Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Panzer240 wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in nk.net: "Bill" wrote: Having done some DX'ing with a small Sony SW radio for ten years, I would like to buy a better one, connected to the pc. I was thinking of the Ten-Tech RX320D. (snip) I considered buying one of those types of shortwave receivers before. However, I changed my mind after weighing all the possible long term implications. A good, well-built, standalone receiver can be useful over many years. Indeed, among my radios, I have a twenty-five year old Kenwood that is still performing like a champ. A computer-based receiver, on the other hand, is clearly dependant on the computer for continued use. Given the speed in which computer technology advances and today's technology becomes obsolete, a computer-based receiver clearly has a limited lifespan. Further, after a lessor number of years, when a new OS has replaced the OS needed to operate the receiver's software, any resale value would be sharply reduced. Of course, one can hope the receiver's manufacturer will release new software as operating systems change, but even they will eventually drop this model with a newer receiver with support for older models eventually ended. I'm not trying to talk you out of buying that receiver (since I don't know you, I have no real interest in what you buy). Instead, I just wanted to add this to the general discussion of this newsgroup. Stewart I have a PCR-1000 here that will work on everything from Win95 to WinXp + Linux//Unix. At the very worst you can dedicate on "older" computer to the setup and keep it going indefinitely. There may be many reasons to choose a different type of receiver, but the chaning OS scene is certainly not one of them. Since most modern receivers also have serial ports on them, and are used with some form of computer connection, if only just for logging, your argument would also apply to them. Certainly these receivers have no more limited a life span than any other more conventional gear. Having been in the hobby for many years, about the only thing I don't like about the software controlled gear is the lack of a knob or two to twirl ![]() e.g. I can listen to short wave and at the touch of button turn the PCR- 1000 into a trunk tracking scanner. There are not many receivers on the market that are capable of a similar feat. Wideband receivers (whether they be PC controlled or not) are notorious for being overall poor performers. dxAce |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:23:57 -0400, dxAce wrote:
Panzer240 wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in nk.net: "Bill" wrote: Having done some DX'ing with a small Sony SW radio for ten years, I would like to buy a better one, connected to the pc. I was thinking of the Ten-Tech RX320D. (snip) I considered buying one of those types of shortwave receivers before. However, I changed my mind after weighing all the possible long term implications. A good, well-built, standalone receiver can be useful over many years. Indeed, among my radios, I have a twenty-five year old Kenwood that is still performing like a champ. A computer-based receiver, on the other hand, is clearly dependant on the computer for continued use. Given the speed in which computer technology advances and today's technology becomes obsolete, a computer-based receiver clearly has a limited lifespan. Further, after a lessor number of years, when a new OS has replaced the OS needed to operate the receiver's software, any resale value would be sharply reduced. Of course, one can hope the receiver's manufacturer will release new software as operating systems change, but even they will eventually drop this model with a newer receiver with support for older models eventually ended. I'm not trying to talk you out of buying that receiver (since I don't know you, I have no real interest in what you buy). Instead, I just wanted to add this to the general discussion of this newsgroup. Stewart I have a PCR-1000 here that will work on everything from Win95 to WinXp + Linux//Unix. At the very worst you can dedicate on "older" computer to the setup and keep it going indefinitely. There may be many reasons to choose a different type of receiver, but the chaning OS scene is certainly not one of them. Since most modern receivers also have serial ports on them, and are used with some form of computer connection, if only just for logging, your argument would also apply to them. Certainly these receivers have no more limited a life span than any other more conventional gear. Having been in the hobby for many years, about the only thing I don't like about the software controlled gear is the lack of a knob or two to twirl ![]() e.g. I can listen to short wave and at the touch of button turn the PCR- 1000 into a trunk tracking scanner. There are not many receivers on the market that are capable of a similar feat. Wideband receivers (whether they be PC controlled or not) are notorious for being overall poor performers. dxAce True, they typically are. The original poster was looking at the Ten Tec RX320 though and that model is strictly HF. I have seen so many positive reviews of this radio; even by folks with very nice Drake, Racal et al tabletop radios; that I too strongly considered it. The only drawback for me was that it is tied to the computer and I wanted portability. Howard |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Comparing Four Great Communications Receivers | Shortwave | |||
a page of motorola 2way 2 way portable and mobile radio history | Policy | |||
Means of building low quality receivers | Homebrew | |||
Means of building low quality receivers | Homebrew |