Stereophile22 wrote:

- City boy here...

definitely selectivity then. And judging from the other posters here, despite
what I thought earlier, it seems that selctivity is the way for me to go also
in regards to the shortwave bands.

My area is defined as "semi-rural".

which I guess means that it hard to define whether a radio with better
selectivity or better sensitivity is better for me in regards to normal AM and
FM broacast listening and scanner listening.

Almost any modern receiver will have acceptable sensitivity, so that's
not really an issue unless you are trying to hear very weak stations. In
that case, the first requirement is double conversion to eliminate or
greatly reduce images. Otherwise you will be hearing all kinds of junk
where it doesn't belong on the bands you want to hear. Second comes
selectivity. This allows you to hear a weak station next to a strong
one.
If you intend to use a good external antenna, another requirement is
good dynamic range to reduce spurious signals from strong stations.
These are similar to images but they're caused by a different process.
Dynamic range is hard to get in a portable because it requires a more
sophisticated design, which costs more. Finally, consider a receiver
with a sync' detector like the 7600GR and others. Sync' can really help
to make the audio more listenable with less distortion.


-----= 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! =-----