How do these radios compare? They were both relatively modest relatives of the
expensive rigs being sold at the time. Anyone with experiences in comparing the
two? The tuning seems identical to the FRG-7's Barlow-Wadley system, with the
addition of the digital display, of course.


Cookies have to be enabled and a virus checker is most likely in order..They
seem to have a good selections of schematics.

http://fileshare.eshop.bg/most_popular/list_6600.html





mike

In article L%2xe.116550$on1.73955@clgrps13, m II wrote:
How do these radios compare? They were both relatively modest relatives of the
expensive rigs being sold at the time. Anyone with experiences in comparing the
two? The tuning seems identical to the FRG-7's Barlow-Wadley system, with the
addition of the digital display, of course.

It think the FRG-100 is newer than the R-1000. Even the FRG-8800(?)
was newer. Contemporary with the R-5000.

The R-1000 is a late 1970s design, judging from the guts. (I got
mine on a closeout in the early '80s). It's not a Barlow-Wadley.
It's synthesized for 1 MHz, and then has a 1 MHz wide analog tuning with
the VFO.

It's pre-microprocessor. The synthesizer is an amazing pile of 74Sxx TTL
and a bunch of balanced mixers combining the VFO and the synthesized xtal
oscillators, feeding a bank of phase locked oscillators to clean the LO
up and feed the mixer (High side of a 45 MHz first IF), and a seperate
output to feed the frequency counter (455 kHz above signal freq), which
uses a stock OKI frequency display/clock chip, (and seems like a last
minute add on). Display reads the center frequency of the bandpass,
to 1 kHz.

The signal path is a couple of built in 500 ohm matching transformers,
always used below 2 MHz, and optional for the HF antenna input. Then a
big bank of diode switched bandpass filters. The mixers are balanced
double gate MOSFETS. They must not have been too sure of it's overload
performance, there's a gain spoiler circuit that lowers the sensitivity
to 50 microvolts below 2 MHz. IF bandwidths are 12(!), 6 and 2.1 kHz,
with the front panel buttons reconfigurable with an internal plug/jumper
so that "wide" and "narrow" AM can be either 12/6 or 6/2.1 kHz.

Audio is OK, much better out of the "record" jack. (The tone control
does affect the record jack output).

You can't make the front panel much simpler. The only trap is the
damn antenna switch on the back.

But the quirks are that it's not stable enough for RTTY or probably CW
listening. (probably why it doesn't have a narrowband filter). And the
Medium Wave sensitivity is deliberatly stomped. And every couple of
years you have to hit the MHz switch with tuner-lube, and resolder the
power supply circuit board.

Some day I'm going to download the repair manual for the R-600.
Despite the lower number, it's a newer receiver that simplified a lot
of the circuitry and cost a bit less. But the Yen went from 300 to the
dollar to 100 to the dollar back then, so I've not seen that many.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

The FRG-100 is a true digital radio with precise frequency readout. It
is an underrated receiver with excellent stability and sensitivity.
Audio is a bit "muddy" but can be improved with minor capacitor mods.

The R-1000 is also an excellent receiver but is not a true digital
receiver. It is analog tuned with a varicap with a frequency counter
readout. It is also a very sensitive and relatively stable receiver,
especially for its time. It's tuning ratio is OK for SSB, however, the
FRG-100 to totally superior with fast/slow tuning speed selection.

I have both receivers and use the FRG for the tough DX and R-1000 for
more casual band tuning and desert camping expeditions. There's not
much you can hear on one that the other can't pick up. The older R-1000
has less features for tailoring the receiver's characteristics.

Frank
K3YAZ
Tucson

m II schrieb:

How do these radios compare? They were both relatively modest relatives of the
expensive rigs being sold at the time.

Did you mean R-1000 and FRG-*7700*, by any chance? You can find some
measurements for those (along with the FRG-100) on the Sherwood
Engineering page:
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
The Kenwood should be the better performing of the two overall. Note the
comparatively high phase noise of these semi-synthesized sets. I think
the Sony ICF-6800 employed a similar receiver concept. Not sure whether
it's as closely related to the Wadley concept as you think... I suggest
you get the R-1000 service manual off the web and read the functional
description.

Stephan
--
Home: http://stephan.win31.de/
PC#6: i440BX, 2xP3-500E, 704 MiB, 250+80 GB, R9k AGP 64 MiB, 110W

Stephan Grossklass wrote:

Not sure whether
it's as closely related to the Wadley concept as you think...



Sorry about that.. I should have been more explicit. I meant to compare the
r-1000 tuning to the Barlow-Wadley setup in the FRG-7. That Yaesu has the
similar thirty band, 1 Mhz step switch along with the khz spread dial. Very
similar, except for the digital readout.




mike

Stephan gave an extremely useful and comprehensive website for receiver
performance which I had not come across befo
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
As a mediumwave DXer, Bob Sherwood ranks the various receiver performances
by:
"Sorted by Dynamic Range Narrow Spaced"
which I know to be the MOST important spec in a MW DX receiver.

Very informative and blows the lid on some very expensive receivers that
just don't cut the cake.
OTOH the AOR 7030 comes out smelling like roses just off the top of the
pick.

thanks for posting that Stephan

--
John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
RX Drake R8B, SW8 & ERGO software
Sony 7600D GE SRIII
BW XCR 30, Braun T1000, Sangean 818 & 803A.
Hallicrafters SX-100, Eddystone 940
GE circa 50's radiogram
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

"Stephan Grossklass" wrote in message
...
m II schrieb:

How do these radios compare? They were both relatively modest relatives
of the
expensive rigs being sold at the time.

Did you mean R-1000 and FRG-*7700*, by any chance? You can find some
measurements for those (along with the FRG-100) on the Sherwood
Engineering page:
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
The Kenwood should be the better performing of the two overall. Note the
comparatively high phase noise of these semi-synthesized sets. I think
the Sony ICF-6800 employed a similar receiver concept. Not sure whether
it's as closely related to the Wadley concept as you think... I suggest
you get the R-1000 service manual off the web and read the functional
description.

Stephan
--
Home: http://stephan.win31.de/
PC#6: i440BX, 2xP3-500E, 704 MiB, 250+80 GB, R9k AGP 64 MiB, 110W

Good point Stephan! I obviously took his post literally and responded.
If he did mean FRG-7700 then definitely go with the R-1000. The 7700
I had was an absolute dud. Poor sensitivity and input bandpass filter
performance. I got it new and even a re-alignment did nada.

Frank
K3YAZ
Tucson

In article Iylxe.102809$9A2.52247@edtnps89, m II wrote:
Stephan Grossklass wrote:
Sorry about that.. I should have been more explicit. I meant to compare the
r-1000 tuning to the Barlow-Wadley setup in the FRG-7. That Yaesu has the
similar thirty band, 1 Mhz step switch along with the khz spread dial. Very
similar, except for the digital readout.

Having played with a FRG-7 at a shop a few times, the R-1000 is way
better. You just turn the switch. And the digital readout tells you
which MHz you've got. For the FRG-7, you have to tune around until you
get the lock light to come one.

Next, the R-1000 has only one local oscillator that matters. Which drives
the first mixer which then feeds the 45.something MHz (fairly narrow)
"roofing filter" for the first IF. So, no images. (For a reasonably
wide definition of "no"). The minus side is that the actual oscillator
(actually, one of a bank of them, selected from ranges of the 1 MHz
switch) is part of a phase locked loop running at 45-75 MHz so is going
to squiggle around a bit and allow the reciever to pick up adjacent
signals as noise.

I don't know the exact details of the FRG-7, but Barlow-Wadley receivers
usually convert an entire 1 MHz wide block to their first IF and second
IF, which is then tuned with using a VFO to the narrowband third IF,
so there's plenty room for intermod, spurs and such.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

m II schrieb:

Sorry about that.. I should have been more explicit. I meant to compare the
r-1000 tuning to the Barlow-Wadley setup in the FRG-7. That Yaesu has the
similar thirty band, 1 Mhz step switch along with the khz spread dial. Very
similar, except for the digital readout.

The FRG-7 is a true Wadley Loop design, three IFs and all. These are a
bit problematic because of their very wide 1st IF (remember, 1 MHz
spread) and thus plenty of potential for intermod. (The Sony analogs
with the "dual conversion light" concept using 10.7 MHz / 455 kHz are a
good example. My ICF-7601, while being fairly sensitive, regularly drove
me nuts when the respective band got a bit more crowded. At least the
FRG-7 uses a mixer based on a dual gate MOSFET.) The R-1000 is a fairly
conventional dual conversion rig with a high 1st IF, only the frequency
synthesis is a bit funky. (I'll have to look at it again one day, didn't
really get the hang of it last time. Not too surprisingly, given my
level or rather lack of experience in these things.) This generation of
receivers - to which, as I mentioned, the FRG-7700 belonged as well -
came out a few years after the venerable FRG-7.

Stephan
--
Home: http://stephan.win31.de/
PC#6: i440BX, 2xP3-500E, 704 MiB, 250+80 GB, R9k AGP 64 MiB, 110W

Interesting thread..
A virtual trip down memory lane for me. I had the FRG 7, FRG 7700,
Kenwood R-1000 and now the FRG 100B.

Hands down the FRG 100 has been the best by far. Ease of operation,
rock stable and frequency accurate.
Audio for me has not been objectionable though I use headphone most
of the time and a nice communications external speaker other wise.

There are many user selectable settings and functions that make the
FRG 100 a snap to use....but you REALLY DO NEED TO READ THE MANUAL to
put those functions to task.

For me the FRG 7 was not even as good as my portable Panasonic
RF-2800. The selectivity was poor on both FRG 7's I owned. Sensitivity
was OK but stability was another propblem.

The R-1000 I had would drift a little until it had warmed up for about
1/2 an hour. Only a slight problem if you were listening to SSB or
exhaulted carrier transmissions. After 30 minutes though it was fine
and drifted only 10 to 20 cycles per hour . Quite usable for copying
an AM signal on SSB mode.
The only other thing I encountered with the R-1000 was a bit of
muliplexer noise from the display. I was using a short random wire
without a proper rf ground. I expect that if I had a proper RF ground
or used un-balanced line to feed an antenna out doors this noise would
not have been heard.
I always felt that for the money it was a good buy and still is at
$100-$200 on the used market.

Also had an R-2000 that had a lot of spurs and constant problems with
the push buttons on it. Sold down the road quickly.

My FRG 7700 was only slightly better to use than the FRG 7. The 7700
had teritble audio and was not a lot of "fun" (try to define fun!). I
sold it pretty quickly too.

For dedicated SW use the FRG 100 is a great value. Lots of features
and technology. The one I presently use on my night stand is my third
one. This one has the Temp Compensated Crystal Oven making it the best
yet.
However SWLing for me does not hold the magic that it did when I
started in the early 60's. The FRG 100 is relegated to listening to a
local broadcast AM station that hosts "Coast to Coast AM". Pretty much
a waste of a fine receiver I admit. ( Some would argue that using any
radio to listen to Coast To Coast constitutes waste in itself...that
would be a different thread! )

In fact after writing this reply post I have decided to sell the
FRG-100
Check out rec.radio.swap
Ron