake R-4 W6NBI Sep-74 74 Frequency Synthesizer for the Drake R-4 (mod. letter) NA And this link to a digital read-out - the RAC Digital Dial: http://www.wb4hfn.com/DrakeArticles/...talDial-01.htm still available from http://www.radioadv.com/ham_radio_eq.../FreqMC/A2.htm And a great collection farther up the tree at: http://www.wb4hfn.com/DrakeHomePage.htm A competing version of the RAC Digital Dial: http://www.aade.com/dfd1.htm Photo, description & schematic of the FS-4: http://www.dproducts.be/drake_Museum/fs-4.htm I see this is a substitute for the band-setting crystals so that you can tune in 500kHz bands from 1.5MHz to 30 MHz instead of being rock-bound to the ham bands plus a few others. It should be fairly easy to make something that outputs at 500kHz steps from 12.6MHz to 40.6MHz with good phase noise. But somebody else better design it! Tom |
Tom Holden wrote:
starman wrote: Tom Holden wrote: Sherwood Engineering rates the Drake R-4C as one of the best receivers of all time. I have a R-4B. Have you ever used the FS4 synthesizer with your R-4B? I saw some plans for building a homebrew version of the FS4 but I can't find the website anymore. Found these references to articles in Ham Radio - don't know if it's homebrew or a review of the FS-4: Aug-72 6 Frequency Synthesizer for the Drake R-4 W6NBI Sep-74 74 Frequency Synthesizer for the Drake R-4 (mod. letter) NA And this link to a digital read-out - the RAC Digital Dial: http://www.wb4hfn.com/DrakeArticles/...talDial-01.htm still available from http://www.radioadv.com/ham_radio_eq.../FreqMC/A2.htm And a great collection farther up the tree at: http://www.wb4hfn.com/DrakeHomePage.htm A competing version of the RAC Digital Dial: http://www.aade.com/dfd1.htm Photo, description & schematic of the FS-4: http://www.dproducts.be/drake_Museum/fs-4.htm I see this is a substitute for the band-setting crystals so that you can tune in 500kHz bands from 1.5MHz to 30 MHz instead of being rock-bound to the ham bands plus a few others. It should be fairly easy to make something that outputs at 500kHz steps from 12.6MHz to 40.6MHz with good phase noise. But somebody else better design it! Thanks Tom. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com