RadioBanter - View Single Post

D Peter Maus · October 8th 06, 05:25 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave

wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
Unrevealed Source wrote:
Jim, I agree with almost everything you said. The SAT800 is one fine radio,
and if I were forced to get down to only one radio (to actually listen to),
that would be the one.

I don't agree that it has the best audio though; perfectly acceptable but
not the best. Mike has an article on his website about upgrading the
speaker but that's too much trouble for me. You can run external speakers
through the speaker jack output, and although it's low wattage it's plenty
with small efficient speakers. Or you can run it through your home stereo
system.

Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A.
Yes, I agree. The music and voice on broadcast signals sound
wonderfully mellow and full on that radio. Later radios such as the
Satellit 800 are certainly listenable, but they all suffer from the
plastic box syndrome.

But the speaker should have no bearing on whether to choose a given
radio or not, as has been hashed out here before.
Neither of us were commenting on the speaker alone. We were talking
about the radio as a complete unit having excellent sound reproduction
abilities.

Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.
Nonsese. Just look at all of the am and shortwave floor and table
model radios some of which came with huge speakers and most all of
which used wooden cases.

And often people would then plug in external speakers, for better sound
but also to get the speaker away from where it can mechanically modulate
the receivers local oscillator. The better receivers didn't even
bother, expecting you to use an external speaker that would be better
than could be offered inside.
Actually the better receiver makers did bother to design a complete
unit that did not require that any aural shortcomings be repaired at
additional expense of the owner. That silliness came later.

However small and portable receivers have become, most are not using
them as portable radios. It's no problem at all to plug an external
speaker in, and then sound quality of the speaker will never be a factor.
You are missing the point about the RF5000 again. And the Satellit 800
is touted as being an excellent armchair listeners radio. It isn't as
designed. It is good but not at the same level as a 30 year old
Panasonic shortwave radio that can be had for $100.00 in excellent
condition on Ebay.

ANd of course, decades ago, the external speakers that matched the radios
often weren't that great. An open-backed metal case, or a piece of cheap
plastic? The only advantage would have been if they put some money into
the speaker. But now, one can buy low end but compact stereo speakers that
are far better than those old matching external speakers.
I have no idea what cheap cheesy radios from 50 plus years ago you are
talking about. The good ones were in wooden cases cost a fair amount
of money when new and had excellent audio that did not have to be fixed
by the owner.

You're both comparing apples and oranges. He's referring to the
Hallicrafters, Hammarlunds, Nationals, et al, and you're referring to
the Philco's, Zenith's and Scott's.

The premium Halli's could be outfitted with a factory speaker,
usually in an open backed case, and usually stamped metal. Similarly,
the Hammars, Nationals, were also availed of externals in metal
cabinets. They were anything but high fidelity, though the receivers
were capable of surprisingly good audio. (Many were even designed to use
the audio stage as a phono amplifier. All my Halli's, Hammar's and
Nationals have this function. Such receivers did not have internal
speakers.) Only the entry and low/mid level receivers had internal
speakers.

The real glaring exception was the Hallicrafter's R-12 speaker. It
was big, came in quite a well made wooden cabinet and would make you
drool connected to the right receiver. With an SX-28, you'd never need
another woman again.

The cost was comparable to one, too.

The Philco's, Zenith's, Scott's, and their like, all had internals,
came in furniture grade wooden cabinets. And they, too, were capable of
some really nice audio. And though they were SW capable, they were NOT
communications receivers.

And that's where the confusion lies.

Philco and Zenith beat each other senseless in print over speaker
size. Not unike the horsepower wars that erupted when Ford took on Chevy
with it's own V-8. Bigger was better and sound was everything. Such
receivers were not particularly selective, which made them inadequate
for tough captures that SX-28 could handle easily. But damn they
sounded good.

The communications receivers, on the other hand focussed more on
performance than furniture, and were capable of significantly better
sensitivity and selectivity than the livingroom consoles. And though the
audio amps in these sets were livingroom entertainment grade, the
speaker that you blew the final audio into was a matter of personal
choice, and an external accessory.

BTW, these cheap, cheesy radios were some of the most expensive
receivers on the market in their day. And at one point, the Hammarlund
Super Pro series topped out at $980, at the dawn of the 50's.
Halli's less so, in accordance with Bill Halligan's mission...but they
were not cheap. And most of the comm receivers were more expensive than
the livingroom consoles by Zenith, Philco and the like.

All we were talking about were shortwave receivers with decent
reception capabilities that delivered very enjoyable audio out of the
box. We were not talking about communications receivers which are
completely different in more than one respect.

You weren't. He was. And that was my first point.

Usually they are
capable of digging out signals from poor conditions but the audio is
usually average to sub-par ewven after speakers are added.

Actually, it was the added speaker that was average to sub par.
Factory produced accessory speakers for comm sets were of shaped
response. For intelligibility rather than high fidelity. However the
detector and audio stage of many of the comm receivers of the period to
which you refer WERE of exceptional audio quality. Only the speaker set
them apart, sonically, from the livingroom consoles. To the degree that
the audio stage of these comm receivers was on par with the finest
entertainment systems of the day...used the same tubes and transformers
as the Zenith and Philco sets... and was designed to be used for
connecting a phonograph or record changer. Adding the right speaker was
all that was necessary to complete the system. As the Hallicrafters R-12
was intended to do. But such rigs came with no internal like the less
expensive sets. For a variety of reasons. Users of higher end sets
normally already had one or two receivers in their listening
environments, and already had speakers for them. Including a speaker
with every receiver was not only not necessary, but a waste of
resources, at a time when free spending wasn't a part of the lifestyle.
Another is that users often connected their rigs through a single common
audio output on the desk for all receivers. Such rigs had high impedance
outputs that could either be connected to multitap repeating coils, or
mixing amplifiers. Speakers for every radio were not necesary.

But the receiver audio was, in fact, very good. It was the audio
shaped by the speaker that made the difference between entertainment
quality and comm quality.

It's an apples and oranges comparison that has value only as a way of extending
discussions.

All right. you're not interested in the full picture.

Got it.

Sorry to have wasted your time.