hello n i u from n 6 i k c
regards, dan
At 03:26 PM 6/8/03 -0700, Russ Kiehne wrote:
>You are right about the Drake r8b.  It's the top rated receiver on the dx
>tools site.  I'm currently using an Icom r75 with the ut-102 voice option.
>The MW attenuation can be removed.  I haven't had it done as of yet.  the
>Radio is still under warranty.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Louis Kim Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 12:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Info needed re medium wave reception
>
>
> > Hi Don.
> >
> > I also enjoy medium wave DXing.  I cannot speak about the Kenwood R-5000,
> > having never owned one, but I can make some other recommendations for good
> > medium wave receivers.  I have found the Drake R-8A to be a good choice
>for
> > medium wave listening.  It is sensitive, and the I-F filtering is very
> > flexible.  It is not as blind-friendly as some receivers (it doesn't take
>a
> > speech board), but the quality of the receiver is excellent.  The Icom
> > R-71A is also quite good for medium wave reception, although the I F
> > filtering is not as nice as the Drake.  Also, the Drake has synchronous
> > detection which is worth its weight in gold when selective fading is
>occurring.
> >
> > As for HF transceivers, I've had a few.  Most of the HF transceivers roll
> > the sensitivity back to maintain good intermod characteristics on 160
> > meters, so you will hear a pronounced drop in receiver sensitivity when
>you
> > drop below 1700 kHz.  In spite of this, some receivers still manage to do
>a
> > good job down there.  Of particular note would be the Icom IC-735, and the
> > Icom IC-751 and 751A.  There are probably other Icom radios that do a good
> > job in this region of
> >   frequencies, but I haven't used them, so I cannot say how good or bad
> > they are.  The Kenwood TS-440S is fair, but not as good as the Icom
> > radios.  It has a very prominent birdie at 900 kHz that takes out any
> > signal that you might listen to there.  Also, the receiver noise floor
> > seems higher.  I actually like the TS-440S better than I do the Kenwood
> > TS-450S and the TS-690S, though.  These receivers, while flexible in the
> > I-F filtering department, do not have really good strong signal handling
> > characteristics, and the receivers really fall apart at the low end of the
> > broadcast band, making them pretty useless for longwave reception.  The
> > Icom transceivers that I mentioned, as well as the Drake and the Icom R71A
> > are good down to at least 100 kHz.
> >
> > One transceiver to avoid is the Icom IC-706 series radios.  While these
> > radios are fairly good on HF and fair on VHF, they are too inflexible for
> > good medium wave work, and they roll off the sensitivity way too much for
> > the MW and LW bands.
> >
> > If you are going to look at older solid state receivers, the Kenwood
>R-1000
> > was much better for medium wave work than the R-2000.  The R-1000 had
> > better sensitivity, and with a small modification which is detailed in the
> > Kenwood Owner's manual, you could set the R-1000 to use the 6 kHz I F
> > filter for the AM Wide setting, and the 2.7 kHz filter for the AM narrow
> > filter.  The stock setup was 12 kHz for AM Wide, and 6kHz for AM
> > Narrow.  You can make a Kenwood R-2000 work for medium wave reception, but
> > for best results, you should run some kind of receiver preselector in
>front
> > of the receiver.  The R-2000 suffered from lack of tuned circuitry in the
> > receiver front end, and tended to have lots of intermod problems below 2
> > MHz.  I used the Grove Enterprises TUN-3 Receiver Preselector with good
> > results.  Incidentally, if you ever see one of these preselectors at a
> > hamfest and the price is reasonable, pick it up.  These preselectors are a
> > gem for just about any kind of SWL work, as they will often take a
>receiver
> > with a poor front end and make it usable.  I found mine on a flea market
> > table at the Rochester hamfest for $15, and I couldn't get my wallet out
> > fast enough!
> >
> > Be careful about some of the DC to daylight receivers--they are rarely
>good
> > for medium wave work.  Specifically, I am speaking about receivers like
>the
> > Icom R-100, which although intriguing for VHF and UHF work, stunk on ice
> > for medium wave and HF work.
> >
> >
> > The real key for selecting a good general coverage receiver for medium
>wave
> > DX-ing is to look at three things--good front-end selectivity, good
>overall
> > sensitivity and dynamic range, and flexible IF filtering arrangements.
> >
> > Hope that this helps.
> >
> > 73, de Lou K2LKK
> >
> >
> > At 04:28 PM 6/6/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >The following probably seems like a weird question for a ham list.
> > >However, I want to buy either a general coverage receiver or an HF
> > >ham transceiver which excels at medium wave reception.
> > >
> > >I remember reading in Popcom that many general coverage receivers do
> > >not do well at medium wave reception because the circuitry is
> > >optimized for bands above 5 megs.
> > >
> > >So I am writing to request recommendations for receivers which excel
> > >at a.m. broadcast band reception but which also do wwell on the
> > >higher bands as well.  While I am asking the question, how well do
> > >the Kenwood 440, 450, and R-5000 do in this area.
> > >
> > >If no reasonably priced general coverage receiver does well at this,
> > >then I might as well just get a G E super 3 or perhaps the CC radio.
> > >
> > >Thanks for any feedback.
> > >
> > >Don Roberts
> > >K A 7 O J T
> > >
> > >
> > >__________________________________
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > >Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > >http://calendar.yahoo.com
> >
> > Louis Kim Kline
> > A.R.S. K2LKK
> > Home e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
> > Work e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
> > Work Telephone:  (585) 697-5753
> >