Thank You For The Correction, Sorry for the missinformation/it's been 
several years since I'd played with the 2 model. Thanks again, Danny.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Thurman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: ALittleOT GE Super Radio 1 2 and 3 comparison observations


> 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 =
> =3D
>> super radio 2s, and owned a super radio 3.
>> For Basic sensitivity, selectivity and sound, IMHO,  the 1 is overall_ =
> =3D
>> the best.
>> _However, the 1, of course is only_ Mono,=3D20
>> also, it tends to "smush the AM audio into its' narrower "Passbanded =
> AM =3D
>> carrier.
>> of course you can tune the carrier up on the side a little, and use =
> the =3D
>> tone controls to advantage.
>> the AFC on the 1 is very good, although when on, you won't get many of =
> =3D
>> the weaker signals between stronger ones, as the AFC really does home =
> to =3D
>> the stronger signals and keep the radio almost locked on them.
>> ***The weakest link in the 1s, is the easily breaking dial cord! has =3D=
>
>> been a problem with several I know of.
>>=20
>> the 2, if memory serves, gives FM stereo via phones,
>> is not quite as selective on AM, though pretty adequate, and because =
> of =3D
>> its' seemingly lesser narrowness on AM,  the AM audio sounds a little =
> =3D
>> less smushed,
>> I think the AFC on the two is a little more forgiving, but it's been a =
> =3D
>> long time since I played with one.  I understand the dial cord also =
> has =3D
>> been a problem on the 2.
>> Meanwhile, on the three,its' AM sensitivity is pretty good, although =
> not =3D
>> as good as on the earlier two models.
>> On A M The radio seems to have more sound fidelity especially with the =
> =3D
>> wide narrow switch set to wide, than on the earlier two models, but =3D
>> apparently they chose clear wide ranging sound on what was tuned =3D
>> clearly, over sharp selectivity.
>> For Even with the wide narrow control set to narrow, if there are =3D
>> several fairly strong signals fairly close together on the dial, there =
> =3D
>> is little available separation of stations, and the radio is swamped, =
> =3D
>> overloaded by the strongest signal or signals, with the other weaker =3D=
>
>> signals somewhat audible in the background with the stronger signals =3D=
>
>> overpowering them.
>> Even with the wide narrow switch set to narrow, the selectivity, and =3D=
>
>> carrier narrowness,  is much less pronounced, than on the earlier two =
> =3D
>> models.
>> Because of the inate wideness of the radios' characteristics, the AM =3D=
>
>> stations you can dial in clearly, on the 3, seem to come across with =3D=
>
>> more "Full Spectramed Audio" than on the earlier two models, but to me =
> =3D
>> the sacrifice of selectivity for sound quality is unacceptable, and =3D
>> IMHO, the FM semsitivity and selectivity on the 3, is much much less =3D=
>
>> than observed on the earlier two models.
>> I'm not sure what to tell you to do about finding someone to restring =
> =3D
>> dial cords, or why that seems to be such a particularly prevalent =3D
>> problem in such an otherwise, over the top, receiver.  But it is =3D
>> possible to somehow cut into the case of the radio and tune the =
> variable =3D
>> capacitor directly rather than fooling with the ddial cord.  I know, =3D=
>
>> that ruins the resale value of the receiver, but it's a thought.  =
> (don't =3D
>> 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 =
> =3D
>> find a super radio two, and or for sure,  an original model, at a =
> decent =3D
>> price, / (I've found them sometimes for as little as five dollars, but =
> =3D
>> also run across them for much much more;)Truth is, that for An analog =
> =3D
>> Receiver, either is a real cut above many other analog or digital =
> units =3D
>> out there:
>> HTH, Danny Dyer, Wb4idu.