the supr radio 2 was mono although it would send audio to both channels of a stereo headset it had no stereo decoder i owned one of those ad would love to get another one :)
On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:59 PM, Dan B Dyer Jr,/Danny wrote:
> I've owned several of the original* super radios, have used 1, of the =
> super radio 2s, and owned a super radio 3.
> For Basic sensitivity, selectivity and sound, IMHO, the 1 is overall_ =
> the best.
> _However, the 1, of course is only_ Mono,=20
> also, it tends to "smush the AM audio into its' narrower "Passbanded AM =
> carrier.
> of course you can tune the carrier up on the side a little, and use the =
> tone controls to advantage.
> the AFC on the 1 is very good, although when on, you won't get many of =
> the weaker signals between stronger ones, as the AFC really does home to =
> the stronger signals and keep the radio almost locked on them.
> ***The weakest link in the 1s, is the easily breaking dial cord! has =
> been a problem with several I know of.
>
> the 2, if memory serves, gives FM stereo via phones,
> is not quite as selective on AM, though pretty adequate, and because of =
> its' seemingly lesser narrowness on AM, the AM audio sounds a little =
> less smushed,
> I think the AFC on the two is a little more forgiving, but it's been a =
> long time since I played with one. I understand the dial cord also has =
> been a problem on the 2.
> Meanwhile, on the three,its' AM sensitivity is pretty good, although not =
> as good as on the earlier two models.
> On A M The radio seems to have more sound fidelity especially with the =
> wide narrow switch set to wide, than on the earlier two models, but =
> apparently they chose clear wide ranging sound on what was tuned =
> clearly, over sharp selectivity.
> For Even with the wide narrow control set to narrow, if there are =
> several fairly strong signals fairly close together on the dial, there =
> is little available separation of stations, and the radio is swamped, =
> overloaded by the strongest signal or signals, with the other weaker =
> signals somewhat audible in the background with the stronger signals =
> overpowering them.
> Even with the wide narrow switch set to narrow, the selectivity, and =
> carrier narrowness, is much less pronounced, than on the earlier two =
> models.
> Because of the inate wideness of the radios' characteristics, the AM =
> stations you can dial in clearly, on the 3, seem to come across with =
> more "Full Spectramed Audio" than on the earlier two models, but to me =
> the sacrifice of selectivity for sound quality is unacceptable, and =
> IMHO, the FM semsitivity and selectivity on the 3, is much much less =
> than observed on the earlier two models.
> I'm not sure what to tell you to do about finding someone to restring =
> dial cords, or why that seems to be such a particularly prevalent =
> problem in such an otherwise, over the top, receiver. But it is =
> possible to somehow cut into the case of the radio and tune the variable =
> capacitor directly rather than fooling with the ddial cord. I know, =
> that ruins the resale value of the receiver, but it's a thought. (don't =
> know anyone who's done that on a super radio, but on others? Yes.
> *Bottom line, for real radio listening, on either AM or FM, if you can =
> find a super radio two, and or for sure, an original model, at a decent =
> price, / (I've found them sometimes for as little as five dollars, but =
> also run across them for much much more;)Truth is, that for An analog =
> Receiver, either is a real cut above many other analog or digital units =
> out there:
> HTH, Danny Dyer, Wb4idu.
|
