Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:23:42 -0400 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
What is the differents between the super II & III?
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Russ Kiehne wrote:
> The superradio II is better than the III from all of the reports I've read.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Behler" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 5:58 PM
> Subject: question
>
>
> > In my oppinion, the Super III. radio is not quite as selective or as
> >
> > sensitive as the older Super II on AM. In addition, I don't think the FM
> on
> >
> > the super III. is as good as the FM was on the older Super II. My old
> Super
> >
> > II. was so good that I wore the darn thing out over the last 16 years or
> so.
> >
> > HI! HI!
> >
> >
> >
> > But, to get back to Bob's question, I'd still say the Super III. is better
> >
> > than any similarly-priced run-of-the mill AM/FM radio you could get.
> >
> >
> >
> > On another note, I don't think the speaker and sound quality of the Super
> >
> > III. is as good as my older Super II.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best 73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Bob Humbert" <
> >
> > [log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
> >
> > To: <
> >
> > [log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 3:21 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: question
> >
> >
> >
> > > What do you think of it? Is the sensitivity and selectivity any better
> >
> > than
> >
> > > the run of the mill portable radios?
> >
> > >
> >
>
|
|
|