Hi Kim, all your comments noted, and mostly aggreed with.
I too wish I had had a trans-oceanic as a kid.
But, instead, for me, my first, and long, long-used receiver was an s38d.
Probably the worst radio I ever owned.
But, I actually was after a fassion able to decode ssb.
Even though it's agc circuit was essentially flawed.
Used to over load, rather than take up the slack.
I have a memory, too of an nc-109, which had the worst dial chord
arangement.
But, the best old-time rx ever seen was an hq-120 that belonged to the
foreign corrspondent for the BostonGlobe.
I don'tknow what he had done to that thing, but it was the hotest thing I
ever used for a long time.
In Natic Massachusetts, I sat and copied Radio Pretoria on 935khz.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Kim Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Yaesu FRG-7


> Hi folks.
>
> I had a number of comments on these old receivers.  Well, old is a
relative
> term, I guess.
>
> Anyway, for Henry, regarding your drift problem on the Kenwood R-1000, 10
> Hz drift would be pretty good.  I suspect you meant 100Hz, and that would
> have been pretty typical of general coverage receivers of the day unless
> you got into some pretty big money.  Regarding the noisy MHz ranges, there
> were three issues with the receiver in general that would pop up after a
> few years.  First of all, the contacts on that switch had a tendency to
> oxidize a bit and become noisy.  Second, they used a diode switching
scheme
> to switch in different band pass filters in the front end, and I had one
of
> those diodes get noisy after a few years.  It was a real bear to find,
> too.  Finally, the four position switch that they used for the variable RF
> Attenuator was pretty cheesy and got pretty cruddy after a couple of
> years.  I have seen this problem on every Kenwood R-1000 and R-2000 I've
> ever worked with.  Opening up the radio and using contact cleaner to clean
> these switches only works for a short time.
>
> On my receiver, I didn't find the drift any worse than any other receiver
> that I used from that time period, though newer receivers have certainly
> gotten much better.  But, comparing this receiver against the two old
> Halicrafters receivers that I had (the S-20R and the S-108) and against
the
> Panasonic RF4900 [another receiver to avoid], and the Realistic DX-300
> which is probably the worst receiver I've ever owned, the Kenwood R-1000
> was pretty good.  It was sensitive, reasonably selective, and fairly free
> of images.  One comment that I have to make about the R-1000 is that
> Kenwood made some changes in the design after the first production
> run.  The first run had some problems, and 73 Magazine actually ran an
> article on cleaning up some of these problems.  One thing that I do recall
> is that Kenwood did not get the AGC constants right on this receiver, and
> the AGC was too slow, which could be a real annoyance during the
> thunderstorm season.
>
>
> Regarding the comments on the Wadley Loop Synthesized radios, I've only
> owned two radios that used that technology--the Yaesu FRG-7 and the
> Realistic DX-300.  I didn't think the Yaesu was a particularly bad
> receiver, although I would echo the comments about the front end
> overload.  I would sometimes compensate for this by slightly off-tuning
the
> preselector to provide a smaller amount of attenuation than I would have
> gotten by switching in the attenuator.  I did find the Yaesu to have some
> noticeable drift, but I expected that and didn't consider it to be a big
deal.
>
> Regarding the Realistic DX-300, that receiver actually had a lot of
> similarities with the FRG-7.  I think the design principles were the same,
> but Yaesu did a better job of designing their front-end.  The DX-300 also
> used a red 5 digit LED display to show the frequency rather than the
analog
> dial, and the preselector had two more ranges to allow the DX-300 to go
> down to 10khz.  I never heard anything below 100KHz on this receiver.  The
> overload and intermod problem was much worse on the DX-300, especially if
> you tried to use the wire antenna terminal, which made the receiver
> essentially uunusable.  I rigged up a little cable with a PL-259 on one
end
> and an aligator clip on the other end and ran the wire antennas in through
> the UHF connector which allowed one to use the RF Attenuator, but the
> receiver was still pretty bad.  I only kept mine for 7 months which was
> probably about 6 months and three weeks too long!  I might have tried a
> Realstic DX-302 which was another Wadley loop receiver, but Radio Shack
> gave me such a hard time when I tried to take the DX-300 back after the
> first 24 hours of operation that it was a long time before I tried another
> Radio Shack shortwave receiver.
>
> Regarding the Lowe HF-150, it is a nicer receiver than any of these rigs
> that we've been discussing.  I wish I still had mine, but I sold it when I
> was trying to get money together to put down on the house purchase.
>
> While I still like my Drake R-8A and my Icom R-71A a little better (lots
> more bells and whistles), I was nonetheless very impressed with the Lowe
> HF-150 receiver.  I found it to be remarkably gutsie for such a small
> package, and it seems to have a pretty good front end on it.  It would be
> interesting to try this one for mobile SWLing.  I did use both the
> Realistic DX-300 and the Kenwood R-1000 receivers mobile.  Mobile SWLing
> worked out pretty well for me--all I did was steal the 102 inch CB whip
> from my father's CB, and the receivers seemed to play pretty well over
> their entire tuning range with it.
>
> Well, enough nostalgia, I guess.  Shortwave radio was my first passion,
and
> through it I discovered amateur radio.  So, I'm always interested in SW
> receivers.  It's ironic.  My mother was working for one of the local chain
> stores in the area, and almost bought a Zenith Trans-Oceanic receiver for
> me when I was in Junior High school, but just wasn't sure I would have any
> interest in it. Mom!!!
>
> Ok, I'm all right now!  73, de Lou K2LKK
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Louis (Kim) Kline, A.R.S.  K2LKK
> e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
> Work e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
> Work Tel.  (585) 697-5753