Then why is it, when you compare a single conversion receiver to a double
conversion receiver, the double conversion receiver always has better
selectivity? this seems to be the case when I compared my dx-398 double
conversion receiver next to the superradio 3 I had.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: bitter disappointment!
> My understanding is that single/double conversion has more to do with
> sensitivity on higher frequencies than with selectivity.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russ Kiehne" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 10:10
> Subject: Re: bitter disappointment!
>
>
>> From what I read, both the Superradio 3 and CCradio are single
>> conversion.
>> And you won't get much selectivity. My Radio Shack dx-398 is double
>> conversion and I get better selectivity.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Pat Byrne" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 6:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: bitter disappointment!
>>
>>
>>> Kris and Tom,
>>> I heard about the Super radios too late to get anything but the
>>> three. And I like it a lot.
>>> We also have the seven or eight year old C. Crane radio here and the
>>> G E outperforms it big time. The Crane has the NOAA frequencies and
>>> that is an advantage and it also had the old TV VHF channels which
>>> was kinda nice for news and such but the G E has much better
>>> sensititivy and selectivity on A M and the F M is probably equivalent.
>>> The really sad part of this whole scenario is that night time A M is
>>> nothing like it used to be. It's all call in radio which in my
>>> opinion is a huge waste of bandwidth and the same ten shows are
>>> repeated nationally so all you hear is duplicates of the same
>>> crap. And near Chicago and I suspect all major radio markets, HD
>>> makes adjacent channel listening about impossible. Won't even go in
>>> to the "when I was young" rant cuz. then everyone will know how old I
>>> am.
>>> Thanks.
>>> Pat, K9JAUAt 10:54 AM 1/17/2011, you wrote:
>>>>I agree, Tom. I have both the two and the three, also. I like them
>>>>both,but the two is far superior to the three in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have seen a couple of the C Crane radios and I'm not that impressed.
>>>>I'll
>>>>take the super radios over them any day. I think the C Crane are way
>>>>over
>>>>priced. When you see what GE was able to do with the two and three for
>>>>a
>>>>really reasonable price and, you compare them to the C Crane radios at
>>>>much
>>>>higher prices, for me it is not worth it.
>>>>
>>>>Kris
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "tom behler" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:23 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: bitter disappointment!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Well, I have a 3 and a 2 here, and will use that 2 until it doesn't
>>>> > play
>>>> > any more! (grin)
>>>> >
>>>> > And, I do think the sound of the 2 is far better than the 3.
>>>> >
>>>> > The base and trebble controls really make a difference on the 2,
>>>> > while
>>>> > on
>>>> > the 3, they are marginal.
>>>> >
>>>> > 73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>> > From: "Lou Kolb" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:11 PM
>>>> > Subject: Re: bitter disappointment!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I have a 3 here. It's ok but from what I understand, the 2 was the
>>>> > one
>>>> > to
>>>> > have. The Secrane radios seem to perform well but I doubt they
>>>> > sound
>>>> > as
>>>> > good as the super radios since they don't have that big case and
>>>> > speaker.
>>>> > Lou
>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>> > From: "tom behler" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:57 AM
>>>> > Subject: Re: bitter disappointment!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> Wow, that is really troubling!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> >> From: "Howard Kaufman" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> >> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:29 PM
>>>> >> Subject: Re: bitter disappointment!
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It looks the same, but far worse than the GE 3.
>>
|
