Some of the inexpensive chinese radios represent good value for the
money but that is about it. They are not the stellar performers some
reviews make them out to be. As an example the DE1103 hears a lot of
signals, and the filters actually do work, if not perfectly. It comes
with a couple of significant shortcomings such as image signals, poorly
designed memories and mediocre ergonomics. Still, it represents good
value at $65.00.


Telamon wrote:
In article 9,
Conan Ford wrote:

Seen on Radio Intel.

http://www.radiointel.com/phil/2005_phil_port_guide.pdf

I do not understand the view point of price and performance. If you
are
going to rate radios then rate them on how they perform. Price is a
separate issue.

I disagree that selective fading is less common then adjacent channel

interference. The adjacent channel interference would be less common
if
the reviewer spent more time with radios that have better dynamic
range
and shaped filters. The selective fading is a result of propagation.

I'm not sold on the cheap Chinese portables.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

I disagree that selective fading is less common then adjacent channel
interference. The adjacent channel interference would be less common if
the reviewer spent more time with radios that have better dynamic range
and shaped filters. The selective fading is a result of propagation.

Yeah, that comment about selective fading floored me, too.
--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940