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
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tom Behler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Blind-Hams For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:55:19 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (98 lines)
    Good observations, Lou, and you know wht they say--There's no such thing
as too many radios!  HI!  HI!

Best 73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Kim Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: question


> Hi.
>
> I haven't had the chance to do a side by side to compare the sensitivity
or
> selectivity between the Super Radio 2 and the Super Radio 3, but I'll
agree
> with you on the speaker and audio section.  The Super Radio 2 wins hands
> down.  But either one of them has a better audio section than the
> Sony.  That being said, I do like the Sony as a general purpose
> MW/SW/FM/Air listening receiver.  Even though it doesn't seem quite as
> sensitive on AM and FM, it still provides plenty of useful listening, and
> I'm not a bit sorry I bought it.  I like having a selection of radios
> because I find that various radios have strengths in different areas, and
> to the extent that I can use that to my advantage, I'll hear more.
>
> 73, de Lou K2LKK
>
> At 08:58 PM 9/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >     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?
> >
> > >
>
> 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
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2