DX-160
 

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 . . .

DX-160
 

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 . . .

DX-160
 

It's the bandspread dial part I can't get the hang of, and since I have
several other receivers, I really don't need the aggravation!

"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 . . .

DX-160
 

Ahhh, I see. One man's aggravation is another's idea of FUN!



"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
.. .
It's the bandspread dial part I can't get the hang of, and since I have
several other receivers, I really don't need the aggravation!

"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 . . .

DX-160
 

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.

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

DX-160
 

yup! : }

"Jim Hackett" wrote in message
. com...
Ahhh, I see. One man's aggravation is another's idea of FUN!



"Lisa Simpson" wrote in message
.. .
It's the bandspread dial part I can't get the hang of, and since I have
several other receivers, I really don't need the aggravation!

"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 . . .

DX-160
 

Lisa Simpson wrote:
It's the bandspread dial part I can't get the hang of, and since I have
several other receivers, I really don't need the aggravation!

"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 . . .

Don't give up so soon...it's a challenge to be overcome!!! FWIW, I
acquired a Realistic DX150b from an estate sale and went through a
definite learning curve too. I never bothered with setting up a log
scale, but did use bandspread for ham signals. Take a little time in
learning to use bandspread tuning, but also realize that feature isn't
really needed for AM listening. Just use main tuning for AM signals.
Play with ham signals on 80 meters at night to get the hang of the
bandspread dial.

It works and once you get the hang of it bandspread it is fun. By
design you have to slow down with these analog designs, and sometimes
that's a good thing because it forces you to stop and listen before
moving on. Although, after a couple of hours of tuning around with an
oldie I'm ready for the simplicity and speed of point-and-shoot tuning
on our modern digital wonder boxes.

DX-160
 

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



"clifto" wrote in message
...
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.

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

DX-160
 

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

DX-160
 

Lisa Simpson wrote:
It's the bandspread dial part I can't get the hang of, and since I have
several other receivers, I really don't need the aggravation!


I had a DX-160 as my first upgrade from an old multi-band portable many
years ago. Except for the drift, it was actually a decent radio, but I
understand what you mean about the bandspread. If the bandspread dial
was for the international broadcast bands instead of the ham bands it
would've been very nice.

Later on I did get a radio which seemed similar except that it had a
bandspread that did have the broadcast frequencies as well as the ham
bands. It was an old tube receiver from National, the NC-190. Overall
I found it to be a better radio than the DX-160. I'm still kicking
myself for selling it. I believe that the NC-140 also had that
bandspread arrangement.