In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Byrns) wrote:

Please delete rec.radio.shortwave from the news group header.

Thanks.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

What's the problem? This is a radio related discussion.

Frank Dresser

What does this have to do with listening to SW or BCB?

These guys are have their own conversation on radio design in another
group. More power to them. Why the need to cross post it?

If I or anyone else wants to they can subscribe to the other groups and
join in.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
(John Byrns) wrote:

Please delete rec.radio.shortwave from the news group header.

I'll say one thing about this group currently posting: They use more
complicated words than Bryant does!

Like just about any technical newsgroup it is a painful read. Half the
time stuff is wrong and then other people try to correct mistakes or
misunderstandings. You can sit there and watch the threads drift closer
to and then away from being correct and it just drives me nuts.

Worse sometime the correct answer is posted and others go on with the
wrong ideas anyway. Really sucks. These groups generally have
humongously long threads.

Then there is always at least one retard to stir the crap.

Darn, I always tend to connect the dublistoid to the hummingifier via an
entrencher with a 10 megohm resistor shunted to ground through a
demystifier and it seems to work for me *almost* every time!

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
(John Byrns) wrote:

Please delete rec.radio.shortwave from the news group header.

I'll say one thing about this group currently posting: They use more
complicated words than Bryant does!

Like just about any technical newsgroup it is a painful read. Half the
time stuff is wrong and then other people try to correct mistakes or
misunderstandings. You can sit there and watch the threads drift closer
to and then away from being correct and it just drives me nuts.

Worse sometime the correct answer is posted and others go on with the
wrong ideas anyway. Really sucks. These groups generally have
humongously long threads.

Then there is always at least one retard to stir the crap.

Darn, I always tend to connect the dublistoid to the hummingifier via an
entrencher with a 10 megohm resistor shunted to ground through a
demystifier and it seems to work for me *almost* every time!

Makes you long for the days of "your radio sucks threads."

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
(John Byrns) wrote:

Please delete rec.radio.shortwave from the news group header.

I'll say one thing about this group currently posting: They use more
complicated words than Bryant does!

Like just about any technical newsgroup it is a painful read. Half the
time stuff is wrong and then other people try to correct mistakes or
misunderstandings. You can sit there and watch the threads drift closer
to and then away from being correct and it just drives me nuts.

Worse sometime the correct answer is posted and others go on with the
wrong ideas anyway. Really sucks. These groups generally have
humongously long threads.

Then there is always at least one retard to stir the crap.

Darn, I always tend to connect the dublistoid to the hummingifier via an
entrencher with a 10 megohm resistor shunted to ground through a
demystifier and it seems to work for me *almost* every time!

Makes you long for the days of "your radio sucks threads."

Yes, I believe it does.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

What does this have to do with listening to SW or BCB?

Well, a hi-fi AM tuner would be a BCB radio.


These guys are have their own conversation on radio design in another
group. More power to them. Why the need to cross post it?

I posted in on this topic a couple of days ago. I was going to ask Steven
Swift about his AM detector distortion numbers, but John Byrns did it first.
I think it's an interesting thread, on-topic and polite. That's a rare
triple play on rrs!

If I or anyone else wants to they can subscribe to the other groups and
join in.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I've been reading it from rec.radio.shortwave. I'm happy to see it here.

Frank Dresser

"Dan" wrote in message
...

Same here. This is a great thread, after weeks and weeks of
political crap, personal attacks and childish name calling.

As this thread is *clearly* on topic for rec.radio.shortwave,

[snip]

There's a couple of "Lloyd" threads for those who prefer rrs "classic".

Frank Dresser

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Byrns) wrote:

Please delete rec.radio.shortwave from the news group header.

Thanks.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

What's the problem? This is a radio related discussion.

Frank Dresser

What does this have to do with listening to SW or BCB?

The discussion has everything to do with listening to the BCB,
and radio theory.

The subject you object to so strongly is neither political, religious,
commercial, or sexual, so why not just let the subject run out of steam
like all threads eventually do?

Patrick Turner.



These guys are have their own conversation on radio design in another
group. More power to them. Why the need to cross post it?

If I or anyone else wants to they can subscribe to the other groups and
join in.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In rec.antiques.radio+phono Telamon wrote:
I've been reading it from here to and I'm not happy.

Maybe you should not read it instead of trying to speak for people that
don't want you to speak for them.

Apologies to all others for this nowhere-near useful reply.

On topic: I noticed that European Philips all-transistor AM tuner
circuits from the seventies seem to give better quality reception than
some other European and Japanese mass-production receivers. I have no
idea about the designs used, but it could be usefull to study those.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

In rec.antiques.radio+phono Telamon wrote:
In article ,
In rec.antiques.radio+phono Telamon
wrote:
I've been reading it from here to and I'm not happy.
Maybe you should not read it instead of trying to speak for people that
don't want you to speak for them.
Oh come on now and be a good net citizen and not cross post.

You must be some sort of newbie or troll, this subject is perfectly on
topic.

By the way, I could imagine that Grundig tuners of the mentioned era
also sound very good, but being Dutch, most receivers I hear are made by
Philips.

I don't have much more of relevance to add to the discussion, so I'll
return to just reading it now.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

PT,

Fair Play is after all FAIR PLAY !

I guess we all at RRS should start posting Reception Reports to:

* rec.antiques.radio+phono

* rec.audio.tubes

Just for the Fun of It ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Patrick Turner wrote in message
= = = ...
Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Byrns) wrote:

Please delete rec.radio.shortwave from the news group header.

Thanks.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

What's the problem? This is a radio related discussion.

Frank Dresser

What does this have to do with listening to SW or BCB?

The discussion has everything to do with listening to the BCB,
and radio theory.

The subject you object to so strongly is neither political, religious,
commercial, or sexual, so why not just let the subject run out of steam
like all threads eventually do?

Patrick Turner.



These guys are have their own conversation on radio design in another
group. More power to them. Why the need to cross post it?

If I or anyone else wants to they can subscribe to the other groups and
join in.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California