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
>