Hi, all.
I think I remember telling of a similar experience with night-time AM radio
when I was out in the Denver, CO area last year. AM night-time DXing was
next to impossible. Either the HD stations took up too much band witdh on
adjacent channels, or there were low-powered stations on frequencies like
670 a.m. and 760 a.m. which made picking up 50000 watt Chicago, Detroit, and
other midwest stations impossible in many cases.
I won't get into a rant either, but all I can say is that things have sure
changed!
73 from Tom Behler: Kb8TYJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Byrne" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:34 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.
|
