Hmmm. I don't see these on ebay very often:

http://cgi.ebay.com/PALSTAR-R-30CC-S...QQcmdZViewItem

There's also an R-30 up for auction. I've heard that these receivers
have incredible sound. It sure would be interesting to compare them to
a Lowe HF-225 or HF-150.

Steve

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hmmm. I don't see these on ebay very often:

http://cgi.ebay.com/PALSTAR-R-30CC-S...QQcmdZViewItem

There's also an R-30 up for auction. I've heard that these receivers
have incredible sound. It sure would be interesting to compare them to
a Lowe HF-225 or HF-150.

Steve

Pete KE9OA has had both I believe- any comments Pete?
I'll vouch for my 150- I've owned most RX, and keep coming back to the
backlit HF-150.
Dale W4OP

They are both very good sounding receivers. Both of them sound very similar,
with the HF-150 sounding slightly better. Sensitivity is about the same,
with the R30 having better dynamic range. Whereas the selectivity in the
Lowe receivers is obtained through the use of more inexpensive Murata CFWS
6-element ladder filters, the R30 uses either high grade 11-element filters
or mechanical filters. The exception is the SSB bandwidth; both of the
receivers use 11-element filters.
The Lowe receivers use a 45 to 75MHz VCO for the synthesizer while the R30
uses a 360 to 600MHz VCO and divides it by 8 to obtain the 45 to 75MHz LO.
The advantage here is that the phase noise is divided down by the division
factor.
Construction is good on both receivers...........the HF-150 uses an anodized
aluminum case while the Palstar uses chromated aluminum for the chassis,
very similar to the R.L. Drake receivers.
In my opinion, you can't go wrong with either receiver. My main listening
band is MW, and both receivers do a fine job on that band. Neither of them
have that full-time attenuator on the MW band the way the FRG-100 and the
R75 do (these are easily removed).
I know that the HF-150s are going on eBay for the 500 to 600 dollar
range......for that amount of money, I would favor the R30. If you can find
an unbroken 150 in the 400 dollar range, you are doing ok.
The thing to be careful about when purchasing an HF-150 (or any Lowe
receiver for that matter) is to make sure that the sensivity is ok. The 1st
mixer is easily damaged, and the SL-6440 device is relatively hard to get
ahold of, unless you want to buy 25 at a time. There is a fellow in New York
that sells them for about 90 dollars a rail. There are others that are
trying to sell a rail of 25 of them for upwards of 250 dollars (not a good
deal).
The other failure mode with the Lowe receivers is that 14569 divider chip
that divides down the MCU's reference oscillator for the BFO injection
frequencies. This chip is being run near its design limit, and occasionally
it will fail. Relatively cheap at just under a dollar at Digi-Key. (Digi-Key
also has those push button switches that are used on the Lowe and AOR7030
receivers).
The final thing that I discovered about the Lowe receivers is a 100uF cap at
the output of the 8V regulator that fails. When this happens, the audio will
howl. This is not to be confused with the microphonic condition that occurs
with the internal speaker when the receiver volume is cranked up.
I hope this hasn't painted a dim picture of Lowe receivers.......I have both
the HF-150 and the HF-225, and I would consider them keepers. Just check
them out carefully when you buy them. They are great receivers.
I hope this helps.

Pete


"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message
news:y8RPe.9184$Bc2.4853@trnddc06...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hmmm. I don't see these on ebay very often:

http://cgi.ebay.com/PALSTAR-R-30CC-S...QQcmdZViewItem

There's also an R-30 up for auction. I've heard that these receivers
have incredible sound. It sure would be interesting to compare them to
a Lowe HF-225 or HF-150.

Steve

Pete KE9OA has had both I believe- any comments Pete?
I'll vouch for my 150- I've owned most RX, and keep coming back to the
backlit HF-150.
Dale W4OP

I need to email that married Irish woman in Bognor Regis,England and ask
her to keep an eye peeled (she got some new eyeglasses a few days ago)
for a good working Lowe radio for me.She knows about this news group
because I have told her about it before and this morning,I forwared her
something from in this news group I had said.stabette the Hut,I am
looking for a good workin Lowe radio.
cuhulin

You do run into them every so often in European channels. There is a British
dealer that gets them in. Dave Z picked up a very clean HF-250 a few months
back. This receiver even had the Sync board and the whip amp board installed
from the factory, as evidenced by the boxes that were checked off on its
outer box. I still haven't been able to get ahold of one of them yet. The
150 is probably the best bang for the buck..........some folks are put off
by the fact that it has only two bandwidths, but for me, that is fine. For
MW listening, the wide bandwidth is fine.
Good luck on your quest!

Pete

wrote in message
...
I need to email that married Irish woman in Bognor Regis,England and ask
her to keep an eye peeled (she got some new eyeglasses a few days ago)
for a good working Lowe radio for me.She knows about this news group
because I have told her about it before and this morning,I forwared her
something from in this news group I had said.stabette the Hut,I am
looking for a good workin Lowe radio.
cuhulin

In article ,
"Pete KE9OA" wrote:

They are both very good sounding receivers. Both of them sound very similar,
with the HF-150 sounding slightly better. Sensitivity is about the same,
with the R30 having better dynamic range. Whereas the selectivity in the
Lowe receivers is obtained through the use of more inexpensive Murata CFWS
6-element ladder filters, the R30 uses either high grade 11-element filters
or mechanical filters. The exception is the SSB bandwidth; both of the
receivers use 11-element filters.
The Lowe receivers use a 45 to 75MHz VCO for the synthesizer while the R30
uses a 360 to 600MHz VCO and divides it by 8 to obtain the 45 to 75MHz LO.
The advantage here is that the phase noise is divided down by the division
factor.

Snip

Hi Pete. Nice post as usual from you on the technical aspects of radio
receivers.

I don't understand how dividing down a synthesized clock by itself
reduces the phase noise unless the divider is filter for the phase noise?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I see what you mean...I guess it comes out as a wash, but I will try to
explain what I meant. Phase noise degrades by
[20log(N)], where N is your division ration in the feedback network of the
PLL. Dividing it down improves the phase noise by the inverse of the
aforementioned formula. If phase noise is looked at as an FM signal that has
a certain deviation bandwidth, it becomes apparent that when the carrier
frequency is divided down, the modulation sidebands (phase noise) are
divided down by the same proportions.
The main advantage with Palstar's scheme is that by designing the system at
a higher frequency, a higher reference frequency can be used. This allows a
faster settling time for the system. Once everything is divided down, you
now have a system with finer tuning steps, quicker settling time, and
roughly the same phase noise.
I must have been sleeping when I made that comment about the phase
noise..........thanks for waking me up!
Too many things on my mind!

Pete

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Pete KE9OA" wrote:

They are both very good sounding receivers. Both of them sound very
similar,
with the HF-150 sounding slightly better. Sensitivity is about the same,
with the R30 having better dynamic range. Whereas the selectivity in the
Lowe receivers is obtained through the use of more inexpensive Murata
CFWS
6-element ladder filters, the R30 uses either high grade 11-element
filters
or mechanical filters. The exception is the SSB bandwidth; both of the
receivers use 11-element filters.
The Lowe receivers use a 45 to 75MHz VCO for the synthesizer while the
R30
uses a 360 to 600MHz VCO and divides it by 8 to obtain the 45 to 75MHz
LO.
The advantage here is that the phase noise is divided down by the
division
factor.

Snip

Hi Pete. Nice post as usual from you on the technical aspects of radio
receivers.

I don't understand how dividing down a synthesized clock by itself
reduces the phase noise unless the divider is filter for the phase noise?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Thanks for responding. I work in this odd intersection of digital
signals operating at RF frequencies so sometimes I look at problems in
a digital way and other times in a analog RF way depending on
circumstances. I follow the RF explanation but I need to understand it
in a digital way if that makes any sense to you. In RF speak its phase
noise in digital language its edge jitter. The way I work out problems
is to understand and design circuits functionally in the digital realm
and then implement them using RF techniques like transmission lines
instead of "wires" and so on.

The other positive attributes you mention below are understandable. The
only drawback I can think of would be an higher cost. Usually it costs
more money to make a reliable PLL at a higher frequency and maybe it
takes a little more power to do it. Most any decision in engineering is
whether the benefits out weight the cons.

The Palstar has some pretty nice specifications it's just a little weak
on the feature side but looks to be a pretty good performer.

How is the audio for programing listening on the Palstar? Looks like
they engineered a better than most audio output stage to me. Maybe I am
putting to much weight on bells and whistles and not enough on basic
performance.

Telamon

In article
,
"Pete KE9OA" wrote:

I see what you mean...I guess it comes out as a wash, but I will try to
explain what I meant. Phase noise degrades by
[20log(N)], where N is your division ration in the feedback network of the
PLL. Dividing it down improves the phase noise by the inverse of the
aforementioned formula. If phase noise is looked at as an FM signal that has
a certain deviation bandwidth, it becomes apparent that when the carrier
frequency is divided down, the modulation sidebands (phase noise) are
divided down by the same proportions.
The main advantage with Palstar's scheme is that by designing the system at
a higher frequency, a higher reference frequency can be used. This allows a
faster settling time for the system. Once everything is divided down, you
now have a system with finer tuning steps, quicker settling time, and
roughly the same phase noise.
I must have been sleeping when I made that comment about the phase
noise..........thanks for waking me up!
Too many things on my mind!

Pete

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Pete KE9OA" wrote:

They are both very good sounding receivers. Both of them sound very
similar,
with the HF-150 sounding slightly better. Sensitivity is about the same,
with the R30 having better dynamic range. Whereas the selectivity in the
Lowe receivers is obtained through the use of more inexpensive Murata
CFWS
6-element ladder filters, the R30 uses either high grade 11-element
filters
or mechanical filters. The exception is the SSB bandwidth; both of the
receivers use 11-element filters.
The Lowe receivers use a 45 to 75MHz VCO for the synthesizer while the
R30
uses a 360 to 600MHz VCO and divides it by 8 to obtain the 45 to 75MHz
LO.
The advantage here is that the phase noise is divided down by the
division
factor.

Snip

Hi Pete. Nice post as usual from you on the technical aspects of radio
receivers.

I don't understand how dividing down a synthesized clock by itself
reduces the phase noise unless the divider is filter for the phase noise?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

--
Telamon
Ventura, California