Hi all,

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. Does anyone have any experience with this radio?
Is it better than, say, Icom or Winradio? And what about computer
noise? Also, I'm in an apartment and would like some kind of antenna
(active?). Which one would you recommend, and where to get it. I am
not really a DIY person

Thanks!

Bill schrieb:

Hi all,

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. Does anyone have any experience with this radio?
Is it better than, say, Icom or Winradio?

As far as I've read, the RX-320 is pretty much the best shortwave rig in
its class; no idea whether the Winradio G303i or G313i might beat it in
terms of strong signal handling, though.

And what about computer
noise?

Assuming the RX-320 is decently constructed, there shouldn't be any more
such noise than with any other PC controlled receiver. The best place
for an antenna is as far away from noise sources (including the PC) as
possible, with coax lead-in. BTW the worst interference sources from my
rig here are the ethernet switch (cheapie) and a front mounted
(unshielded) case fan.

Also, I'm in an apartment and would like some kind of antenna
(active?).

Particularly when having to use the PC for receiver operation, you want
something outdoors.

Stephan
--
Meine Andere Seite: http://stephan.win31.de/
PC#6: i440BX, 1xP3-500E, 512 MiB, 18+80 GB, R9k AGP 64 MiB, 110W
This is a SCSI-inside, Legacy-plus, TCPA-free computer
Mail to From: not read, see homepg. | Real gelesene Mailadr. s. Homep.

In article , Stephan Grossklass
writes:


Also, I'm in an apartment and would like some kind of antenna
(active?).

Particularly when having to use the PC for receiver operation, you want
something outdoors.


Try this... !

Outdoor antenna for Apartment Dwellers . ..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MATERIALS

Some Stranded, Insulated copper wire from Radio shack
Colors so it matches the bricks / outside of your building

Some stick-on Cord holders
One tube clear Silicone sealer glue
One black magic marker
One Rusty red magic marker
A roll of Duct tape color of outside of apt.

One Mop
One piece of twine or string.
One Small soft edged weight.

PROCEDU

See how far it is in between two windows of your Apt..

Measure out a piece of string this distance + ~ 6 - 8 feet.
Attach a small soft edged weight to it.

( Look Outside to see no one is looking !! )

Secure curious household pets

Open Both Windows.
Insert mop part way out one]
Close that window to secure mop handle

Run over to the other window QUICK!
Take the twine with the weight on it & (without risking life & limb)
Toss the string over the mop sticking out the other window.
Secure the end of that end of the string with a bit of slack
Close that window
Run over to the other window with the mop that has the twine handing down off
it

Pull the mop in
Close the window.

( Breath deeply )

NOW....

Attach the stranded wire to the end of the string.
Slightly open window
Run over to the oher window.
Open it & pull in string until wire / string connection is through..

Pull in enough so that wire will reach SWR
Attach wire to SWR.
Close window.

- That's basically it. Modify as needed.

You can take Square stick -on cord holders
Camouflage them with magic Marker color , &
Silicone glue them to the outside corners of the window,
Then loop more wire

( DONT FALL OUT WHEN DOING THIS !!)

around the cord holders. This makes the antenna longer.
repeat for other windows..This should help lots..

( Works for me !!)

"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

"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
But that is generally made up for with the veratility of the equipment.
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.


--
Panzer

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
But that is generally made up for with the veratility of the equipment.
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

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
But that is generally made up for with the veratility of the equipment.
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

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
But that is generally made up for with the veratility of the equipment.
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.

--
Panzer

Some PC based radios will be easier than others to keep going as computers and operating systems change. I'd be concerned about receivers that come on internal cards - because keeping an old computer running eventually becomes impractical.

Can you still buy a new hard drive for an XT?

But I do still have a 1976 Polymorphic Systems 8813 with three single sided hard sectored floppy drives and a whopping 56k of ram, and I suppose it could run some of the pc based radios if I wrote the software myself.

"Panzer240" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
I considered buying one of those types
of shortwave receivers before. However,
I changed my mind after weighing all the
possible long term implications. (snip)


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. (snip)


Perhaps I'm just a little oversensitive to the idea because of all the
computer hardware and software that has become obsolete over the years -
millions and millions of tons of still working but obsolete computers,
printers, and peripherals, dumped into landfills throughout the country.

Stewart

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in news:8kHLc.8943
:



Perhaps I'm just a little oversensitive to the idea because of all the
computer hardware and software that has become obsolete over the years -
millions and millions of tons of still working but obsolete computers,
printers, and peripherals, dumped into landfills throughout the country.

Stewart



Heheheh I'm still using 486DX-66 's here to build cheap and dirty routers
using KA9Q's old gateway (dos based) software They are cheap and easy to
build and require no HD, just two NIC's and a floppy disk drive. Lots go to
the dump, very true, but there are enough of them around and at fire sale
prices that you could keep the current PC controlled radios running almost
indefinitely.



--
Panzer