Maybe the news server you use is slow to show your posts.

They seem to show up right away except this time...


It's more likely you accidently caused your own posts to be filtered out
or not show.

I checked my filters and nothing should have kept out the posts.


You should consider using a dedicated news reader instead of Outlook.

I have been fairly well served and pleased with Outlook Express except this
one time. I'm not a Microsoft poster child in fact I use Firefox about
99.99% of the time.

I appreciate your advice but I'm still curious why my posts didn't show up.
That's why I changed my account a few times. I thought maybe I was being
blocked for bad posts or something. Oh well...

Thanks again...

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.


"Jill Stafford" wrote in message
...
Somebody was ragging on the Sat 800 in another thread so I thought I would
start this thread in order to avoid hijacking thier thread.

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's. For program listening it is the best radio I have ever used.
The
AM sync also works better than any I have ever have heard. Sound quality?
Yes also the best of any SW radio I have ever listened too. Maybe there is
a
reason that it was rated only half a star lower than a Drake R8B in
Passport
to World Band Radio. How about the Sony 2010 everyone is so crazy about?
Yep
the Sat 800 was rated much higher than that but still I think the 2010 is
a
good radio. The large size of the Sat 800 lends itself to great sound,
great
ergonomics, and a display that I can read across the room. I even use it
to
listen to a local FM music station sometimes. A radio with a dozen
submenus,
buttons that each have nine different functions and will fit in a shirt
pocket? Yeah I have some like that... Which radio do I use the most?
Yep...
The Sat 800.

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.




"Jill Stafford" wrote in message
...
Somebody was ragging on the Sat 800 in another thread so I thought I would
start this thread in order to avoid hijacking thier thread.

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's. For program listening it is the best radio I have ever used.
The
AM sync also works better than any I have ever have heard. Sound quality?
Yes also the best of any SW radio I have ever listened too. Maybe there is
a
reason that it was rated only half a star lower than a Drake R8B in
Passport
to World Band Radio. How about the Sony 2010 everyone is so crazy about?
Yep
the Sat 800 was rated much higher than that but still I think the 2010 is
a
good radio. The large size of the Sat 800 lends itself to great sound,
great
ergonomics, and a display that I can read across the room. I even use it
to
listen to a local FM music station sometimes. A radio with a dozen
submenus,
buttons that each have nine different functions and will fit in a shirt
pocket? Yeah I have some like that... Which radio do I use the most?
Yep...
The Sat 800.

) 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.

Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.
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.

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.

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.

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.

Forty and fifty years ago, only the cheap radios had built in speakers.
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.

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.

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.

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.

) writes:
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.

Nonsense yourself.

You are completely talking about "sound quality" and ignoring far
more important issues.

Grandpa's radio may have had good sound quality, but they had broad
selectivity, bad dials, not great image rejection, and they usually
had very limited shortwave coverage.

I wouldn't even count them as shortwave radios. They were AM broadcast
radios, with incidental shortwave coverage. They may have cost a pretty
penny, but the money wasn't going to capability or features, and in
that they are indeed cheap shortwave radios.

THe HROs didn't have built in speakers. The SP-600 didn't have built
in speakers. None of the Collins receivers. But those were top of
the line shortwave receivers.

Drop down and the cheap Ameco, receivers like the Radio Shack DX-150,
the low end Hallicrafters, they had built in speakers. But then,
they weren't particularly great receivers.

The receivers you think are the cat's meow couldn't be fixed with
something as simple as an external speaker. Yet pick any receiver
today and if you lament the sound quality, it can be easily fixed
by adding an external speaker.

Yes, in some cases there may be an issue with a particularly bad
audio amplifer. But the bottom line is a small speaker in a small
plastic case, that can be easily remedied.

I took issue with this because it keeps coming up. "I like this
receiver, if only it had a better speaker". If the speaker is
the only issue, then add that external speaker and then you've
got the ideal speaker.

Michael

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.

Michael Black wrote:
) writes:
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.

Nonsense yourself.

You are completely talking about "sound quality" and ignoring far
more important issues.

Grandpa's radio may have had good sound quality, but they had broad
selectivity, bad dials, not great image rejection, and they usually
had very limited shortwave coverage.

I wouldn't even count them as shortwave radios. They were AM broadcast
radios, with incidental shortwave coverage. They may have cost a pretty
penny, but the money wasn't going to capability or features, and in
that they are indeed cheap shortwave radios.

Hmm...that's interesting. All manner of people who used them to listen
to shortwave radio must have been mistaken. Maybe those BBC broadcasts
were simply images of ABC.



THe HROs didn't have built in speakers. The SP-600 didn't have built
in speakers. None of the Collins receivers. But those were top of
the line shortwave receivers.

Pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of receivers that were built
as a complete unit to deliver very enjoyable full audio. Why don't you
try staying on point.



Drop down and the cheap Ameco, receivers like the Radio Shack DX-150,
the low end Hallicrafters, they had built in speakers. But then,
they weren't particularly great receivers.

Again, please try to stay with the discussion or consider dropping out.



The receivers you think are the cat's meow couldn't be fixed with
something as simple as an external speaker.

None of tohse receivers needed to be fixed, including the delightful
Panasonic RF5000. They were designed by the manufacturer to deliver
excellent audio when plugged in. It does seem a silly and wasteful for
someone to pay top dollar for a receiver only to have pay even more
money for supplemental speakers and other audio equipment just to
extract an enjoyable boradcast.


Yet pick any receiver
today and if you lament the sound quality, it can be easily fixed
by adding an external speaker.

It is absurd to have to pay top dollar for a receiver only to have to
pay more money to fix a fundamental design flaw like poor audio.


Yes, in some cases there may be an issue with a particularly bad
audio amplifer. But the bottom line is a small speaker in a small
plastic case, that can be easily remedied.

I took issue with this because it keeps coming up. "I like this
receiver, if only it had a better speaker". If the speaker is
the only issue, then add that external speaker and then you've
got the ideal speaker.

Michael

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