In article ,
lsmyer wrote:
Back in the 70s, my dxing hobby included the component of logging stations
by frequency. All I had back then was analog tuning and nothing to check the
accuracy against other than waiting for a known station to identify itself,
and then try to estimate the frequency of the new station. That was even
tougher back then because you had stations like WLAC calling themselves "15
WLAC" even though they were actually on 1510. Now digital displays are so
common that stations say their real frequency, even on FM. I think it also
helps their arbitron ratings to mention their exact frequency.

I think the FCC cracked down on announcments. I used to listen to
a local alternative music station, KJET, who announced themselves as
"sixteen hundred". Then one day, late 1980s, they had a "mark down
sale" and started announcing as KJET 1590.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

not knowing the frequency you are on is an extremely serious problem in my book



"Brian Running" wrote in message ...
Of the three winners, the SRIII is the most sensitive, has very good
sound,
is noise-free, and is the least expensive, but the radio's display is so
bad
that serious dxing is virtually impossible for me without another radio
nearby to tell me what frequency I'm listening to.

Thanks for the report -- nice job.

I am obviously in the minority on this, but I just cannot for the life of me
see why the Superadio's dial calibration is a big problem for people. You
say that serious DXing is virtually impossible -- why? Hell, I don't even
look at the dial most of the time. I tune in a station, and listen until I
hear a station ID. Even if you have a digital read-out, you still don't
know what station you've got until they identify themselves -- so wait until
they say the frequency. You never have to wait long. A lot of the time,
I'll listen to AM at night without any lights on at all -- doesn't matter
what kind of display I've got, I'll be able to tell what I'm listening to.
I think the Superadio III is a great radio for DXing -- it would still be a
great radio for DXing if it didn't even have a dial.

not knowing the frequency you are on is an extremely serious problem in my
book


I guess that explains why there was no MW DXing in the days before digital
frequency readouts. I knew there had to be one!

thats right, everyone was too busy making charts to figure out where
frequencies were on their dial

if you knew anything about the history of DX'ing you would know
frequency readout WAS a big issue. many articles were written on how
to figure out where you were on your radio dial.

I wouldn't waste my time MW DXing on anything less than an RF-2200

I guess that explains why there was no MW DXing in the days before digital
frequency readouts. I knew there had to be one!

if you knew anything about the history of DX'ing you would know
frequency readout WAS a big issue. many articles were written on how
to figure out where you were on your radio dial.

I only know about my history of DXing, Cap, which goes back to the late
'60s. I'll tell you what, here's how it works for me -- you turn the tuning
knob until you hear a station. Then, some time after that, someone at the
station says, "This is 740, WRPQ, Baraboo" or whatever. There you go! Now,
I admit, this isn't very fussy, or neurotic, or anal-retentive, so it may
not satisfy everyone's needs. But, it's very enjoyable.

I wouldn't waste my time MW DXing on anything less than an RF-2200

You must be a professional DXer. To the majority of the rest of us, who
have jobs, families, lives, etc., MW DXing is how we waste our time.
Deliberately! Imagine!

Honestly, aren't you guys wound a little tight? A radio like the Superadio
III is an extremely enjoyable device to use.

= = = (the captain) wrote in message
= = = . com...
thats right, everyone was too busy making charts to figure out where
frequencies were on their dial

if you knew anything about the history of DX'ing you would know
frequency readout WAS a big issue. many articles were written on how
to figure out where you were on your radio dial.

The Captain,

Doh - It did not take a Rocket Scientist.

You have two strong 'known' AM Radio Stations on the Dial
.... and anything between them was between them [.]

Once you had a Log Book of 50-75 AM Stations IDed on the Dial.
+ Plus a few "By-Frequency" Log Sheets to cover the Dial.

You 'know where you are' On-the-Dial and only have to Listen
to what is out there; to find out "Who Their Are".

A Frequency Counter or Digital Display is NOT Required
to Enjoy Listening to your good old Analog Dial Radio )

DX-Memories of the 1950s and 1960s ~ RHF
..
..

I wouldn't waste my time MW DXing on anything less than an RF-2200

I guess that explains why there was no MW DXing in the days before digital
frequency readouts. I knew there had to be one!

"the captain" wrote in message
om...
thats right, everyone was too busy making charts to figure out where
frequencies were on their dial

if you knew anything about the history of DX'ing you would know
frequency readout WAS a big issue. many articles were written on how
to figure out where you were on your radio dial.

I wouldn't waste my time MW DXing on anything less than an RF-2200


It is hard. Counting up or down in 10 kHz steps from a known station!
After the death of Einstein back in the fifties, lesser scientists had to
scramble to develop the digital readout. Even radios which supposedly had
well marked frequency divisions would only mark every 20 kHz on half the
dial! 20 kHz!! How could anybody ever figure where 1210 kHz was supposed
to be? Figuring that out is even harder to figure out than a killfile!!!

Frank Dresser

"Brian Running" wrote in message You

Hell, I don't eeven look at the dial most of the time. I tune
in a station, and listen until I hear a station ID.

Okay, you can randomly DX, Have fun trying to find a particular station.

Hell, I don't eeven look at the dial most of the time. I tune
in a station, and listen until I hear a station ID.

Okay, you can randomly DX, Have fun trying to find a particular station.

I understand your point, Bill. We all have differing objectives. To me,
that is the fun of DXing -- it's not a clinical, precise operation for me, I
listen for the enjoyment. That's all there is in radio listening,
enjoyment. It's not a living, it's not the cure for cancer. The Superadio
has a dial that gets you in a ballpark, and I just don't find the dial's
(obvious) lack of precision to be an "extremely serious" matter. I can get
within a reasonable range of any frequency with it, and then, listening
carefully takes care of the rest. And THAT's the fun in DXing, for me.
Everyone's big gripe about the Superadio is the tuning dial, and I just
think that's overblown -- especially when you're talking about a $40 radio,
and especially considering all the good things about it. All righty, let's
get back to the radios.

Subject: Comparison of six portable radios
From: "lsmyer"
Date: 6/14/2004 3:23 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

I decided to test some radios today to see which of them I would recommend
for simple AM dxing to anyone who asked. The six radios I tested are Degen
DE1102, GE SRIII, Radio Shack DX-398, Radio Shack DX-402, Sangean U1, and
Tecsun BCL2000.

I went to a local park at 1:00 pm and found an area with no nearby power
lines. I started each radio at 530 KHz and I tuned up through the entire
dial, noting the signal strength and clarity of what I heard (if anything)
on each frequency. I also rotated each radio on each frequency to see if it
could pick up a signal in any position.

Sensitivity: Despite being the least expensive out of the group, my trusty
SRIII picked up at least a whisper of a station on nearly every single
frequency (A+). Second was the BCL2000 (A-), third was the DE1102 (B+),
fourth was my DX-398 (C-) and DX-402 (C-), and in last place was my U1 (F),
which picked up stations on the least number of frequencies.

Selectivity: There are other factors in AM listenability, though. One of
which is handling adjacent channel spatter. Of all the radios, the SRIII
seemed to be best at pulling 700WLW (175 miles away) out of the spatter of
two local stations on 680 and 710. The DE1102 was second, and the BCL2000
third. One oddity about the BCL2000, even though it allowed me to hear WLW
between the two other stations, for some reason, WLW was being covered by an
image of a local low power travel station on 1610 that overmodulates
horribly. None of the other radios picked up any images.

Internal noise: No surprise here. The three analog radios, the SRIII (A+),
BCL2000 (A+) and U1(A+), all had lower internal noise than the three with
digital tuning, DX-402 (C) DX-398 (C-), and DE1102 (D).

Dial readability: All of those with digital displays were obviously easier
to read. The DX-402 (A+) and the BCL2000 (A+) have accurate and large
high-contrast displays, the DX-398 (B) and the DE1102 (C) were smaller but
still accurate, the UI isn't very accurate but it's easy to see (C-), and
the SRIII has the least accurate and least seeable display of the pack (F).

Portability: All six are portables and can be operated by batteries. The
three large analog radios can be heavy, but all three have good carrying
handles. The three smaller radios do not have handles. The DE1102 stands out
here for being the smallest by far (A+). The U1, however, is really too big
to carry for very long, despite having the best handle of the bunch, and it
should get the F in this category.

Sound quality: Though highly subjective, I like the sound of the three
bigger radios best. You can turn up the U1 until your ears hurt and it still
doesn't distort. The U1 has by far the most bass and volume but little
treble (A), the SRIII has good bass and treble and medium volume (B), the
BCL2000 has slightly less bass and treble, and comparable volume (B-), the
DX-398 (D) and DX-402 (D) are virtually identical with some bass some treble
and even less volume (D), and the DE1102 (D-) has some treble, no bass, and
very little volume until it starts distorting. Of course, all of these
radios sound better with headphones, but that wasn't what I was seeking.

Conclusion: I couldn't imagine getting rid of any of these radios. It would
be so tough to try to pick just one for me to own. Each one of these has at
least one feature that makes it a favorite in some category. And my little
comparison doesn't even take into account two of the most important
categories to some people: memory operation and external antenna
performance. But of my six radios tested, three were clearly losers (DX-398,
DX-402, and U1) and three were clearly winners (SRIII, BCL2000, and DE1102).

Of the three winners, the SRIII is the most sensitive, has very good sound,
is noise-free, and is the least expensive, but the radio's display is so bad
that serious dxing is virtually impossible for me without another radio
nearby to tell me what frequency I'm listening to. The DE1102 and the
BCL2000 aren't too far behind the SRIII in sensitivity and both offer a
digital frequency display that's easy to see. And though the DE1102 is a
fine little radio (in fact, it is an incredible performer for its size), the
BCL2000 beats it in nearly every category for me (sensitivity, sound
quality, internal noise), so I would have to pick the BCL2000 as my
unscientifically-preferred choice for AM dxing.


Hell, I have done some "serious dx'ing" with older receivers that the dial was
more inaccurate than the GE Superadio lll.

It's all a matter of "knowing" the bands etc.

I still enjoy listening to my 1938 Hammarlund HQ-120X on the SW bands. Dial
accuracy? Not real good, but dead on at 5, 10 and 15 mcs. But, I "know" who is
where.

You digital babies are just too damn spoiled!




Les Locklear
On The Gulf of Mexico
Hammarlund HQ-120X
Harris RF-505A (R-5075/GRR)
R-390/URR
Ten Tec RX-350D
Alpha Delta Sloper
Various antennas
Monitoring since ' 57