wrote in message
oups.com...

I believe that the NC-140 also had that bandspread arrangement.

Right, you pull the bandspread knob out and turn it 180 degrees to change it
from sw to ham. It works real well. I have a 140. RM~

PS, also have a 160 and also feel that it's way over rated by some users.
Guess it's sort of like the old ford/chevy issue, depends on which one you
are driving as to which is best.

Ok, since you decided to jump on what I said ...
1. I was being facetious. The ask Joe A. reference was an inside joke that
probably ONLY Joe would get.
2. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the design of the FR-200 is
newer than the design of the 535?





"clifto" wrote in message
...
Jim Hackett wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
Jim Hackett wrote:
It is NO different to tune than any other analog radio with a
bandspread
dial. Again, I don't know why you would have thought it would be MORE
sensitive than the 394 or 302 both of which are much more modern
designs.

And of course the Bell & Howell $10 radio, which is a more modern
design
than all of the RS radios mentioned, must be the most sensitive of the
four.

If you don't believe me ask Joe A.....

More modern doesn't necessarily mean more sensitive. A Grundig FR200 is
more modern than a JRC NRD-535; which would you pick for sensitivity?
Which do you suppose Joe A would pick?

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Jim Hackett wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
More modern doesn't necessarily mean more sensitive. A Grundig FR200 is
more modern than a JRC NRD-535; which would you pick for sensitivity?
Which do you suppose Joe A would pick?

Ok, since you decided to jump on what I said ...
1. I was being facetious. The ask Joe A. reference was an inside joke that
probably ONLY Joe would get.
2. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the design of the FR-200 is
newer than the design of the 535?

1. Okay.
2. The 535 was first sold in 1991. Yes, I believe the FR200 was designed
after that. If you know otherwise, please enlighten me.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

By the way, I have both the JRC and the FR-200, so I don't have to pick



"clifto" wrote in message
...
Jim Hackett wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
Jim Hackett wrote:
It is NO different to tune than any other analog radio with a
bandspread
dial. Again, I don't know why you would have thought it would be MORE
sensitive than the 394 or 302 both of which are much more modern
designs.

And of course the Bell & Howell $10 radio, which is a more modern
design
than all of the RS radios mentioned, must be the most sensitive of the
four.

If you don't believe me ask Joe A.....

More modern doesn't necessarily mean more sensitive. A Grundig FR200 is
more modern than a JRC NRD-535; which would you pick for sensitivity?
Which do you suppose Joe A would pick?

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

You are speaking manufactured. I am speaking designed.

FR-200 single conversion analog radio ---------several decades old design
NRD-535 PLL receiver -------------------------possibly a little newer
design




"clifto" wrote in message
...
Jim Hackett wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
More modern doesn't necessarily mean more sensitive. A Grundig FR200 is
more modern than a JRC NRD-535; which would you pick for sensitivity?
Which do you suppose Joe A would pick?

Ok, since you decided to jump on what I said ...
1. I was being facetious. The ask Joe A. reference was an inside joke
that
probably ONLY Joe would get.
2. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the design of the FR-200
is
newer than the design of the 535?

1. Okay.
2. The 535 was first sold in 1991. Yes, I believe the FR200 was designed
after that. If you know otherwise, please enlighten me.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

ok, get off the "more sensitive" thing already everybody. I never said I
thought it would be more sensitive, I simply noted that it is not. The
sensitivity is NOT the issue! The issue is the bandspread tuning, it sucks!
Especially in comparison to my other receivers, and, since I *do* have other
receivers that do not have bandspread tuning, I see no need to fart with one
that does. "Nuff said on that. NOW, is anyone interested in buying a
DX-160?


"Jim Hackett" wrote in message
. net...
It is NO different to tune than any other analog radio with a bandspread
dial. Again, I don't know why you would have thought it would be MORE
sensitive than the 394 or 302 both of which are much more modern designs.
Other than...You can't believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet...


Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
.. .
Anyone interested in a DX-160? I am considering getting rid of it,
because
it doesn't seem to be anymore sensitive than my DX-394 & DX-302, plus it
seems too weird to tune stuff in, and I don't really need the hassle
considering I have many other receivers to choose from . . .

Well sheesh. If the 160 was half as sensitive as you are, it'd be one hell
of a radio
P.S. No thanks, I already have 3 and a DX-150...



"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
...
ok, get off the "more sensitive" thing already everybody. I never said I
thought it would be more sensitive, I simply noted that it is not. The
sensitivity is NOT the issue! The issue is the bandspread tuning, it
sucks!
Especially in comparison to my other receivers, and, since I *do* have
other
receivers that do not have bandspread tuning, I see no need to fart with
one
that does. "Nuff said on that. NOW, is anyone interested in buying a
DX-160?


"Jim Hackett" wrote in message
. net...
It is NO different to tune than any other analog radio with a bandspread
dial. Again, I don't know why you would have thought it would be MORE
sensitive than the 394 or 302 both of which are much more modern
designs.
Other than...You can't believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet...


Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
.. .
Anyone interested in a DX-160? I am considering getting rid of it,
because
it doesn't seem to be anymore sensitive than my DX-394 & DX-302, plus
it
seems too weird to tune stuff in, and I don't really need the hassle
considering I have many other receivers to choose from . . .

"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
...
ok, get off the "more sensitive" thing already everybody. I never said I
thought it would be more sensitive, I simply noted that it is not. The
sensitivity is NOT the issue! The issue is the bandspread tuning, it
sucks!
Especially in comparison to my other receivers, and, since I *do* have
other
receivers that do not have bandspread tuning, I see no need to fart with
one
that does. "Nuff said on that. NOW, is anyone interested in buying a
DX-160?



Mebbe.. how much you asking?

Lisa Simpson wrote:
ok, get off the "more sensitive" thing already everybody. I never said I
thought it would be more sensitive, I simply noted that it is not. The
sensitivity is NOT the issue! The issue is the bandspread tuning, it sucks!
Especially in comparison to my other receivers, and, since I *do* have other
receivers that do not have bandspread tuning, I see no need to fart with one
that does. "Nuff said on that. NOW, is anyone interested in buying a
DX-160?


I guess like several others on this thread I'm now a bit confused.
There should have been no surprise that the radio had bandspread tuning
after all the prior threads and what I assume were adequate pictures
from the seller. Nor should there have been much question about how it
works.

If You
" *do* have other receivers that do not have bandspread tuning, and see
no need to fart with one that does."
then why in the world did you make such a big deal about buying it only
to turn around and complain loudly about it's single most prominent
feature.

"Lisa Simpson" ) writes:
ok, get off the "more sensitive" thing already everybody. I never said I
thought it would be more sensitive, I simply noted that it is not. The
sensitivity is NOT the issue! The issue is the bandspread tuning, it sucks!
Especially in comparison to my other receivers, and, since I *do* have other
receivers that do not have bandspread tuning, I see no need to fart with one
that does. "Nuff said on that. NOW, is anyone interested in buying a
DX-160?

The issue is hardly the bandspread tuning.

Take a receiver like that and leave off the bandspread tuning and you'll
find that the tuning is the issue. The bandspread tuning is to compensate
for the limitations of the main dial, brought about by the desire to keep
costs down and the limitations of the technology of the time.

Any cheap receiver of that vintage had quite a few limitations, but if you
didn't have money then you had no choice but to buy one of them. That's
why there were so many of those low end receivers. They suffered badly
from lack of image rejection, they covered large portions of the spectrum
on each band, and the dial mechanisms were cheap. Bandspread tuning was
a real cheap way to compensate for the problems of the main dial.

My first receiver was the Hallicrafters S-120A (that's the transistorized
version), and the dial pointer was so wide that it couldn't indicate
frequency, even if the dial had good calibration (which it didn't). On
the higher band, I seem to recall the pointer wasn't much smaller than
the width of a ham band or two. If there was no bandspread dial, then
there was no real chance at being able to tune things in properly.

Synthesized receivers started becoming cheap enough for most a quarter
century ago, or so. So were talking receivers that are at least 25 years
old, and more like thirty to forty years old. Technology actually has
advanced quite a bit since then. You can buy a synthesized shortwave
receiver at Radio Shack for $20 nowadays, and that's because the advances
mean the synthesizer can come in a single IC, and then it becomes cheaper
to use that than an analog tuning scheme. Of course, it's somewhat
illusionary, because synthesized tuning doesn't actually mean the receiver
is any good. Those cheap digital receivers are about the same as those
low end receivers of thirty years ago, albeit with digital tuning.

Michael