BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Blind-Hams For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Russ Kiehne <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:52:11 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Blind-Hams For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (100 lines)
The SR II, which many people, still own, had a different cabinet and AM
coverage only to 1600 KHz; the
SR III accommodates the expanded AM band. The II does not have a AM
wide/narrow filter
switch.
There are some technical changes as well; the III uses varactor tuning
compared to
the II, which uses a conventional variable capacitor.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Kenyon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: question


> 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?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2