"" wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:59:02 -0500, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

Dennon wrote:

I am new to shortwave radio and found the PT-633 on a website. I
searched alot of other sites and couldn't find anything even similar
for the price.

http://www.radiolabs.com/products/receivers/pt633.php


DN

I think I'd pass on it in favor of one with a digital frequency readout.


When I had analog tuning, I lusted for a digital readout.

Then, I got a radio with digital readout....
and it really didn't matter !

During late-night listening, I "scan the band".
I've found that it really doesn't matter what the frequency is,
as long as the signal's good, and the topic's interesting.

If you "listen by schedule"
ie; a certain frequency at a certain time for a certain program,
then by all means, look for a digital readout !

rj

Radios without a digital display are often lacking in other features
such as dual conversion to reduce images, good selectivity and tuning
stability to prevent drifting.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Radios without a digital display are often lacking in other features
such as dual conversion to reduce images, good selectivity and tuning
stability to prevent drifting.


No doubt about it! AND, you will miss the analog display for about 2
seconds.
The cheapest portable I would consider for any type of use is the Sony
ICF-SW35.
Analog dials are dead! In this day and age, why rely on tooth floss to turn
a dial?

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:59:02 -0500, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:


Dennon wrote:


I am new to shortwave radio and found the PT-633 on a website. I
searched alot of other sites and couldn't find anything even similar
for the price.

http://www.radiolabs.com/products/receivers/pt633.php


DN

I think I'd pass on it in favor of one with a digital frequency readout.



When I had analog tuning, I lusted for a digital readout.

Then, I got a radio with digital readout....
and it really didn't matter !

During late-night listening, I "scan the band".
I've found that it really doesn't matter what the frequency is,
as long as the signal's good, and the topic's interesting.

If you "listen by schedule"
ie; a certain frequency at a certain time for a certain program,
then by all means, look for a digital readout !


rj


I suggest digitals for beginners for a few reasons.

I think the schedules you can download from a place like:

http://primetimeshortwave.com/

make it easier for a beginner to get to the point where they can
reliably find something "interesting".

Portable analog radios I've tried tended to drift.

If someone wants to get into collecting QSL cards, it's easier to be
sure of the frequency you're on with a digital.

There are at least a couple digitals with good reputations in the same
general price range as the Sangean he provided a link to.

Finally, if a radio doesn't live up to your expectations, the hobby just
won't be much fun.

"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:59:02 -0500, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:


Dennon wrote:


I am new to shortwave radio and found the PT-633 on a website. I
searched alot of other sites and couldn't find anything even similar
for the price.

http://www.radiolabs.com/products/receivers/pt633.php


DN

I think I'd pass on it in favor of one with a digital frequency readout.



When I had analog tuning, I lusted for a digital readout.

Then, I got a radio with digital readout....
and it really didn't matter !

During late-night listening, I "scan the band".
I've found that it really doesn't matter what the frequency is,
as long as the signal's good, and the topic's interesting.

If you "listen by schedule"
ie; a certain frequency at a certain time for a certain program,
then by all means, look for a digital readout !


rj

I suggest digitals for beginners for a few reasons.

I think the schedules you can download from a place like:

http://primetimeshortwave.com/

make it easier for a beginner to get to the point where they can
reliably find something "interesting".

Portable analog radios I've tried tended to drift.

If someone wants to get into collecting QSL cards, it's easier to be
sure of the frequency you're on with a digital.

There are at least a couple digitals with good reputations in the same
general price range as the Sangean he provided a link to.

Finally, if a radio doesn't live up to your expectations, the hobby just
won't be much fun.

Yes, a digital offers 'repeatability', which is indispensable for a newcomer.

The days of 5 minutes of an interval signal so someone might find a transmission
from a particular country seem to be gone, and the 'crash start' seems to be
more the norm.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"0ff_r/-\/\\p" wrote in message
...

Radios without a digital display are often lacking in other features
such as dual conversion to reduce images, good selectivity and tuning
stability to prevent drifting.


No doubt about it! AND, you will miss the analog display for about 2
seconds.
The cheapest portable I would consider for any type of use is the Sony
ICF-SW35.
Analog dials are dead! In this day and age, why rely on tooth floss to
turn
a dial?



Have you ever used a decent quality analog radio? Most of the analog radios
made in the last thirty years have poor tuning mechanisms with stiff plastic
dielctric tuning capacitors and no bandspread.

I have over a dozen SW radios. I'm an active listener. I have only one
digital readout SW radio, a DX-440. It's one of my least used radios. I
use it mostly to align the real radios.

Frank Dresser

Have you ever used a decent quality analog radio?

We're talking about the current crop of portables, Frank.

"0ff_r/-\/\\p" wrote in message
...

Have you ever used a decent quality analog radio?

We're talking about the current crop of portables, Frank.



You made strong, unqualified statements. I thought it seemed clear I was
asking about what you know. Here's a complete quote from the post:

"No doubt about it! AND, you will miss the analog display for about 2
seconds."

That's interesting! How did you know the original poster won't miss the
analog display? Such an unqualified statement is much more than a guess.
Are you the original poster? Do you have psychic abilities? Did you take
one of those courses from Maj. Ed Dames or Sean David Morton?


"The cheapest portable I would consider for any type of use is the Sony
ICF-SW35."
"Analog dials are dead! In this day and age, why rely on tooth floss to
turn
a dial?"

Why? Well, this is quite a shocker, so I hope you're sitting down. Analog
radios get much better battery life than digital radios. It's true! And,
if battery life is the most important consideration in the purchase of a
radio, an analog radio is likely to be the BEST choice.

Hey, ya learn somthin' new everyday, huh?

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"0ff_r/-\/\\p" wrote in message
...

Radios without a digital display are often lacking in other features
such as dual conversion to reduce images, good selectivity and tuning
stability to prevent drifting.


No doubt about it! AND, you will miss the analog display for about 2
seconds.
The cheapest portable I would consider for any type of use is the Sony
ICF-SW35.
Analog dials are dead! In this day and age, why rely on tooth floss to
turn
a dial?



Have you ever used a decent quality analog radio? Most of the analog radios
made in the last thirty years have poor tuning mechanisms with stiff plastic
dielctric tuning capacitors and no bandspread.

I have over a dozen SW radios. I'm an active listener. I have only one
digital readout SW radio, a DX-440. It's one of my least used radios. I
use it mostly to align the real radios.

Frank Dresser

If you're referring to the old analog tube radios (boatanchors),
they're not a good choice for beginners and certainly not portable,
which are the subjects of this post. I own several top end boatanchors
but their performance can't match a modern digital communications
receiver.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I once read somewhere that some of those small Radio Shack shortwave
radios are made by Sangean.
cuhulin

"starman" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:

"0ff_r/-\/\\p" wrote in message
...

Radios without a digital display are often lacking in other features
such as dual conversion to reduce images, good selectivity and
tuning
stability to prevent drifting.


No doubt about it! AND, you will miss the analog display for about 2
seconds.
The cheapest portable I would consider for any type of use is the Sony
ICF-SW35.
Analog dials are dead! In this day and age, why rely on tooth floss
to
turn
a dial?



Have you ever used a decent quality analog radio? Most of the analog
radios
made in the last thirty years have poor tuning mechanisms with stiff
plastic
dielctric tuning capacitors and no bandspread.

I have over a dozen SW radios. I'm an active listener. I have only one
digital readout SW radio, a DX-440. It's one of my least used radios.
I
use it mostly to align the real radios.

Frank Dresser

If you're referring to the old analog tube radios (boatanchors),
they're not a good choice for beginners and certainly not portable,
which are the subjects of this post.

No, I was just wondering if "off ramp" really knew anything about analog
radios.

But what can be considered a good radio for a particular person depends, not
only on the radio, but what the person listens to and his capabilities. A
Zenith Transoceanic is a little less portable than a Sat 800, but it is
portable. It might be the best choice for a beginner, provided that
beginner listened to the big broadcasters, liked analog tuning and didn't
mind so-so image rejection and was capable of dealing with either cobbling
up a battery or buying one of those expensive battery kits. I know that
only covers a small percentage of beginners, but that small percentage isn't
zero, and it's presumptuous to assume that NO beginner would be interested
in such a radio.

The original poster was asking about the Sangean PT-633. I don't know
anything in particular about that radio, but if it's similar to other
current analog portables it's probably has poor frequency stability,
imprecise frequency readout, poor image rejection but good battery life and
a low noise floor. Like any other radio, it has strengths and weaknesses.
I have no idea which strengths and weaknesses are most important to the
original poster.


I own several top end boatanchors
but their performance can't match a modern digital communications
receiver.



Many of the portable digital communications receivers of a few years ago
were reported to have lots of birdies, lots of images, were easily
overloaded and a high noise floor. I don't know if these qualify as modern
or if similar digital communications receivers are still available, but I'd
think your radios would out perform those radios. Of course, that depends
on the definition of performance. If performance is defined only as
frequency stability and exact frequency read out, then the do outperform the
analog radios. But someone else may have an entirely different set of
performance requirements.

Frank Dresser