Les wrote:

dxAce wrote:
Fresh from the Universal site:

http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...rxvr/0082.html

Scroll down and read the sorry news.

This is a sad day indeed.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Indeed it is Steve. Having owned the R8 and R8B (I passed on the R8A)
and having owned an SPR-4, 2B, R4, R4A, R4B, R4C and R7 over the years,
I can say without a doubt, R. L. Drake was a leader in manufacturing
excellent receivers. I do think however, the R8B was the best of the
line with reservations. That tuning knob and the lousy mechanical
encoder turned me off. Of course, that didn't preclude me from many
pleasurable hours sitting in front of that otherwise fine receiver.
Having said that, it is a sad day for shortwave enthusiasts when you
think that the Japanese manufacturers haven't ever produced one that
didn't need agc, filter, synchronous detector and audio modifications
to make it perform. I realize that we all had to modify our beloved
hollow state receivers over the years, but the Japanese have led the
free world in crappy audio, filters and agc's for decades. Shortwave
receivers are but a minute drop in the bucket of electronics. If and
when a manufacturer can sell shortwave receivers in the numbers such as
dvd players, tv's etc., we will see this sort of thing happen.

For whatever reason I skipped out on the R8A as well. The only one of the other
above receivers I never owned was the R-4C which I don't think was noted as
being a good SWL receiver.

I also have had a few SW-4A's.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"dxAce" wrote

For whatever reason I skipped out on the R8A as well. The only one of the
other
above receivers I never owned was the R-4C which I don't think was noted
as
being a good SWL receiver.


Are you kidding, Steve? Out of all the receivers I have owned the R-4C was
"the best."
A Sherwood modified R-4C is still considered THE best "ham" SW receiver of
all time.
Even unmodified it was a treasure to many, including me. But alas I
unwisely sold her
when the new fangled digital displays hit the scene - sigh.

Li Changchun wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

For whatever reason I skipped out on the R8A as well. The only one of the
other
above receivers I never owned was the R-4C which I don't think was noted
as
being a good SWL receiver.


Are you kidding, Steve? Out of all the receivers I have owned the R-4C was
"the best."
A Sherwood modified R-4C is still considered THE best "ham" SW receiver of
all time.

Read it again comrade. I said I didn't think it was noted as a good SWL
receiver.

Frickin 'tards... they're everywhere.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Fred Osterman's 3rd Ed. of "Shortwave Receivers Past & Present" rates
the R-4C as five stars new and four stars used. He also calls it, "An
outstanding amateur receiver."

"mike0219116" wrote in message
oups.com...
Fred Osterman's 3rd Ed. of "Shortwave Receivers Past & Present"
rates
the R-4C as five stars new and four stars used. He also calls it,
"An
outstanding amateur receiver."

Yeah, it seems to be a good amateur receiver, but a
general coverage shortwave receiver it ain't.

--Mike L.

Michael Lawson wrote:

"mike0219116" wrote in message
oups.com...
Fred Osterman's 3rd Ed. of "Shortwave Receivers Past & Present"
rates
the R-4C as five stars new and four stars used. He also calls it,
"An
outstanding amateur receiver."

Yeah, it seems to be a good amateur receiver, but a
general coverage shortwave receiver it ain't.

The R-4B with a bunch of extra crystals or coupled with the FS-4 synthesizer was
much better for SW dx'ing.

The R-4C was indeed (and may still be) a better ham radio receiver.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

In article ,
dxAce wrote:


Michael Lawson wrote:


The R-4B with a bunch of extra crystals or coupled with the FS-4 synthesizer was
much better for SW dx'ing.

The R-4C was indeed (and may still be) a better ham radio receiver.



Ok so the thread has changed, from Drake R-8 to R-4, speaking of
Drakes, I was wondering if the SPR-4 was better or worse reciever
than r-4? I never fooled with r-4, but have tried spr-4, my major complaint with that it it a little too selective and audio quality lacking.

Chuck