Phil's portable radio guide.
 

Good work; thanks for the Link..

- Still sticking by my Sangean 606A;
( For me, SSB is not realy an issue when travelling )
and SONY AN-LP-1 Combination


Dan / NYC

"Dan" wrote

Good work; thanks for the Link..

- Still sticking by my Sangean 606A;
( For me, SSB is not realy an issue when travelling )
and SONY AN-LP-1 Combination


Hi Dan.
How do you like your PL-200?
Should suit you fine for biking etc.

Hi Sanjaya..

Still hedging.. I already have One table top & two portables ( Sangean
606A ( Good / excellent ) & Jwin JX-m-14 ( Cheap !!) :-) )

Now theres a Degen DE1105 on the horizon..
waiting for that one to see if it's THE one I should get..

Dan

"Dan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hi Sanjaya..

Still hedging.. I already have One table top & two portables ( Sangean
606A ( Good / excellent ) & Jwin JX-m-14 ( Cheap !!) :-) )

Now theres a Degen DE1105 on the horizon..
waiting for that one to see if it's THE one I should get..


Shoot. I thought you bought a PL-200.
Oh well.

I have a "portable" but it's for the wimmins,only :{) Palladin,,,
Palladin,, where do you roammmmmm,,,,,, three sheets in the wind and
back againnnnnn,,,,,,,,,,,
cuhulin

I like this guide overall, but in my opinion it does suffer from the
influence of the Cult of Eton (formerly Grundig).

Given the choice between a new SW77 and a new S800, I'd take the SW77
in a heartbeat--no, in a fraction of a heartbeat.

Steve

It is an interesting chart, but not exactly perfect in it's approach.
It makes the blanket statement that single conversion radios will be
excluded because "Double Conversion is necessary to reduce images."
The mere presence of double conversion circuitry does not guaranty a
reduction in images in my experience. This can be seen in the DE1103
which has serious problems with images from strong signals at twice the
IF (900 khz) down. And the DE1103 was included as one of the final
five at least in part because of it's purported resistance to images.
I assume the DE1102 has similar image problems, but don't know for sure.

"John S." ) writes:
It is an interesting chart, but not exactly perfect in it's approach.
It makes the blanket statement that single conversion radios will be
excluded because "Double Conversion is necessary to reduce images."
The mere presence of double conversion circuitry does not guaranty a
reduction in images in my experience. This can be seen in the DE1103
which has serious problems with images from strong signals at twice the
IF (900 khz) down. And the DE1103 was included as one of the final
five at least in part because of it's purported resistance to images.
I assume the DE1102 has similar image problems, but don't know for sure.


And of course, single conversion doesn't mean much in itself, since
it doesn't describe the design of a receiver. A single conversion
to 455KHz likely means bad image rejection at the higher frequencies,
but such a general statement overlooks receivers with good front
end selectivity that compensates for the low IF. And of course,
one can do a single conversion to a frequency in the HF range, and
image rejection will be pretty good.

Michael

Yup. That's why I'm not in favor of reviews that base their evaluation
on feature counts. A written review describing how the competing
receivers perform is far more useful when making a decision to purchase.

In article 9,
Conan Ford wrote:

Seen on Radio Intel.

http://www.radiointel.com/phil/2005_phil_port_guide.pdf

I do not understand the view point of price and performance. If you are
going to rate radios then rate them on how they perform. Price is a
separate issue.

I disagree that selective fading is less common then adjacent channel
interference. The adjacent channel interference would be less common if
the reviewer spent more time with radios that have better dynamic range
and shaped filters. The selective fading is a result of propagation.

I'm not sold on the cheap Chinese portables.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Some of the inexpensive chinese radios represent good value for the
money but that is about it. They are not the stellar performers some
reviews make them out to be. As an example the DE1103 hears a lot of
signals, and the filters actually do work, if not perfectly. It comes
with a couple of significant shortcomings such as image signals, poorly
designed memories and mediocre ergonomics. Still, it represents good
value at $65.00.


Telamon wrote:
In article 9,
Conan Ford wrote:

Seen on Radio Intel.

http://www.radiointel.com/phil/2005_phil_port_guide.pdf

I do not understand the view point of price and performance. If you
are
going to rate radios then rate them on how they perform. Price is a
separate issue.

I disagree that selective fading is less common then adjacent channel

interference. The adjacent channel interference would be less common
if
the reviewer spent more time with radios that have better dynamic
range
and shaped filters. The selective fading is a result of propagation.

I'm not sold on the cheap Chinese portables.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

I disagree that selective fading is less common then adjacent channel
interference. The adjacent channel interference would be less common if
the reviewer spent more time with radios that have better dynamic range
and shaped filters. The selective fading is a result of propagation.

Yeah, that comment about selective fading floored me, too.
--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940