In article ,
"Brian Denley" wrote:

Michael wrote:

Other then a few computer controlled alternatives, there are no other
choices other then the R-75. That's the larger point.

The radios in the list I'm asking for don't have to meet your
"PRACTICAL improvement" criteria.

What does "statistically significant PRACTICALLY speaking" mean?

craigm

Meaning exactly as stated. Here is an example:

The Drake R-8 was tested to have a sensitivity of 0.25 and 0.18 with
the pre amp on.

The R-75 was tested to have a sensitivy of 0.5 and .02 with the
first level pre amp on

The Kenwood R-5000 was tested to have a sensitivity of .02

The NRD-525 was tested to have a sensitivity of .02

OK, what do you say ???? You can see what receiver gets the better
test numbers here. Think it matters PRACTICALLY speaking given what
typical noise floors are ??? Would you feel it was worth it to spend
a few thousand dollars to get that extra decimal ??? This applies
equally to other values.
Do you understand my point yet ????

Michael

Hold it Mike. Didn't you say that you are in a noisy area? Sensitivity
(then) becomes the least important papameter you should consider (it's
actually not a very important parameter for most of us since we are usually
limited by atmospheric noise that is much greater than the receiver noise
floor). Worry more about ultimate selectivity, dymanic range, etc.

Also I think you have your decimal points badly screwed up above. (.02
should be 0.2)

Don't confuse him with facts as he is on a good rant besides this is a
your radio sucks thread now.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

Don't confuse him with facts as he is on a good rant besides this is a
your radio sucks thread now.

....beats the hell out of a your political party sucks thread...


--
Eric F. Richards

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a
chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill, from RNW