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.

D Peter Maus wrote:
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.

Please read the message before attempting to compose a response. The
original poster in this thread said the Panasonic RF5000 delivered
excellent audio, to which I agreed. At no point did he or I drag the
irrelevant comparison of communications receivers into the discussion.
Good grief.





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.

Still an improvement to a communications receiver which may not have
had a speaker to begin with. But if the audio quality is still
substandard, then why bother.

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.



I'm mnore interested in talking about the topic at hand and not
wandering aimlessly around looking for ways to justify ownership of
communications receivers.


Got it.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

This newsgroup has dwindled into every thread turning into ****ing matches
and back biting. Does anybody moderate this group at all? Certainly it must
be or there would be more Viagra advertisements.

I'm wondering how many people are turned off by this hobby when they read
some of theses posts? Please don't anyone answer as it would only be
something negative and mean spirited.

So I guess that's it for the Grundig Sat 800 talk...

By the way, if there is a moderator here and you need some help, I would be
willing to volunteer part of my time to help moderate this group.

In article ,
"Jill Stafford" wrote:

This newsgroup has dwindled into every thread turning into ****ing matches
and back biting. Does anybody moderate this group at all? Certainly it must
be or there would be more Viagra advertisements.

I'm wondering how many people are turned off by this hobby when they read
some of theses posts? Please don't anyone answer as it would only be
something negative and mean spirited.

So I guess that's it for the Grundig Sat 800 talk...

By the way, if there is a moderator here and you need some help, I would be
willing to volunteer part of my time to help moderate this group.

Nobody moderates the news group. You have to learn how to deal with the
public. You set your own lines by filtering the news group so you read
people you want to read and kill file the rest. If you can't do that
with Outlook then get yourself a dedicated news reader.

A news group has to be created with the moderating function. This news
group was created years ago as an open news group.

Problems with moderation is that people want their posts to show up
quickly. When the news servers are working well it is a little slower
than chat.

For you to moderate the news group all posts are mailed to you and then
you post the ones on the news server that meet the stated news group
rules. Are you willing to sit there a good part of the day and night to
do this? Probably not. You could start a white list of people that pass
through your computer to automatically post but you would have to go
back and cancel them if anyone on that list that got out of hand. I
can't think of an automated way to do this that would be satisfactory
and fast. You could cut down the crap on the news group but not all of
it and posting would get delayed.

Any problems that you have personally, computer problems, or ISP
problems, or problems with your news provider Giga news bring the entire
news group to a halt. This happens all the time on moderated news groups.

People already have the option of moderated news groups like the ones on
Yahoo. Go there and create one to your liking. It's easier than creating
a new Usenet news group. People have done this already so go check them
out.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
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.

Please read the message before attempting to compose a response. The
original poster in this thread said the Panasonic RF5000 delivered
excellent audio, to which I agreed. At no point did he or I drag the
irrelevant comparison of communications receivers into the discussion.
Good grief.



Actually, if YOU read more closely, you'll see that was exactly
what he was doing. The receivers to which he referred, were comm receivers.

D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
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.

Please read the message before attempting to compose a response. The
original poster in this thread said the Panasonic RF5000 delivered
excellent audio, to which I agreed. At no point did he or I drag the
irrelevant comparison of communications receivers into the discussion.
Good grief.



Actually, if YOU read more closely, you'll see that was exactly
what he was doing. The receivers to which he referred, were comm receivers.


Good grief...please go back and re-read the thread before posting
anything else. I was responding to:

"Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A."

And not surprisingly I agreed wholeheartedly.

Someone else wanted to re-direct the discussion to what was initially
an un-described kind shortwave receiver but later became communications
receivers. I had and still have no interest in comparing the
performance of receivers that are designed for such different purposes:
Broadcast receivers and communications receivers. You and the other
individual may have an interest in such a fruitless exercise, but I
don't. Go play your games elsewhere.

wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
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.
Please read the message before attempting to compose a response. The
original poster in this thread said the Panasonic RF5000 delivered
excellent audio, to which I agreed. At no point did he or I drag the
irrelevant comparison of communications receivers into the discussion.
Good grief.


Actually, if YOU read more closely, you'll see that was exactly
what he was doing. The receivers to which he referred, were comm receivers.


Good grief...please go back and re-read the thread before posting
anything else. I was responding to:

"Best audio of any radio has to be the Panasonic RF-5000A."

And not surprisingly I agreed wholeheartedly.



And I was responding to:

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.



One was a reference to comm receivers and the other was a reference
to shortwave capable entertainment radios. It may not be worth debating
the matter, and as an earlier paragraph suggested, it's been done to
death, in this forum, but there is ample room for discussion of the
nature of audio in receivers. Regardless of class. Since that was the
topic starter here.

But, as you wish.


Although, to comment on the original point....the best audio I've
ever heard from a radio...was from a Scott Philharmonic.

Just don't try to lift it.


Do have a good day.



p

Light be the turf O'Heaven.Back to me movie now on Radio tb,Sounder.
cuhulin

Doggy,she is havin a good day,,,,, sleepin down betwixt me knees.Go
figure.
cuhulin