I have a 150, but neither use nor feel the need for the keypad. I do
recommend an external speaker for the 150, and without an external
speaker the 800 sounds better. But the 150 sounds better with external
speakers, and it will outperform the 800 and all its buttons and knobs
on shortwave every time. I guess it ultimately boils down to what you
want.

Steve

I don't think you know what you are talking about. the 150 is not
better than the 800. never was never will be. and it is not better
because of FM or AIR or buttons.

only an idiot would say the 800 is better than the R8B

by the way, my friend also has an RX-340 and is a very knowledgeable
radio person.

everyone can have an opinion, you just don't know what you are talking
about.

I'm sure he is and if he's happy with his 800, I say more power to him.
I hope he continues to enjoy it for many years to come, in spite of its
crappy build quality.

Steve

Apparently I knew enough to hit a nerve.

Steve

wrote:

Apparently I knew enough to hit a nerve.

Bravo!

I bow to a master.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Joe Analssandrini wrote:
Hello Ducky!

Both radios are superb within their categories. When considering
absolute reception, the Satellit 800 is a superior radio to the
ICF-SW7600GR.

HOWEVER --- have you tried using a really good antenna with your
'7600?
Please remember (and note well) that the ANTENNA is far more
important
to good reception than is the radio.

A good DXer can achieve far more with a '7600 and a good antenna than
someone else with a Satellit 800 and a mediocre antenna.

Though it would be overkill to buy a Wellbrook ALA 330S antenna for a
Sony portable, just for the "heck" of it I attached my Wellbrook to
the
Sony. You should have heard the signals "pouring" in! (Of course the
Satellit 800 is better yet.)

That said, if you are truly interested in good short wave reception
and
are willing to erect a proper antenna, then "yes" the Satellit 800 is
EASILY worth the $300.

Best,

Joe

Are you saying that the SAT 800 is more sensitive than the 7600GR?

Dear Ducky,

It is FAR more sensitive. But remember - sensitivity per se is not the
most important attribute of a good short wave radio, at least nowadays,
when virtually all short wave radios have sufficient sensitivity. A
sensitive receiver will pick up local electrical noise even better than
an insensitive one! A radio/antenna combination which will minimize
that problem is better than one that won't.

Take my advice about buying the AOR WL500 Window Loop Antenna (on a
returnable basis) first and try it with your Sony ICF-SW7600GR. If you
see an improvement in reception quality, then the Grundig Satellit 800
will certainly outperform (on an absolute basis) the Sony, due to its
far superior image rejection, IF filtering, AGC action, etc.

In order to improve your reception quality, first you must increase the
signal-to-noise ratio. Only an antenna can do that. If you find one
that will work well in your location (and I believe the WL500 is one
that will), then you can upgrade your shack to a better receiver with
the knowledge that you are getting your money's worth.

If, after following my advice, you ultimately do buy a Satellit 800,
well then you can aspire to someday owning a Wellbrook ALA 330S Active
Loop Antenna, the finest antenna being made today. But that will be far
into the future.

You should find that the Grundig Satellit 800/AOR WL500 combination
will afford you excellent reception and many hours of pleasant
listening.

Best,

Joe

On 4 Mar 2005 09:40:00 -0800, wrote:

Hey, it's a toss up with the 800. If you get a good one, oh well,
then you rock-and-roll. But get a bad one and live the nightmare that
is the Sat650 wannabe.

BE

On 5 Mar 2005 18:24:24 -0800, "D. Martin" wrote:

This is a simple matter of priorities. If shortwave radio is of
sufficiant importance, you will upgrade to the better reciever. The
"800" is an excellent radio. Darren
http://www.geocities.com/apocalyptic121/index.html


If you get a good one.