I thought I would dig up some numbers to back up what I have said for years,
the FRG-7 is grossly over rated.
These stats are measured in the lab of the great Ranier Lichte in his
awesome book "radio receiver, chance or choice" the best review book ever
written in the history of shortwave radio. In fact I just modified one of my
copies to make it easy to scan reviews to mail to people for proof of what I
say.

FRG-7 FRG-7700 FRG-8800
SW sens (uV) 2.1 2.1 1.1
3rd order ICP (dBm) -25 -10 +3
selectivity (-6/60) 3.2/8.8 *1 3/7 + 7/18

*1 Wide 11/26 Norm 5.2/13.5 Narr 2.6/8.2

In every category of these most important specs, the FRG-7 loses. In fact
the 3rd order ICP is pretty BAD !!!!!!

The facts speak for themselves, the reputation of the FRG-7 is not based on
reality but fantasy.

I am not crazy about the selectivity of the stock units of any of the FRG's
so my FRG-7 and my FRG-7700 both have mechanical filters and the 7700 has an
upgraded ceramic as well. But the 7 selectivity is way too limited for the
real world !

And the 7700 and 8800 both sound really NICE !!!!

I have had all three of these receivers............the 7700 is nothing to
write home about, while the 8800 is just ok. Even though the 8800 uses a
doubly-balanced diode ring for the 1st mixer, the LW band is awash with MW
spurs.
It makes me wonder what method this person used when he made these IP3
measurements. What was the level of each of the tones, and what was the tone
spacing? With wide spaced tones, the FRG-7 should be better since
preselection would protect the front end a bit.
Another little known fact.............the early versions of the FRG-7 that
didn't have the fine tuning control had a better IP3 since the gain
distribution was better. Later models of the FRG-7 were more prone to
intermodulation since the RF amplifier/mixer stages appeared to run at
higher gain. Remember the input IP3 is degradation is directly proportional
to the gain ahead of the 1st mixer...........also, the RF amplifier is also
prone to IMD effects. I believe that a 3SK40 dual-gate MOSFET was used in
this application.
About that mechanical filter mod.................how are you able to avoid
signal feedaround with the board layout in the FRG-7?
One way you could avoid it is through the use of shielded cable with its
30pF/ft capacitance. No matter what approach you take, there will be
compromised performance. In order to take advantage of the 120dB ultimate
rejection of a mechanical filter you really need to have ground flood on the
circuit board that would really isolate the I/O pins of the filter. You are
not going to get that kind of rejection with that board layout. Also, even
if the board layout could support a mechanical filter (which it cannot) why
would anybody want to waste any money on such a device when the radio has
such limited dynamic range?
In conclusion, early versions of the FRG-7 had fairly good dynamic range
while later versions that had the fine tuning control had similar IMD
performance to the Radio Shack DX-300. So take your choice..............the
FRG-7, the problem laden 7700, or the 8800 with is poor IMD performance on
the LW band. I would surmise that the poor performance of the 8800 is
because Yaesu probably chose to use common switching diodes in the front end
instead of using PIN diodes.
It is also interesting that this reviewer rated the FRG-8800 as having
better sensitivity than the FRG-7. Was this person measuring all of these
receivers at the same time, and was he using hard or soft measurement
techniques? What frequency did this person make these measurements at? Were
they all done at the same frequencies? Was the same signal generator being
used, and if so, what was the model number/manufacturer of the generator?
Take a look at the one of the "useful" I.F. bandwidths of the 8800. The wide
bandwidth has a very poor shape factor. Another thing to consider is not
only the 6/60dB curves, but also the ultimate selectivity. Many things to
consider when presenting the "proof".

Pete
"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
I thought I would dig up some numbers to back up what I have said for
years, the FRG-7 is grossly over rated.
These stats are measured in the lab of the great Ranier Lichte in his
awesome book "radio receiver, chance or choice" the best review book ever
written in the history of shortwave radio. In fact I just modified one of
my copies to make it easy to scan reviews to mail to people for proof of
what I say.

FRG-7 FRG-7700 FRG-8800
SW sens (uV) 2.1 2.1 1.1
3rd order ICP (dBm) -25 -10 +3
selectivity (-6/60) 3.2/8.8 *1 3/7 + 7/18

*1 Wide 11/26 Norm 5.2/13.5 Narr 2.6/8.2

In every category of these most important specs, the FRG-7 loses. In fact
the 3rd order ICP is pretty BAD !!!!!!

The facts speak for themselves, the reputation of the FRG-7 is not based
on reality but fantasy.

I am not crazy about the selectivity of the stock units of any of the
FRG's so my FRG-7 and my FRG-7700 both have mechanical filters and the
7700 has an upgraded ceramic as well. But the 7 selectivity is way too
limited for the real world !

And the 7700 and 8800 both sound really NICE !!!!

I owned an FRG-7 for a year but passed it on as being useless due to it's
poor filters and intermods.
But there is always the exception, in Cape Town is a DX friend of mine who
swears by his Frog and leaves his awesome Drake R7 on the shelf. He is one
of the world,s most accomplished MW DXer's and says the Frog delivers such
superior audio on the really faint DX catches that he will not upgrade to a
more modern high end receiver - go figure!
He runs rings around us with our more modern RX's..!!!

I also owned a FRG-8800 for a couple of years - another useless receiver
that I was glad to get rid of. On Robert Sherwood's
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
he tested it and the filters were so poor he couldn't even get a
measurement.

--
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

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
I thought I would dig up some numbers to back up what I have said for
years, the FRG-7 is grossly over rated.
These stats are measured in the lab of the great Ranier Lichte in his
awesome book "radio receiver, chance or choice" the best review book ever
written in the history of shortwave radio. In fact I just modified one of
my copies to make it easy to scan reviews to mail to people for proof of
what I say.

FRG-7 FRG-7700 FRG-8800
SW sens (uV) 2.1 2.1 1.1
3rd order ICP (dBm) -25 -10 +3
selectivity (-6/60) 3.2/8.8 *1 3/7 + 7/18

*1 Wide 11/26 Norm 5.2/13.5 Narr 2.6/8.2

In every category of these most important specs, the FRG-7 loses. In fact
the 3rd order ICP is pretty BAD !!!!!!

The facts speak for themselves, the reputation of the FRG-7 is not based
on reality but fantasy.

I am not crazy about the selectivity of the stock units of any of the
FRG's so my FRG-7 and my FRG-7700 both have mechanical filters and the
7700 has an upgraded ceramic as well. But the 7 selectivity is way too
limited for the real world !

And the 7700 and 8800 both sound really NICE !!!!

Hi John,

I had variable experience with the FRG-7, depending on which iteration that
I had. I remember that when using an 8 foot diameter untuned loop, MW
reception was very good with no signs of intermod.
Under these same conditions with a later iteration (I had both units at the
same time), there would be a marked increase in the noise floor as you
approached a strong signal. It almost sounds as if there were very high
noise sidebands coming from the 1st LO, in turn causing reciprocal mixing.
I must apologize to Mike M for jumping a bit hard on his comments. I've
talked directly to him over the phone in the past and he is an ok person,
but unless you actually make test measurements yourself you never know
actual test conditions.
Please accept my apology Mike...............it was one of those 18 hour work
days.

Pete

"John Plimmer" wrote in message
...
I owned an FRG-7 for a year but passed it on as being useless due to it's
poor filters and intermods.
But there is always the exception, in Cape Town is a DX friend of mine who
swears by his Frog and leaves his awesome Drake R7 on the shelf. He is one
of the world,s most accomplished MW DXer's and says the Frog delivers such
superior audio on the really faint DX catches that he will not upgrade to
a
more modern high end receiver - go figure!
He runs rings around us with our more modern RX's..!!!

I also owned a FRG-8800 for a couple of years - another useless receiver
that I was glad to get rid of. On Robert Sherwood's
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
he tested it and the filters were so poor he couldn't even get a
measurement.

--
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

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
I thought I would dig up some numbers to back up what I have said for
years, the FRG-7 is grossly over rated.
These stats are measured in the lab of the great Ranier Lichte in his
awesome book "radio receiver, chance or choice" the best review book ever
written in the history of shortwave radio. In fact I just modified one of
my copies to make it easy to scan reviews to mail to people for proof of
what I say.

FRG-7 FRG-7700 FRG-8800
SW sens (uV) 2.1 2.1 1.1
3rd order ICP (dBm) -25 -10 +3
selectivity (-6/60) 3.2/8.8 *1 3/7 + 7/18

*1 Wide 11/26 Norm 5.2/13.5 Narr 2.6/8.2

In every category of these most important specs, the FRG-7 loses. In fact
the 3rd order ICP is pretty BAD !!!!!!

The facts speak for themselves, the reputation of the FRG-7 is not based
on reality but fantasy.

I am not crazy about the selectivity of the stock units of any of the
FRG's so my FRG-7 and my FRG-7700 both have mechanical filters and the
7700 has an upgraded ceramic as well. But the 7 selectivity is way too
limited for the real world !

And the 7700 and 8800 both sound really NICE !!!!

I can scan some of the pages from his book if you would like to read his
opinions.
he not only measures the receivers but he uses them for a while and gives
several pages of comments on each one.
he also devotes a page or two to his test station and I can send that also


also remember this book was written in about 1984 for whatever that is worth


"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
. ..
Hi John,

I had variable experience with the FRG-7, depending on which iteration
that I had. I remember that when using an 8 foot diameter untuned loop, MW
reception was very good with no signs of intermod.
Under these same conditions with a later iteration (I had both units at
the same time), there would be a marked increase in the noise floor as you
approached a strong signal. It almost sounds as if there were very high
noise sidebands coming from the 1st LO, in turn causing reciprocal mixing.
I must apologize to Mike M for jumping a bit hard on his comments. I've
talked directly to him over the phone in the past and he is an ok person,
but unless you actually make test measurements yourself you never know
actual test conditions.
Please accept my apology Mike...............it was one of those 18 hour
work days.

Pete

"John Plimmer" wrote in message
...
I owned an FRG-7 for a year but passed it on as being useless due to it's
poor filters and intermods.
But there is always the exception, in Cape Town is a DX friend of mine
who
swears by his Frog and leaves his awesome Drake R7 on the shelf. He is
one
of the world,s most accomplished MW DXer's and says the Frog delivers
such
superior audio on the really faint DX catches that he will not upgrade to
a
more modern high end receiver - go figure!
He runs rings around us with our more modern RX's..!!!

I also owned a FRG-8800 for a couple of years - another useless receiver
that I was glad to get rid of. On Robert Sherwood's
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
he tested it and the filters were so poor he couldn't even get a
measurement.

--
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

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
I thought I would dig up some numbers to back up what I have said for
years, the FRG-7 is grossly over rated.
These stats are measured in the lab of the great Ranier Lichte in his
awesome book "radio receiver, chance or choice" the best review book
ever
written in the history of shortwave radio. In fact I just modified one
of
my copies to make it easy to scan reviews to mail to people for proof of
what I say.

FRG-7 FRG-7700 FRG-8800
SW sens (uV) 2.1 2.1 1.1
3rd order ICP (dBm) -25 -10 +3
selectivity (-6/60) 3.2/8.8 *1 3/7 +
7/18

*1 Wide 11/26 Norm 5.2/13.5 Narr 2.6/8.2

In every category of these most important specs, the FRG-7 loses. In
fact
the 3rd order ICP is pretty BAD !!!!!!

The facts speak for themselves, the reputation of the FRG-7 is not based
on reality but fantasy.

I am not crazy about the selectivity of the stock units of any of the
FRG's so my FRG-7 and my FRG-7700 both have mechanical filters and the
7700 has an upgraded ceramic as well. But the 7 selectivity is way too
limited for the real world !

And the 7700 and 8800 both sound really NICE !!!!

Well, aren't most SW/MW/LW receivers grossly over-rated - look at the
Grundig S350, CCradio, and Superadios...

On 14 May 2006 08:20:02 -0700, wrote:

Well, aren't most SW/MW/LW receivers grossly over-rated - look at the
Grundig S350, CCradio, and Superadios...

They are entertainment devices and if their owners enjoy them then
they are successes.

This is certainly an informative discussion, as I had read and
rationalized that the later FRG-7 with Fine Tuning would be the more
desirable unit. Thanks for educating us on that, Pete!

BTW, Mike, what does that book say about the Kenwood R-1000? I enjoy
mine but it does have some flaws the way it was out of the box
originally, definitely needs some modifications to be all that it can
be.

mike maghakian wrote:
I can scan some of the pages from his book if you would like to read his
opinions.
he not only measures the receivers but he uses them for a while and gives
several pages of comments on each one.
he also devotes a page or two to his test station and I can send that also


also remember this book was written in about 1984 for whatever that is worth


"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
. ..
Hi John,

I had variable experience with the FRG-7, depending on which iteration
that I had. I remember that when using an 8 foot diameter untuned loop, MW
reception was very good with no signs of intermod.
Under these same conditions with a later iteration (I had both units at
the same time), there would be a marked increase in the noise floor as you
approached a strong signal. It almost sounds as if there were very high
noise sidebands coming from the 1st LO, in turn causing reciprocal mixing.
I must apologize to Mike M for jumping a bit hard on his comments. I've
talked directly to him over the phone in the past and he is an ok person,
but unless you actually make test measurements yourself you never know
actual test conditions.
Please accept my apology Mike...............it was one of those 18 hour
work days.

Pete

"John Plimmer" wrote in message
...
I owned an FRG-7 for a year but passed it on as being useless due to it's
poor filters and intermods.
But there is always the exception, in Cape Town is a DX friend of mine
who
swears by his Frog and leaves his awesome Drake R7 on the shelf. He is
one
of the world,s most accomplished MW DXer's and says the Frog delivers
such
superior audio on the really faint DX catches that he will not upgrade to
a
more modern high end receiver - go figure!
He runs rings around us with our more modern RX's..!!!

I also owned a FRG-8800 for a couple of years - another useless receiver
that I was glad to get rid of. On Robert Sherwood's
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
he tested it and the filters were so poor he couldn't even get a
measurement.

--
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

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
I thought I would dig up some numbers to back up what I have said for
years, the FRG-7 is grossly over rated.
These stats are measured in the lab of the great Ranier Lichte in his
awesome book "radio receiver, chance or choice" the best review book
ever
written in the history of shortwave radio. In fact I just modified one
of
my copies to make it easy to scan reviews to mail to people for proof of
what I say.

FRG-7 FRG-7700 FRG-8800
SW sens (uV) 2.1 2.1 1.1
3rd order ICP (dBm) -25 -10 +3
selectivity (-6/60) 3.2/8.8 *1 3/7 +
7/18

*1 Wide 11/26 Norm 5.2/13.5 Narr 2.6/8.2

In every category of these most important specs, the FRG-7 loses. In
fact
the 3rd order ICP is pretty BAD !!!!!!

The facts speak for themselves, the reputation of the FRG-7 is not based
on reality but fantasy.

I am not crazy about the selectivity of the stock units of any of the
FRG's so my FRG-7 and my FRG-7700 both have mechanical filters and the
7700 has an upgraded ceramic as well. But the 7 selectivity is way too
limited for the real world !

And the 7700 and 8800 both sound really NICE !!!!

he says that with filter upgrades the R-1000 would be a very nice receiver

I have pointed out many times publically that almost every receiver below
$1000 new except the Drake R8 series and SW-8 series made in the past 25
years needs some serious filter upgrades. Some were available as
manufacturer upgrades as in the Kenwood R-5000 but not cheaply in that case
!

I have been on a mostly unsuccessful campaign to better the Radio world with
better selectivity but most people don't understand or care it seems.

I have also tried to explain that the $20 Kiwa filter is a poor choice to
upgrade to but people still go crazy for them when there are better options
available for LESS money !!!!!! Maybe because it is more work to do it
better is the answer ?

Most people would not believe the improvements in reception when filters in
most sets are upgraded. I even upgraded the filters in my beloved HF-225 and
improved the performance.

I do touch upon filters in my DX-394 article that can be found on my web
site http://home.comcast.net/~maghakian
the DX-394 with proper filters and few minor fixes is a real nice radio.
The Kiwa filter is really not the way to improve this set. It is just
another cheap filter with a tighter nose that cuts out the hets but other
important parameters are still junk.

Not to say that other Kiwa products are not great, I use a Kiwa Preamp for
example.



wrote in message
oups.com...
This is certainly an informative discussion, as I had read and
rationalized that the later FRG-7 with Fine Tuning would be the more
desirable unit. Thanks for educating us on that, Pete!

BTW, Mike, what does that book say about the Kenwood R-1000? I enjoy
mine but it does have some flaws the way it was out of the box
originally, definitely needs some modifications to be all that it can
be.

mike maghakian wrote:
I can scan some of the pages from his book if you would like to read his
opinions.
he not only measures the receivers but he uses them for a while and gives
several pages of comments on each one.
he also devotes a page or two to his test station and I can send that
also


also remember this book was written in about 1984 for whatever that is
worth


"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
. ..
Hi John,

I had variable experience with the FRG-7, depending on which iteration
that I had. I remember that when using an 8 foot diameter untuned loop,
MW
reception was very good with no signs of intermod.
Under these same conditions with a later iteration (I had both units at
the same time), there would be a marked increase in the noise floor as
you
approached a strong signal. It almost sounds as if there were very high
noise sidebands coming from the 1st LO, in turn causing reciprocal
mixing.
I must apologize to Mike M for jumping a bit hard on his comments. I've
talked directly to him over the phone in the past and he is an ok
person,
but unless you actually make test measurements yourself you never know
actual test conditions.
Please accept my apology Mike...............it was one of those 18 hour
work days.

Pete

"John Plimmer" wrote in message
...
I owned an FRG-7 for a year but passed it on as being useless due to
it's
poor filters and intermods.
But there is always the exception, in Cape Town is a DX friend of mine
who
swears by his Frog and leaves his awesome Drake R7 on the shelf. He is
one
of the world,s most accomplished MW DXer's and says the Frog delivers
such
superior audio on the really faint DX catches that he will not upgrade
to
a
more modern high end receiver - go figure!
He runs rings around us with our more modern RX's..!!!

I also owned a FRG-8800 for a couple of years - another useless
receiver
that I was glad to get rid of. On Robert Sherwood's
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
he tested it and the filters were so poor he couldn't even get a
measurement.

--
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

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
I thought I would dig up some numbers to back up what I have said for
years, the FRG-7 is grossly over rated.
These stats are measured in the lab of the great Ranier Lichte in his
awesome book "radio receiver, chance or choice" the best review book
ever
written in the history of shortwave radio. In fact I just modified
one
of
my copies to make it easy to scan reviews to mail to people for proof
of
what I say.

FRG-7 FRG-7700 FRG-8800
SW sens (uV) 2.1 2.1
1.1
3rd order ICP (dBm) -25 -10 +3
selectivity (-6/60) 3.2/8.8 *1 3/7 +
7/18

*1 Wide 11/26 Norm 5.2/13.5 Narr 2.6/8.2

In every category of these most important specs, the FRG-7 loses. In
fact
the 3rd order ICP is pretty BAD !!!!!!

The facts speak for themselves, the reputation of the FRG-7 is not
based
on reality but fantasy.

I am not crazy about the selectivity of the stock units of any of the
FRG's so my FRG-7 and my FRG-7700 both have mechanical filters and
the
7700 has an upgraded ceramic as well. But the 7 selectivity is way
too
limited for the real world !

And the 7700 and 8800 both sound really NICE !!!!

Mike - do you upgrade/improve/tune others' receivers?

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
. ..
he says that with filter upgrades the R-1000 would be a very nice
receiver

I have pointed out many times publically that almost every receiver below
$1000 new except the Drake R8 series and SW-8 series made in the past 25
years needs some serious filter upgrades. Some were available as
manufacturer upgrades as in the Kenwood R-5000 but not cheaply in that
case
!

I have been on a mostly unsuccessful campaign to better the Radio world
with
better selectivity but most people don't understand or care it seems.

I have also tried to explain that the $20 Kiwa filter is a poor choice to
upgrade to but people still go crazy for them when there are better
options
available for LESS money !!!!!! Maybe because it is more work to do it
better is the answer ?

Most people would not believe the improvements in reception when filters
in
most sets are upgraded. I even upgraded the filters in my beloved HF-225
and
improved the performance.

I do touch upon filters in my DX-394 article that can be found on my web
site http://home.comcast.net/~maghakian
the DX-394 with proper filters and few minor fixes is a real nice radio.
The Kiwa filter is really not the way to improve this set. It is just
another cheap filter with a tighter nose that cuts out the hets but other
important parameters are still junk.

Not to say that other Kiwa products are not great, I use a Kiwa Preamp for
example.



wrote in message
oups.com...
This is certainly an informative discussion, as I had read and
rationalized that the later FRG-7 with Fine Tuning would be the more
desirable unit. Thanks for educating us on that, Pete!

BTW, Mike, what does that book say about the Kenwood R-1000? I enjoy
mine but it does have some flaws the way it was out of the box
originally, definitely needs some modifications to be all that it can
be.

mike maghakian wrote:
I can scan some of the pages from his book if you would like to read
his
opinions.
he not only measures the receivers but he uses them for a while and
gives
several pages of comments on each one.
he also devotes a page or two to his test station and I can send that
also


also remember this book was written in about 1984 for whatever that is
worth


"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
. ..
Hi John,

I had variable experience with the FRG-7, depending on which
iteration
that I had. I remember that when using an 8 foot diameter untuned
loop,
MW
reception was very good with no signs of intermod.
Under these same conditions with a later iteration (I had both units
at
the same time), there would be a marked increase in the noise floor
as
you
approached a strong signal. It almost sounds as if there were very
high
noise sidebands coming from the 1st LO, in turn causing reciprocal
mixing.
I must apologize to Mike M for jumping a bit hard on his comments.
I've
talked directly to him over the phone in the past and he is an ok
person,
but unless you actually make test measurements yourself you never
know
actual test conditions.
Please accept my apology Mike...............it was one of those 18
hour
work days.

Pete

"John Plimmer" wrote in message
...
I owned an FRG-7 for a year but passed it on as being useless due to
it's
poor filters and intermods.
But there is always the exception, in Cape Town is a DX friend of
mine
who
swears by his Frog and leaves his awesome Drake R7 on the shelf. He
is
one
of the world,s most accomplished MW DXer's and says the Frog
delivers
such
superior audio on the really faint DX catches that he will not
upgrade
to
a
more modern high end receiver - go figure!
He runs rings around us with our more modern RX's..!!!

I also owned a FRG-8800 for a couple of years - another useless
receiver
that I was glad to get rid of. On Robert Sherwood's
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
he tested it and the filters were so poor he couldn't even get a
measurement.

--
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

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
I thought I would dig up some numbers to back up what I have said
for
years, the FRG-7 is grossly over rated.
These stats are measured in the lab of the great Ranier Lichte in
his
awesome book "radio receiver, chance or choice" the best review
book
ever
written in the history of shortwave radio. In fact I just modified
one
of
my copies to make it easy to scan reviews to mail to people for
proof
of
what I say.

FRG-7 FRG-7700 FRG-8800
SW sens (uV) 2.1 2.1
1.1
3rd order ICP (dBm) -25 -10 +3
selectivity (-6/60) 3.2/8.8 *1 3/7
+
7/18

*1 Wide 11/26 Norm 5.2/13.5 Narr 2.6/8.2

In every category of these most important specs, the FRG-7 loses.
In
fact
the 3rd order ICP is pretty BAD !!!!!!

The facts speak for themselves, the reputation of the FRG-7 is not
based
on reality but fantasy.

I am not crazy about the selectivity of the stock units of any of
the
FRG's so my FRG-7 and my FRG-7700 both have mechanical filters and
the
7700 has an upgraded ceramic as well. But the 7 selectivity is way
too
limited for the real world !

And the 7700 and 8800 both sound really NICE !!!!