In article , Michael wrote:

... Yes... I can hear it, but, the problem is, the
signal is going to fade at times to the point where wont hear anything.

How localized are these deep fades on Medium Wave? In other words,
would a couple of antennas (or receivers) about 100/300/1000(?) feet
apart make it possible to dodge the fades by switching from one to
another?

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

Could be. Car radios can often be quite good as far as reception, but I
wonder if that is due to the fact you are driving outside, without
buildings and other structures in the way. My 2004 Chrysler's stock
radio gets excellent reception on AM in the evening. Here in Wisconsin
I can pick up the big AM stations from Minneapolis, St. Louis, Dallas,
Atlanta, New York, Ontario, and so forth.

Check to see if the Bears games are on AFRTS.

Best,

Joe

David wrote:
Nothing beats a tube radio for long distance medium wave reception.

Thats fairly silly...Whether it has tubes or not will
not be a deciding factor. He wants a radio with good
selectivity. When I was listening to the station last
night, I was *not* using a tube radio, and to tell you
the truth, I doubt any of my older tube radios would
have had the needed selectivity to weed that station out
of the muck. A car radio would have been *useless*. A normal
tube radio with standard wide filters would have been *useless*.
But my icom with it's narrow filter was the cat's ass when
it came to weeding that station out, with a local "next door"
on 790kc. Not a tube in sight...
Sensitivity will not be a factor unless the radio is
"really" lame.
MK

Your average 5 tube
superhet from the early 60s is superior to 99.99% of the transistor
radios around today. .......


Thats just plain silly... MK

M Ball,

What does being tube or transistor really have to do with how good the
reception of a receiver will be anyway? Nothing, as far as I know.

Nothing really...There are good and bad of both types...
The real deal in hearing something like that is selectivity.
And unfortunately, that usually means more $$$$ for the radio..

If you have the selectivity, you have it half won...
The rest is using the antenna/s, to null unwanted stations.
Now , some tube sets might *sound* better to the ear, than
some solid states, but thats a whole nother thing...
It's the filtering that is the main thing as far as the
audio quality. My icom has real good audio on AM, if you
are using the wide filter.
A R-390 would probably be real good, as I *think* it has
narrow filters for any frequency, including MW.
So yes, it would be great if so...My old Drake R4 would be
good *if* I had the optional low band converter..The drake
has narrow filters available, and they work anywhere.
But having tubes has little to do with anything, except
many the tone of the audio output. Being the Drake needs
the converter to work MW, the icom 706g is my best MW radio
right now. Hands down when it comes to weeding tough ones
out of the muck. It's "narrow" filter for AM is really
narrow..It makes "next door" local stations go on vacation.
I'm sure a lot of bigger modern rigs would be even better.
IE: the various 756/746 pro's, etc, etc...
MK

dxAce wrote:
David wrote:
Nothing beats a tube radio for long distance medium wave reception.

Nothing?

Right off the bat I can say what beats it: a tube radio hooked to a
really long, really high antenna.

On 17 Mar 2005 18:09:44 -0800, wrote:

What does being tube or transistor really have to do with how good the
reception of a receiver will be anyway? Nothing, as far as I know.

Nothing really...There are good and bad of both types...
The real deal in hearing something like that is selectivity.
And unfortunately, that usually means more $$$$ for the radio..
Balderdash!

http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/e...ceiver_lrg.jpg

''Probably the most revered receiver from the 1950s and 60s was, and
still is, the Collins-designed R390A/URR. Made by several
manufacturers under contract to the U.S. military, this radio was once
considered "Top Secret" because of its exceptional performance.

Many serious broadcast DXers managed to get their hands on the famed
R390, and the receiver is revered by many as superior to the
solid-state radios produced today. Hundreds of them have been restored
and maintained, and occupy prominent places in the homes of DXers all
over the world.''

''A personal experience which speaks volumes about the performance of
a properly working R390A happened only a few years back. A group of
some of the "heavy hitters" in the SWBC DX community, myself included
went on a DX'pedition to Cape Hatteras, NC. Known for its incredible
radio conditions as early as 1902, Cape Hatteras was the scene of some
of the early research done by radio pioneer, R.A. Fessenden. Today,
this remote location is a top choice for Medium and Shortwave
Broadcast DX'ers.

Quite an array of receivers had been brought along including a Drake
R8 and R8A. A pair of Watkins-Johnson HF-1000's, an R388, R390A and a
JRC NRD-535. It was a particularly good morning with extraordinarily
quiet conditions and a strong opening into the Pacific and Asia.
Around 1130 UTC I checked 3304.8 for the Radio Republic Indonesia
outlet in Dili, once Portuguese Timor. Although it had not been
reliably logged since the late 70's, it was there that morning weakly,
just a het in the R8A.

Everyone quickly tuned to the frequency determined not to miss the
opportunity to log such a rare station. However, even the $4,000
Watkins-Johnson receivers could not extract more that a few words of
copy. Our R390A was equipped with a Sherwood SE-3 synchronous detector
and I quickly tuned to 3304.8.

The R390A and Sherwood SE-3 extracted recordable audio from that
signal when no other receiver we had could. That put the receiver in a
whole new category not only for me but the others in attendance.

Of the R390A's I own, 3 are capable of sensitivity performances in the
..07-.08uv for 10db S/N + N using the 4 kc filter and standard AM
detection. I know of few receivers available today at any price able
to duplicate of that level of performance''

http://www.r390a.com/html/history.htm

dxAce wrote:

David wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:35:00 -0500, dxAce
wrote:

I hate to tell Chuck, the apparent author, that I reliably copied, logged and
QSL'd RRI Dili prior to his reception using a Drake R7 here in 1990.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


But you weren't on that particular DXpedition with your R7, were you?

No, but if you read the article it states something about not being reliably
logged since 1970... by whom I guess is uncertain, I would guess in the USA, but
who knows.

If I recall I had reported both the reception and later QSL to NASWA, of which
Chuck is (was?) a member.

At any rate, it was about 5 years or so previous to their dxpedition.

I'm quite pleased that we were all able to hear it, as it was indeed rather rare.

The QSL is #192 on my list:

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxlist.htm

dxAce
Michigan
USA