What's the 'quietest' receiver you've ever owned or used?
 

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

the DX-394 is very quiet yet pretty sensitive. after I have modded one it is
a very nice receiver !


wrote in message
oups.com...
I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

wrote in message
oups.com...
I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

I too like my 150, but the current receiver I am building- loosley based on
a W7ZOI design is quieter, probably due to the gain distribution and the
fact that Wes designed the AGC such that it does not kick in until
about -90dBmV; unlike some of today's radios where you can actually see band
noise on the S meter.
Still under construction, with a 1980's theme:
http://www.parelectronics.com/pics/w7zoi9.jpg

The AM detector is an NE602 used in a squaring circuit - wonderful A.M.
recovery.


--
Dale W4OP
for PAR Electronics, Inc.

On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

The WinRadio G313i by far. Noise floor -138 dBm and the continuously
adjustable IF filter let's you adjust the IF bandwidth to precisely
match the bandwidth of the signal. No other receiver comes close.

Geoff

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:50:39 GMT, (Geoff Burginon)
wrote:

On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

The WinRadio G313i by far. Noise floor -138 dBm and the continuously
adjustable IF filter let's you adjust the IF bandwidth to precisely
match the bandwidth of the signal. No other receiver comes close.

Geoff


Agree - 313i is the quietest by far.

wrote in message
oups.com...

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

I've got one that doesn't work, does that count? No sound at all...

Seriously, though, I think the radio with the quietest noise floor is my
Zenith Trans-Oceanic 3000-1. It has very little audio until you tune across
a station. It's not unusual to blast yourself out because you turn up the
audio, thinking there should be lots of static.


--
Tom Sevart N2UHC
Frontenac, KS
http://www.geocities.com/n2uhc

wrote:
I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a
Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

R-390/URR

Les

wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?


Hallicrafters SX-62

Frank Dresser

wrote in message
oups.com...
I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

Motorola R-390

The R-390A gets my vote. Its phase noise figures are among the best, which
helps the weak DX get through.

Among solid-state gear I've owned, I consider the AR7030 and ICOM 756Pro
series receivers to be quiet, but not to the same degree as the R-390A.

Guy Atkins
Puyallup, WA


wrote in message
oups.com...
I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

R390/URR followed very closely by the R292/URR.
Terry

My Lafayette KT-340 was pretty darned quiet, as were many tube radios.
It wasn't particularly sensitive though.

The quietest digital receiver I've owned is a Kenwood R-5000 and it is
sensitive


wrote:
I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a
Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

Take a look at phase noise specs on the Elecraft page
URL: http://www.elecraft.com/
Click on RIG COMPARISIONS

I once used a ten tec transceiver which impressed me as very quiet

--
Caveat Lector

"Geoff Burginon" wrote in message
news:41fe2980.12117500@news-server...
On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

The WinRadio G313i by far. Noise floor -138 dBm and the continuously
adjustable IF filter let's you adjust the IF bandwidth to precisely
match the bandwidth of the signal. No other receiver comes close.

Geoff


R-390

B.H.

On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?


Kneisner & Doering KWZ-30
Ten -Tec 565

Jim

While we are on the subject -- there is a lot more to a receiver than
sensitivity -- MUCH MORE

Best read W8JI pages to see what you really want to consider when selecting
a receiver.

URL:
http://www.w8ji.com/receiver_tests.htm

BTW: The Ten Tec Orion is top rated.

Hmmm - now where is that spare $3599.00 ???

Ten Tec Page URL:
http://www.tentec.com/TT565.htm

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)

Caveat Lector wrote:

While we are on the subject -- there is a lot more to a receiver than
sensitivity -- MUCH MORE

Best read W8JI pages to see what you really want to consider when selecting
a receiver.

URL:
http://www.w8ji.com/receiver_tests.htm

BTW: The Ten Tec Orion is top rated.

Hmmm - now where is that spare $3599.00 ???

Ten Tec Page URL:
http://www.tentec.com/TT565.htm

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)

I did the bulk of my dx'ing and QSL'ing with Drake!

And I didn't even have a computer at the time either.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?


I actually use the Ten Tec Orion more for SW listening than amateur
use. It has the best audio I have ever heard from a receiver. I use an
Icom 756 Pro II for contacts because of its ergonomics even though the
filters and audio are not as good as the Ten Tec. So there are many
things to consider when looking at a radio.

Oh yeah. If you like boat anchors you will be happy with the Ten-Tec
Orion. It is huge. It takes up more desk space than my linear amp.

Jim

On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:


I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?




The 1937 Zenith "black face" I owned as a kid was the quietest SW
receiver I owned. But performance, good as it was, was not in the
league of today's receivers.

Tony

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote:
I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

My Kenwood R-5000 has very good weak signal sensitivity. The R8A and
NRD-535Db are not far behind.

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

Brian Hill wrote:
"Geoff Burginon" wrote in message
news:41fe2980.12117500@news-server...
On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a
Lowe HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck
by how quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it
comes to resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

The WinRadio G313i by far. Noise floor -138 dBm and the continuously
adjustable IF filter let's you adjust the IF bandwidth to precisely
match the bandwidth of the signal. No other receiver comes close.

Geoff


R-390

B.H.

The Collins should win this contest hands down. Nothing, to my knowledge,
ever had a lower noise floor. The story is that it was only limited by the
Galactic background noise level. You can't do any better than that.

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

Jim,

I take it you are using the sub-receiver of the Orion for SWLing, as the
main receiver covers just the ham bands and MARS frequency extensions +/-
10 kHz.

The sub-receiver has poorer SSB sensitivity than the main receiver (.35 uV
versus .18 uV) and poorer third-order intercept point (+5 dB versus +25dB at
20 kHz spacing). Have you found this a drawback for DXing, or is your main
receive-only use of the Orion for general SWLing (not DXing)? I'm interested
in your further comments on this.

Also, I note that both of the Orion's receivers offer just two bandwidths
for AM mode. Is this a drawback, or do you like to tune an AM signal in SSB
("ECSS"), taking advantage of the many DSP filter choices in SSB?

I know the Orion is top-notch for ham band use, and its selectable roofing
filters for the ham bands help out immensely in this regard. For tuning the
SWBC bands, though, the sub-receiver of the Orion appears to be a step down
in performance (but maybe I'm missing something in the specs... :^)

From a quietness standpoint, do you find the main & sub-receivers to be
equal, given equal bandwidths, AGC, etc.?

73,

Guy Atkins
Puyallup, WA USA



R.F. Collins wrote in message
...
On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I actually use the Ten Tec Orion more for SW listening than amateur
use. It has the best audio I have ever heard from a receiver. I use an
Icom 756 Pro II for contacts because of its ergonomics even though the
filters and audio are not as good as the Ten Tec. So there are many
things to consider when looking at a radio.

Oh yeah. If you like boat anchors you will be happy with the Ten-Tec
Orion. It is huge. It takes up more desk space than my linear amp.

Jim

"Brian Denley" wrote in message
...
Brian Hill wrote:
"Geoff Burginon" wrote in message
news:41fe2980.12117500@news-server...
On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a
Lowe HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck
by how quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it
comes to resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

The WinRadio G313i by far. Noise floor -138 dBm and the continuously
adjustable IF filter let's you adjust the IF bandwidth to precisely
match the bandwidth of the signal. No other receiver comes close.

Geoff


R-390

B.H.

The Collins should win this contest hands down. Nothing, to my knowledge,
ever had a lower noise floor. The story is that it was only limited by
the
Galactic background noise level. You can't do any better than that.

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html



They're pretty amazing receivers. Now if they only tuned like a SP-600 ;)

B.H.

Hallicrafters SX-146.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

wrote:

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a Lowe
HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck by how
quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it comes to
resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

Probably one of my boatanchors, like the HQ-145X.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

David wrote:

Racal RA-17 variant, Stewart-Warner R390-A

I had a Stewart-Warner speedometer on my bicycle that was pretty quiet.
:-)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:49:49 -0800, "Guy Atkins"
wrote:

Jim,

I take it you are using the sub-receiver of the Orion for SWLing, as the
main receiver covers just the ham bands and MARS frequency extensions +/-
10 kHz.

Yes

The sub-receiver has poorer SSB sensitivity than the main receiver (.35 uV
versus .18 uV) and poorer third-order intercept point (+5 dB versus +25dB at
20 kHz spacing). Have you found this a drawback for DXing, or is your main
receive-only use of the Orion for general SWLing (not DXing)? I'm interested
in your further comments on this.

I have not noticed much of a difference in sensitivity between the two
receivers. I was quite surprised by the selectivity of the
sub-receiver. I just happened to have it on medium wave one day and
was very impressed on how well I could just turn off adjacent stations
by narrowing the bandwidth. See below...

Also, I note that both of the Orion's receivers offer just two bandwidths
for AM mode. Is this a drawback, or do you like to tune an AM signal in SSB
("ECSS"), taking advantage of the many DSP filter choices in SSB?

The manual shows only two bandwidths but the AM bandwidth is
continuously adjustable from 6kHz to 100Hz.

I know the Orion is top-notch for ham band use, and its selectable roofing
filters for the ham bands help out immensely in this regard. For tuning the
SWBC bands, though, the sub-receiver of the Orion appears to be a step down
in performance (but maybe I'm missing something in the specs... :^)

I don't have any nearby radio stations and I don't have any
measurement equipment available but I would say the two receivers are
very similar. Even when using the main receiver the digital filters
works so well I normally leave the roofing filter in the wide position
for most amateur work. I am sure there would be some conditions where
there would be some benefit to the narrow roofing filter - contesting,
CW, etc.

I really did not intend to use the sub-receiver that much but I am
originally a SW DXer turned amateur and I am always drawn over to the
SW bands when I hit the AM button on this radio. I would have to say
the sub receiver audio and performance are awesome. Maybe they are
afraid to let on how good it is at Ten-Tec since the RX-340 sales
might suffer.

From a quietness standpoint, do you find the main & sub-receivers to be
equal, given equal bandwidths, AGC, etc.?

Both receivers are very quiet. I will have to set up and do a direct
comparison some time and let you know if I can detect a difference.

Jim



73,

Guy Atkins
Puyallup, WA USA



R.F. Collins wrote in message


.. .
On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I actually use the Ten Tec Orion more for SW listening than amateur
use. It has the best audio I have ever heard from a receiver. I use an
Icom 756 Pro II for contacts because of its ergonomics even though the
filters and audio are not as good as the Ten Tec. So there are many
things to consider when looking at a radio.

Oh yeah. If you like boat anchors you will be happy with the Ten-Tec
Orion. It is huge. It takes up more desk space than my linear amp.

Jim

Geoff Burginon wrote:


Which particular one of Collins receivers? What was the actual
specified noise floor in figures? Frankly, I doubt you can get much
lower than the WinRadio G313i -138 dBm.

Read also this:

"If I had to choose between a Collins 95S-1 and the WR-G303i (ignoring
the obvious fact that the 95S-1 tunes to 2 GHz), I would take the
WR-G303i."

John Wilson, ShortWave Magazine
(more details on http://www.winradio.com/pdf/g303i-review-swm.pdf )

And this in fact refers to the *predecessor" of the WR-G313i, which is
a much better radio still - 5 stars by WRTH.

My WR-G313i does indeed have the advertized -138dBm noise floor, and
even the S-meter reliably measures down to that level - with 1dB
accuracy.

Not speaking of the ultra-sharp continuously variable IF filters down
to 1Hz bandwith.

Now *that's* what I'd call winning the contest hands down. ;-)

Geoff



Geoff:
We are talking about the legendary R-390 receiver that Collins designed fo
the US military. These were manufactured by Collins and other companies and
cost many thousands each. Their ability to hear weak signals remains
unmatched to this day. It's a vacuum tube based receiver and extremely
quiet.
--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

Geoff Burginon wrote:

Which particular one of Collins receivers? What was the actual
specified noise floor in figures? Frankly, I doubt you can get much
lower than the WinRadio G313i -138 dBm.

Read also this:

"If I had to choose between a Collins 95S-1 and the WR-G303i (ignoring
the obvious fact that the 95S-1 tunes to 2 GHz), I would take the
WR-G303i."

John Wilson, ShortWave Magazine
(more details on http://www.winradio.com/pdf/g303i-review-swm.pdf )

And this in fact refers to the *predecessor" of the WR-G313i, which is
a much better radio still - 5 stars by WRTH.

My WR-G313i does indeed have the advertized -138dBm noise floor, and
even the S-meter reliably measures down to that level - with 1dB
accuracy.

Not speaking of the ultra-sharp continuously variable IF filters down
to 1Hz bandwith.

Now *that's* what I'd call winning the contest hands down. ;-)

Geoff

Geoff:


-143 dB was the noise floor of the R-390A, according to web info.
Otherwise, of course, it was an old tube (32 of them!) boatanchor with
mechanical tuning, weighed a ton, and had none of the amenities that modern
digital radios provide. But it WAS quiet!

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 23:46:12 -0500, "Brian Denley"
wrote:


My WR-G313i does indeed have the advertized -138dBm noise floor, and
even the S-meter reliably measures down to that level - with 1dB
accuracy.

Not speaking of the ultra-sharp continuously variable IF filters down
to 1Hz bandwith.

Now *that's* what I'd call winning the contest hands down. ;-)

Geoff

Geoff:


-143 dB was the noise floor of the R-390A, according to web info.
Otherwise, of course, it was an old tube (32 of them!) boatanchor with
mechanical tuning, weighed a ton, and had none of the amenities that modern
digital radios provide. But it WAS quiet!

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html


Thanks for the info Brian, sounds indeed awesome, I think I'd love to
own this radio (and I thought I had no space left! :-).

But frankly, I am still a bit confused about the noise floor. Yes I
did see the Web pages which mention -143 dBm and one even says
-147dBm, but some other pages specify less, for example -127 dBm,
which seems to me more realistic, considering the sensitivity specs,
which appear to be poorer than my WR-G313i (I have verified its
sensitivity with a good signal generator, and it is actually about 2-3
dB better than specified):

R-390A specs:
http://members.aol.com/tcsopr/r390a.htm
WR-G313i specs:
http://www.winradio.com/home/g313i-s.htm

How could a receiver with a higher noise floor have a better
sensitivity?

See also the original military specs on:
http://209.35.120.129/mil-r-13947b.pdf

and this table
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
which shows the noise floor as -137dBm,
i.e. about the same as the WR-G313i.

Confusing, eh?

I also note the dynamic range of the R-390A is rather poor:
according to the specs on
http://members.aol.com/tcsopr/r390a.htm
it is only 52.7 dB (but this can't possibly be correct?),
and on http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
it is more reasonable 79dB (or 81dB wide-spaced), but it is still
nothing compared to the 95 dB of my WR-G313i...

Geoff

Id say the Lowe is quiet, but you forgot to power it up!
B

"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brian Denley" wrote in message
...
Brian Hill wrote:
"Geoff Burginon" wrote in message
news:41fe2980.12117500@news-server...
On 30 Jan 2005 19:37:29 -0800, wrote:

I started thinking about this tonight. I was tuning around with a
Lowe HF-150, comparing it with some other receivers, and was struck
by how quiet the 150 is--and by what an advantage this is when it
comes to resolving weak AM signals.

So, just out of curiosity, what's the quietest receiver you've used
and/or owned?

The WinRadio G313i by far. Noise floor -138 dBm and the continuously
adjustable IF filter let's you adjust the IF bandwidth to precisely
match the bandwidth of the signal. No other receiver comes close.

Geoff


R-390

B.H.

The Collins should win this contest hands down. Nothing, to my
knowledge,
ever had a lower noise floor. The story is that it was only limited by
the
Galactic background noise level. You can't do any better than that.

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html



They're pretty amazing receivers. Now if they only tuned like a SP-600 ;)

B.H.