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.

Jill,
I agree with you acessment of the 800. It's a nice big receiver, that
works very well and is easy to use.
Jill Stafford wrote:
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.

In article ,
"Jill Stafford" wrote:

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.

Yeah, you started two threads and posted it three times under two
different handles.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I had one for a few years and didn't think it was anything special. My Sony
2010 performed better and my $60 Grundig S350 was a close match. Finally
sold it on Ebay for 100 bucks more than I bought it new. Gotta love Ebay and
foreign buyers with money to burn...

"Jill Stafford" wrote in message
...

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the last
Sat 800's.

Sorry about the multiple posts. I still have not seen but one of my posts
show up here. Not sure what's behind that.

S350 a close match to the Sat 800? The S350 I had was the driftiest radio I
have ever laid my hands on. Maybe you have a good one.




"myxl55" wrote in message
...
I had one for a few years and didn't think it was anything special. My
Sony
2010 performed better and my $60 Grundig S350 was a close match. Finally
sold it on Ebay for 100 bucks more than I bought it new. Gotta love Ebay
and
foreign buyers with money to burn...

"Jill Stafford" wrote in message
...

Yes I was telling myself last night how glad I was to get one of the
last
Sat 800's.

In article ,
"Jill Stafford" wrote:

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.

The 800 *is* a great radio - probably the best voice program listening
shortwave radio ever made. It's music performance on FM is not so hot
due to the relatively small speaker size, and the bass control has
little effect. The Sat 650 - which I also have - sounds *much* better
on FM, but unfortunately it's a mediocre performer on shortwave.

This radio was obviously made for voice, which it excels at. The Sync
is outstanding, and the filters are right out of the R8 - which I also
have.

I have loads of radios, but the 800 remains my "reference" radio.
Sometimes my Sat 2100 all analog radio gets a better signal than the
800, even though they are side by side on the table. It also has a
warmer, "tube like" sound even though it is not a tube set.

Mike

Mike wrote:


This radio was obviously made for voice, which it excels at. The Sync
is outstanding, and the filters are right out of the R8 - which I also
have.


Mike


The filters in the 800 are not "right out of the R8". The Sat 800 has a 455
kHz 2nd IF while the R8 uses 50 kHz. The Sat 800 uses ceramic filter while
the R8 uses LC filters.

The designers may have chosen to use the same bandwidths, but the filters
are not the same.

craigm

In article ,
craigm wrote:

The filters in the 800 are not "right out of the R8". The Sat 800 has a 455
kHz 2nd IF while the R8 uses 50 kHz.

Which are not filters and have nothing to do with anything.

The Sat 800 uses ceramic filter while
the R8 uses LC filters.

The designers may have chosen to use the same bandwidths, but the filters
are not the same.

Since the R8/SW8/S800 were designed by the same people (Drake), the
bandwidth filters are the same. That's what I was talking about.

Mike

Mike ) writes:
In article ,
craigm wrote:

The filters in the 800 are not "right out of the R8". The Sat 800 has a 455
kHz 2nd IF while the R8 uses 50 kHz.

Which are not filters and have nothing to do with anything.

The Sat 800 uses ceramic filter while
the R8 uses LC filters.

The designers may have chosen to use the same bandwidths, but the filters
are not the same.

Since the R8/SW8/S800 were designed by the same people (Drake), the
bandwidth filters are the same. That's what I was talking about.

But there is more to a filter than bandwidth. You can have a nice
narrow filter that turns out to be lousy, because it has no sharp
skirts. So it broadens out really fast, and lets lots of adjacent
signal in, unless it's terribly weak.

"Selectivity" is often easy to get, but the shape factor is what
separates the quality filters from the rest.

Comparing bandwidths often doesn't mean anything.

And the frequency of the IF may indeed be a factor. Not maybe
in itself, but in the design that goes with it.

The previous poster is implying that the ceramic filters at 455KHz
may be relatively run of the mill, that whatever the stated selectivity
the skirts aren't sharp. Dropping to 50KHz has always allowed Drake
to make filters out of coils and capacitors, and that provides more
leeway in design. They aren't picking some premade filter out of
a catalog.

It's not really an issue of IF frequency, but it's easier to make
good LC filters at 50KHz than 455KHz, which makes sense since it's
a lower frequency. But it is the type of filter that matters. If
the Satellite used a Collins mechanical filter at 455KHz, paying
the premium for a premium filter, the shape factor is far better
than the average ceramic filter, and could beat out the Drake's
50KHz filter.

Michael

In article ,
"Jill Stafford" wrote:

Sorry about the multiple posts. I still have not seen but one of my posts
show up here. Not sure what's behind that.

S350 a close match to the Sat 800? The S350 I had was the driftiest radio I
have ever laid my hands on. Maybe you have a good one.

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

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

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

--
Telamon
Ventura, California