| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
November 27th 07, 01:11 AM
posted to rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
AR-7030+, and some random thoughts.
On Nov 26, 3:15 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
Been reading for some time the posts concerning AOR's AR-7030+, and I'm amused by them all. Either it's loved and defended with the zeal of Billy Graham, or it's hated with the fire Jimmy Swaggart. There has been a thread these past few days addressing the real value of receiver specifications. Some actual knowledge coupled with actual good sense has brought forth some valuable insight into signal reception and enjoyment in real world hobbycraft environment. And how best to interpret the volumes of data about receivers, antennae and their respective installations in regard to what you really want out of a radiocraft hobby. It's good to see. And if Terry wouldn't mind delineating the steps he took to reducing RFI originating in his location, I'm sure it would go a long way toward increasing the enjoyment of many of us on whatever budgets we have with which to work. Regarding AR-7030+....And I have one...so I speak with some experience, here...It's a fine radio. And I encourage everyone to at least try one. Personally, I think everyone should own a John Thorpe radio. But that's a matter of personal choice. It's not going to be for everyone. Look at the group. DXAce likes Drake. I prefer Ten-Tec and AOR. And spend quality time with HF-150 and SW-2. Terry likes his Kenwood and his R-39x's. Telamon likes his RX=340 and Eric Richards enjoys or enjoyed an RX-340 and an R-8500. You don't see any of us bitch slapping the other's radios because we have different preferences. We may disagree on some things...but personal preferences in hardware are not relevant among them....largely owing to the fact that each of us has selected his toys based on his own listening situation. And not every listening post presents the same operational parameters. The point is, this radio doesn't need to be defended. It is what it is. Nor is the bashing required. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Buy what you like. Be happy. Terry made an interesting point....he's satisfied with his R2000. He's got bigger, more elaborate, and better spec'd receivers, but he ENJOYS his R2000. Hell, that's the whole point of the hobby, isn't it? Enjoyment? More importantly, the ability to receive a desired signal has much more to do with an environmental noise floor and a good antenna than a high dollar receiver. And as was pointed out here, where there isn't a lot of nearfield RF pollution, or an astonishingly low ambient noise floor, some receiver performance specs simply don't matter. Because they can never be reached. In other words, a receiver, like a spouse, needs to be a good fit for the situation in which it is expected to live. Although, I"m thinking Heidi Klum may work as well in flannel at a lumberjack camp as she does in feathers on Seal's lap....But I'm sure she's an exception. Good, basic sense (the actual meaning of the term 'common sense,' btw) and some simple basic understanding of the real world of radio signals will go much farther than heavy investments in hardware in the pursuit of desirable captures. Truth is, that most hobbyists simply can't afford to drop 4 figures on a radio. In that absence, they've found ways of achieving the same end on a much lower budget, and they've often found ways to do it more effectively. Some of us are fortunate to be able to buy the bigger toys. That doesn't mean they're better for the job. Consider...None of us are really working the limits on our receivers, here. We're hobbyists. Casually scanning the bands for deep DX, programs, UTEs or to get our souls saved by sending money to whatever child molester du jour demands in the name of God that we dig deep. We feed our receivers with random wires, or T2FD's, or inverted V's. But rarely, anything dramatically efficient. Few of us bother to build a military grade ground systems. What we're doing is hooking radios up to the ether to hear what we can hear. In that context, specifications are largely of academic interest only. Operating within the midrange of specifications, any radio is about as good as the next. Like Terry said, at most locations, you're not going to hear a signal on one receiver that you can't hear on another. And filters are only so much of the process. It's not until you begin to operate at the limits of a receiver's performance that you begin to hear differences in the design and engineering of a radio. It's like the difference between a Lotus and a Ferrari. They're the same car in the parking lot of the Piggly Wiggly. It's not until you start driving them at their limits that the differences are revealed. For most of us, dropping a boxcar load of cash on a receiver is a matter of personal taste. And potential for system upgrade, or experimentation under other venue conditions. Until we're operating them at their limits, the differences between them and the rabble are largely cosmetic. So, the slapfest, offenses, defenses, and deeply intractable arguments for or against any receiver in this forum make about as much sense as the bickering I've experienced in both the Lotus and Ferrari clubs. Because, no one's really running them competitively, and no one's really pushing performance to the limits where the real differences are revealed. BTW, I'm going to be thinning the herd, so some rigs are going up for sale. Probably starting with a FRG-7 in the coming month. Well said. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| AR-7030+, and some random thoughts. | Shortwave | |||
| AR-7030+, and some random thoughts. | Shortwave | |||
| FS:AOR-7030 | Shortwave | |||
| Random blogs with random thoughts | General | |||
| Random blogs with random thoughts | Policy | |||
Linear Mode
