A group of what I would call the world's top DXer's recently debated the
four most important causes of getting world class DX results. Whilst there
was not unanimous agreement, the general consensus was that the four most
important things in getting those really rare far off DX catches was:

1) site location
2) conditions (propagation)
3) antenna
4) DXing ability
5) receiver
in that order being the most important for DX reception.

1) I agree with that totally. As Conrad Hilton said of the hotel business,
the three most important things a
POSITION, POSITION, POSITION
and so it is with DXing.
A really good DX site can't be beaten.
Very best is a quiet site at the seaside next to the surf.

2) Propagation conditions also play a most vital part. Poor conditions =
poor results no matter what.

3) and 4) - I would rate 4) DXing ability slightly ahead of 3) antenna. I
used to know a young DXer who got the most amazing results just because of
his innate DXing ability. Now we have my mate Gary Deacon who also gets the
most amazing results at Miller's Point with only 40m/130ft of wire strung
out. Admittedly though, a short but well placed antenna can do wonders at a
good DX site.
I also have achieved amazing DX results with antenna's as short as 100 foot
strung out well at holiday locations

5) receiver - I agree with this totally. The fellow I mentioned above used
to DX with a Lowe HF150, a really modest RX, but he used to run rings around
many of us with much more fancy gear.

Then one year I will never forget in the Danish DX club annual competition -
a fella with a Yaesu FRG-7700 won hands down. This is a really mediocre
RX..!!

And now we have my friend Gary Deacon DXing away with his FROG, the
venerable analogue Yaesu FRG-7. Now I owned a FROG for a year on account of
its legendary MW DX capabilities, but personally wrote it off as near
useless due to its wide open 1000 Khz roofing filter and wide not very good
filters. Yet Gary consistently produces top line results of world class
quality on his FROG, proving the point that DXing ability is far more
important than a decent RX. A sobering thought for those of us touting the
top line RX's we own.

I asked Gary recently why he uses the old FROG and doesn't upgrade to a
decent modern digital RX. He answered by giving a pleasurable sigh and said
it was "steam radio"...!!! He has a Drake R7 by the way, an outstanding DX
machine in my opinion, but he prefers his FROG and does exceptionally well
with it...!!??

--
John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
RX Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
Drake SW8 & ERGO software
Sony 7600D GE SRIII
BW XCR 30, Braun T1000, Sangean 818 & 803A.
GE circa 50's radiogram
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

John Plimmer wrote:

[snip]

5) receiver - I agree with this totally. The fellow I mentioned above used
to DX with a Lowe HF150, a really modest RX, but he used to run rings around
many of us with much more fancy gear.

Somehow this doesn't surprise me. The HF-150 is a 'meat and potatoes'
type of receiver, but it's surprising to see just what it can do at
times. It's a well-designed receiver. The people who made the HF-150
understood that there's more to a good receiver than a big pricetag, a
plastic case, and lots and lots of "features".

Steve

wrote:

The people who made the HF-150
understood that there's more to a good receiver than a big pricetag, a
plastic case, and lots and lots of "features".


Wow..that would make my bought used Realistic dxAce-160 a winner! Thank
you for the reaffirmation of my obviously well honed shopping sense.



mike

What?

wrote:

What?

The 'tard boys meds haven't kicked in yet.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

In article RayZe.269651$HI.127114@edtnps84, says...
wrote:

The people who made the HF-150
understood that there's more to a good receiver than a big pricetag, a
plastic case, and lots and lots of "features".


Wow..that would make my bought used Realistic dxAce-160 a winner! Thank
you for the reaffirmation of my obviously well honed shopping sense.



mike



LOL, comparing a DX160 to an HF150 is like comparing a 1970's pinto( the
160) to a 1990's Honda Civic. You have to at least a certain level of
performance, and the 160..doesn't.


BDK

From: BDK
Organization: Dicks, INC.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:35:17 -0400
Subject: Five most important things for top DX

In article RayZe.269651$HI.127114@edtnps84, says...
wrote:

The people who made the HF-150
understood that there's more to a good receiver than a big pricetag, a
plastic case, and lots and lots of "features".


Wow..that would make my bought used Realistic dxAce-160 a winner! Thank
you for the reaffirmation of my obviously well honed shopping sense.



mike



LOL, comparing a DX160 to an HF150 is like comparing a 1970's pinto( the
160) to a 1990's Honda Civic. You have to at least a certain level of
performance, and the 160..doesn't.


BDK
Then why is the receiver at the bottom of the list? And where's the
popcorn? It's not even ON the list!

Greg

Well...
I happened to have HAD a 1972 pinto when it was new. It had headers and a 4
barrel carb. It would eat 914's and 240 z's for lunch. Of course it's no
match for my 300ZX but was a decent performer. for it's time...



"BDK" wrote in message
...
In article RayZe.269651$HI.127114@edtnps84, says...
wrote:

The people who made the HF-150
understood that there's more to a good receiver than a big pricetag, a
plastic case, and lots and lots of "features".


Wow..that would make my bought used Realistic dxAce-160 a winner! Thank
you for the reaffirmation of my obviously well honed shopping sense.



mike



LOL, comparing a DX160 to an HF150 is like comparing a 1970's pinto( the
160) to a 1990's Honda Civic. You have to at least a certain level of
performance, and the 160..doesn't.


BDK

Jim Hackett wrote:

Well...
I happened to have HAD a 1972 pinto when it was new. It had headers and a 4
barrel carb.


....**MINE** had dual gas tanks...





mike

John Plimmer wrote:
A group of what I would call the world's top DXer's recently debated the
four most important causes of getting world class DX results. Whilst there
was not unanimous agreement, the general consensus was that the four most
important things in getting those really rare far off DX catches was:

1) site location
2) conditions (propagation)
3) antenna
4) DXing ability
5) receiver
in that order being the most important for DX reception.

1) I agree with that totally. As Conrad Hilton said of the hotel business,
the three most important things a
POSITION, POSITION, POSITION
and so it is with DXing.
A really good DX site can't be beaten.
Very best is a quiet site at the seaside next to the surf.

2) Propagation conditions also play a most vital part. Poor conditions =
poor results no matter what.

3) and 4) - I would rate 4) DXing ability slightly ahead of 3) antenna. I
used to know a young DXer who got the most amazing results just because of
his innate DXing ability. Now we have my mate Gary Deacon who also gets the
most amazing results at Miller's Point with only 40m/130ft of wire strung
out. Admittedly though, a short but well placed antenna can do wonders at a
good DX site.
I also have achieved amazing DX results with antenna's as short as 100 foot
strung out well at holiday locations

5) receiver - I agree with this totally. The fellow I mentioned above used
to DX with a Lowe HF150, a really modest RX, but he used to run rings around
many of us with much more fancy gear.

Then one year I will never forget in the Danish DX club annual competition -
a fella with a Yaesu FRG-7700 won hands down. This is a really mediocre
RX..!!

And now we have my friend Gary Deacon DXing away with his FROG, the
venerable analogue Yaesu FRG-7. Now I owned a FROG for a year on account of
its legendary MW DX capabilities, but personally wrote it off as near
useless due to its wide open 1000 Khz roofing filter and wide not very good
filters. Yet Gary consistently produces top line results of world class
quality on his FROG, proving the point that DXing ability is far more
important than a decent RX. A sobering thought for those of us touting the
top line RX's we own.

I asked Gary recently why he uses the old FROG and doesn't upgrade to a
decent modern digital RX. He answered by giving a pleasurable sigh and said
it was "steam radio"...!!! He has a Drake R7 by the way, an outstanding DX
machine in my opinion, but he prefers his FROG and does exceptionally well
with it...!!??

--
John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
RX Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
Drake SW8 & ERGO software
Sony 7600D GE SRIII
BW XCR 30, Braun T1000, Sangean 818 & 803A.
GE circa 50's radiogram
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

I would put dxing ability, i.e. knowlege of the bands, ones equipment,
broadcasting schedules, etc., etc., at the top of the list.