Date   

Re: XHDATA-808 & the AR-1780

Paul Blundell
 

I guess the flip side of this is that we could limit the aerial size / type but allow any type of radio.
To me, the challenge is in pushing the radio to its limits, sometimes this is just the radio, other times I use my 3" FSL. 

The line is that we have two classes, barefoot which is JUST the radio and unlimited which allows external aerials. 

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 10:44 PM Troy Riedel <troy.riedel@...> wrote:
Gord,

> Things like the AR-1780 are not included because they are a few cubic sentimeters too large, but five or ten pounds of ferrite rods, and multi hundred strand wire,
> that far exceed the size and weight of the radio are OK. 

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head [for me]!

I understand the need to have a "line" (criteria), but there is no "line" for what is attached in the form of enhancement - antenna - & that always seemed contradictory to me (a radio like the D-808 that is .76 cubic inches above the "line" - which confirms a contradiction as some EXclude while others INclude).

I subscribe to this list because I enjoy reading everyone's logs and reports of what they capture - I find it interesting.  Some inspire me to strive for the same - the posts of people using the same or similar radio.  The fact I'm not using a wheeled cart or milk crates to transport or move my [ultralight radio] antenna does not detract from the interest I have of reading that someone captured a medium wave signal across the ocean.  That's a "wow".  But the latter is not me - and that's perfectly fine - to each, his or her own.

But I'd never post my logs and I would never go for an award or a record because of my confusion (contradictions).  But that's fine, too.  I get inspired from this list.  And I have a spreadsheet with my own personal "hall of fame" within my bald head ;-)  My set-up is probably the equivalent of a Smart Car - I just can't compare what I do to someone using a racecar or a tractor trailer especially through a blurry lens when some include while others exclude the same "car".

I really appreciate the open discussion.  Cheers to all ... and keep DX'ing, use whatever you want, and get others involved (I'm trying to inspire my 30-something son to get into the hobby)!




--
Paul


Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

Paul Blundell
 

I have now had a chance to fully read this, the level of detail you have gone to and the expert knowledge of these radios is clear from your review.

Paul

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 5:50 PM Gary DeBock via groups.io <D1028Gary=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
The 39-page 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout review is available for download! Fully detailed reviews of the XHDATA D-808, Radiwow R-108, C. Crane Skywave (Basic and SSB), Tecsun PL-330 and the Tecsun PL-380 are included, with honest descriptions of the strong and weak points of every model. Finally, a detailed Shootout section compares each model's MW sensitivity, MW selectivity, FM sensitivity, SW sensitivity and AIR band sensitivity in fight to the finish! The Final Verdicts tell you who is still standing--- and why! https://dreamcrafts.box.com/s/8y6855bnfmy45rnk46mzr7hb4pwjz8u8

Good DX to All,
Gary DeBock, N7EKX
Ultralight Radio Group Co-Founder



--
Paul


Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

Paul B. Walker, Jr.
 

We all know which ultralight radio I prefer :)



On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 11:50 PM Gary DeBock via groups.io <D1028Gary=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
The 39-page 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout review is available for download! Fully detailed reviews of the XHDATA D-808, Radiwow R-108, C. Crane Skywave (Basic and SSB), Tecsun PL-330 and the Tecsun PL-380 are included, with honest descriptions of the strong and weak points of every model. Finally, a detailed Shootout section compares each model's MW sensitivity, MW selectivity, FM sensitivity, SW sensitivity and AIR band sensitivity in fight to the finish! The Final Verdicts tell you who is still standing--- and why! https://dreamcrafts.box.com/s/8y6855bnfmy45rnk46mzr7hb4pwjz8u8

Good DX to All,
Gary DeBock, N7EKX
Ultralight Radio Group Co-Founder


Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

Emily Keene
 

Gary, I enjoyed your extensive radio comparisons, and thank you for such a thorough and clear "shoot-out". I have the radios you featured, and although I know 'mileage may differ' from one example to another, your results match my own observations. Thank you again for putting this article together.

Emily Hastings Keene, New Jersey



Sent from my Virgin Mobile Phone.


Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

C B
 

Hi Gary,

Thank you for your thorough and very informative 2021 Ultralight Shootout and review article! You obviously put forth a significant effort compiling this review. I enjoyed reading every bit of the article! Well done!

73 and Best of DX,

Craig Barnes

On Sunday, May 2, 2021, 10:25:46 AM MDT, Gary DeBock via groups.io <d1028gary@...> wrote:


On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 06:38 AM, radiojayallen wrote:
Gary,

Great article...I enjoyed every minute of it!

Jay
Jay and All,

Thank you all very much for your positive comments on the 2021 Shootout!

Jay, coming from the Master Reviewer, your comments are a special honor.

Gary
 


Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

Gary DeBock
 

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 06:38 AM, radiojayallen wrote:
Gary,

Great article...I enjoyed every minute of it!

Jay
Jay and All,

Thank you all very much for your positive comments on the 2021 Shootout!

Jay, coming from the Master Reviewer, your comments are a special honor.

Gary
 


Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

Michael.2E0IHW
 

Oh Gary,

Wish I hadn't viewed  this . . .

Piggy bank is near empty, so mope I must.

Whoa - eureka - I could resurrect my ultralight galena cats-whisker
and squeeze it into a legit-size wee box.

But, yea, I am altruistic - so congratulations y'all!
If the cheeky sunspots allow, there might be some mighty enthralling DX
over the next few days.

Michael UK


On 02/05/2021 08:50, Gary DeBock via groups.io wrote:
The 39-page 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout review is available for download! Fully detailed reviews of the XHDATA D-808, Radiwow R-108, C. Crane Skywave (Basic and SSB), Tecsun PL-330 and the Tecsun PL-380 are included, with honest descriptions of the strong and weak points of every model. Finally, a detailed Shootout section compares each model's MW sensitivity, MW selectivity, FM sensitivity, SW sensitivity and AIR band sensitivity in fight to the finish! The Final Verdicts tell you who is still standing--- and why! https://dreamcrafts.box.com/s/8y6855bnfmy45rnk46mzr7hb4pwjz8u8 Good DX to All,
Gary DeBock, N7EKX
Ultralight Radio Group Co-Founder


Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

radiojayallen
 

Gary,

Great article...I enjoyed every minute of it!

Jay


Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

Peter 1956
 

Thanks Gary,
I've been looking forward to this :)

Peter


Re: XHDATA-808 & the AR-1780

Troy Riedel
 

Gord,

> Things like the AR-1780 are not included because they are a few cubic sentimeters too large, but five or ten pounds of ferrite rods, and multi hundred strand wire,
> that far exceed the size and weight of the radio are OK. 

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head [for me]!

I understand the need to have a "line" (criteria), but there is no "line" for what is attached in the form of enhancement - antenna - & that always seemed contradictory to me (a radio like the D-808 that is .76 cubic inches above the "line" - which confirms a contradiction as some EXclude while others INclude).

I subscribe to this list because I enjoy reading everyone's logs and reports of what they capture - I find it interesting.  Some inspire me to strive for the same - the posts of people using the same or similar radio.  The fact I'm not using a wheeled cart or milk crates to transport or move my [ultralight radio] antenna does not detract from the interest I have of reading that someone captured a medium wave signal across the ocean.  That's a "wow".  But the latter is not me - and that's perfectly fine - to each, his or her own.

But I'd never post my logs and I would never go for an award or a record because of my confusion (contradictions).  But that's fine, too.  I get inspired from this list.  And I have a spreadsheet with my own personal "hall of fame" within my bald head ;-)  My set-up is probably the equivalent of a Smart Car - I just can't compare what I do to someone using a racecar or a tractor trailer especially through a blurry lens when some include while others exclude the same "car".

I really appreciate the open discussion.  Cheers to all ... and keep DX'ing, use whatever you want, and get others involved (I'm trying to inspire my 30-something son to get into the hobby)!



Re: Additional on CCrane Skywave SSB reception of NOAA weather radio frequencies . . . probably for radio nerds only.

Harold Cheetham
 

hi Jock,
You were where I live. 

Harold Cheetham




On Sunday, May 2, 2021, 07:03:24 AM EDT, Jock Elliott <jock.elliott@...> wrote:


With regard to the NOAA weather radio reception of the CCrane Skywave SSB, here's some info that I posted Radio Reference that might prove useful for anyone for whom NOAA weather radio is a high priority.

As a friend put it: "This is stuff only a radio nerd would chase down."

What follows is a compilation from various posts in the thread:

Perhaps I am the only guy on planet earth with a "kinda" interest in DXing NOAA weather radio, but there you have it, but we'll get to the interesting part in just a moment.

Today I find myself in Sodus, NY, in the western part of the state, near the shores of Lake Ontario. Rochester, NY, is a bit further to the Southwest. I have with me the following: an Icom V80 with a sharply tuned (I think) commercial antenna that works great on my home repeater (146.94) in Troy, NY; a Uniden BC125AT with a Diamond 77 antenna, and a CCrane Skywave SSB. All receive the NOAA weather channels.

Early this AM, I checked www.wunderground.com for weather in the Sodus area. Snow is expected overnight. So I grab the Uniden 125AT, activate the weather scan function, and find that it receives NOAA weather radio channels 1, 2, and 3, and the audio sound great through my headphones. I try stepping through the weather radio channels on my Icom V80 and find that it receives channels 1, 2, and 3 but with just a wee bit of static in the background. I try switching the antennas between the 125AT and the V80, and there is no appreciable difference.

Now, here's the interesting part: I try the same trick on the CCrane Skywave SSB with its telescoping whip fully extended, and it receives weather channel 1 just fine with excellent audio through the headphones. But channel 2 is way down in the soup, a hair above "barely audible." I try waving the Skywave around, point the whip antenna in different directions and orientations to see if I can improve the signal. I succeed only in nulling it out. Weather radio channel 3 is not audible at all, but channel 4 is coming in well, and so is channel 7 . . . and the other two radios were not receiving channels 4 and 7 at all.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of this. To be clear, I was able to hear that forecast that I needed to hear -- for Wayne County, NY -- on all three radios. But why would there be such a stark difference between the CCrane Skywave SSB and the other two radios?

The V80 and the 125AT "agree" with each; both are receiving NOAA weather radio channels 1, 2, 3. The CCrane Skywave SSB appears to be the anomaly, receiving channels 1, 2 (barely), and 4 and 7, which the V80 and 125AT did not receive.

I just checked, and the NOAA weather radio frequencies occupy a fairly narrow spread: each channel represents one of seven frequencies between 162.400 MHz to 162.550 MHz.

All three tested in my lap at the same location and then tested in another room within inches of each other. I turned one radio on, checked the channels it could receive, turned it off, then tested the next radio, etc. Same results in both cases.

Then one of the respondents to the thread posted: "Did you check the actual frequencies received on the radios? Some radios number the channels from lowest to highest frequency and others use the NOAA assigned channel numbers."

I responded:

Hmmmm. Interesting idea.

Modern Survival Blog -- https://modernsurvivalblog.com/weather-preparedness/noaa-weather-radio-channel-list/ -- reveals that NOAA weather channels may displayed in two different ways, depending upon the manufacturer: chronological or in increasing frequency order.

The Uniden displays Channel numbers and frequencies, so: Ch. 1, 162.550; Ch. 2. 162.400; Ch. 3 162.475. The Icom V80 lists only channel numbers, but no frequencies. However, it receives the same channels as the Uniden.

This appears to be the chronological sequence – the sequence to which the radio frequencies were allocated over time to the service. This ordered sequence is used by (some) weather radio manufacturers.

1=162.550 Mhz
2=162.400 Mhz
3=162.475 Mhz
4=162.425 Mhz
5=162.450 Mhz
6=162.500 Mhz
7=162.525 Mhz

The CCrane Skywave SSB lists only channel numbers. BUT, if it follows the weather radio channels in increasing frequency --

1=162.400 Mhz
2=162.425 Mhz
3=162.450 Mhz
4=162.475 Mhz
5=162.500 Mhz
6=162.525 Mhz
7=162.550 Mhz

Then the CCrane receives Ch1, 162.400 (which is Ch. 2 on the other two radios); Ch 2, 162.425 faintly (Ch. 4 on the other radios), Ch 4, 162.475 (Ch. 3 on Uniden and Icom), and Ch 7, 162.550 (which would be Ch. 1 on the other two radios).

So all three radios are receiving the same frequencies, but with different channel numbers assigned to them . . . and the CCrane appears to be a hair more sensitive, also receiving the 162.425 channel very faintly.

As Inspector Clouseau would say: "The case is sol-ved."

Finally, if you have read this all the way to the end, one might make that case that you have tested positive for being a radio nerd.

Cheers, Jock



Re: Additional on CCrane Skywave SSB reception of NOAA weather radio frequencies . . . probably for radio nerds only.

Paul Blundell
 

I did read to the end and thought it was interesting about the difference between the numbering of the channels.


On Sun, 2 May 2021, 21:03 Jock Elliott, <jock.elliott@...> wrote:
With regard to the NOAA weather radio reception of the CCrane Skywave SSB, here's some info that I posted Radio Reference that might prove useful for anyone for whom NOAA weather radio is a high priority.

As a friend put it: "This is stuff only a radio nerd would chase down."

What follows is a compilation from various posts in the thread:

Perhaps I am the only guy on planet earth with a "kinda" interest in DXing NOAA weather radio, but there you have it, but we'll get to the interesting part in just a moment.

Today I find myself in Sodus, NY, in the western part of the state, near the shores of Lake Ontario. Rochester, NY, is a bit further to the Southwest. I have with me the following: an Icom V80 with a sharply tuned (I think) commercial antenna that works great on my home repeater (146.94) in Troy, NY; a Uniden BC125AT with a Diamond 77 antenna, and a CCrane Skywave SSB. All receive the NOAA weather channels.

Early this AM, I checked www.wunderground.com for weather in the Sodus area. Snow is expected overnight. So I grab the Uniden 125AT, activate the weather scan function, and find that it receives NOAA weather radio channels 1, 2, and 3, and the audio sound great through my headphones. I try stepping through the weather radio channels on my Icom V80 and find that it receives channels 1, 2, and 3 but with just a wee bit of static in the background. I try switching the antennas between the 125AT and the V80, and there is no appreciable difference.

Now, here's the interesting part: I try the same trick on the CCrane Skywave SSB with its telescoping whip fully extended, and it receives weather channel 1 just fine with excellent audio through the headphones. But channel 2 is way down in the soup, a hair above "barely audible." I try waving the Skywave around, point the whip antenna in different directions and orientations to see if I can improve the signal. I succeed only in nulling it out. Weather radio channel 3 is not audible at all, but channel 4 is coming in well, and so is channel 7 . . . and the other two radios were not receiving channels 4 and 7 at all.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of this. To be clear, I was able to hear that forecast that I needed to hear -- for Wayne County, NY -- on all three radios. But why would there be such a stark difference between the CCrane Skywave SSB and the other two radios?

The V80 and the 125AT "agree" with each; both are receiving NOAA weather radio channels 1, 2, 3. The CCrane Skywave SSB appears to be the anomaly, receiving channels 1, 2 (barely), and 4 and 7, which the V80 and 125AT did not receive.

I just checked, and the NOAA weather radio frequencies occupy a fairly narrow spread: each channel represents one of seven frequencies between 162.400 MHz to 162.550 MHz.

All three tested in my lap at the same location and then tested in another room within inches of each other. I turned one radio on, checked the channels it could receive, turned it off, then tested the next radio, etc. Same results in both cases.

Then one of the respondents to the thread posted: "Did you check the actual frequencies received on the radios? Some radios number the channels from lowest to highest frequency and others use the NOAA assigned channel numbers."

I responded:

Hmmmm. Interesting idea.

Modern Survival Blog -- https://modernsurvivalblog.com/weather-preparedness/noaa-weather-radio-channel-list/ -- reveals that NOAA weather channels may displayed in two different ways, depending upon the manufacturer: chronological or in increasing frequency order.

The Uniden displays Channel numbers and frequencies, so: Ch. 1, 162.550; Ch. 2. 162.400; Ch. 3 162.475. The Icom V80 lists only channel numbers, but no frequencies. However, it receives the same channels as the Uniden.

This appears to be the chronological sequence – the sequence to which the radio frequencies were allocated over time to the service. This ordered sequence is used by (some) weather radio manufacturers.

1=162.550 Mhz
2=162.400 Mhz
3=162.475 Mhz
4=162.425 Mhz
5=162.450 Mhz
6=162.500 Mhz
7=162.525 Mhz

The CCrane Skywave SSB lists only channel numbers. BUT, if it follows the weather radio channels in increasing frequency --

1=162.400 Mhz
2=162.425 Mhz
3=162.450 Mhz
4=162.475 Mhz
5=162.500 Mhz
6=162.525 Mhz
7=162.550 Mhz

Then the CCrane receives Ch1, 162.400 (which is Ch. 2 on the other two radios); Ch 2, 162.425 faintly (Ch. 4 on the other radios), Ch 4, 162.475 (Ch. 3 on Uniden and Icom), and Ch 7, 162.550 (which would be Ch. 1 on the other two radios).

So all three radios are receiving the same frequencies, but with different channel numbers assigned to them . . . and the CCrane appears to be a hair more sensitive, also receiving the 162.425 channel very faintly.

As Inspector Clouseau would say: "The case is sol-ved."

Finally, if you have read this all the way to the end, one might make that case that you have tested positive for being a radio nerd.

Cheers, Jock



Re: XHDATA-808 & the AR-1780

Paul Blundell
 

Well said. Maybe we need to have multiple classes for the various sizes?


On Sun, 2 May 2021, 20:25 Jorge Garzón via groups.io, <iberiaDX=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Gord, 
Well, I am not proposing changes in the ULR scene. I am just a keen dxer that I do this to enjoy the radio (Paul Blundell statement is right) ;-) 

But the reality of the DXing panorama in the Old World is slightly different. On MW we are changing the scene rapidly: we are leaving the band, less and less stations, and an indecent increase of noise generated by human activities with overall digitalization of our territory with the associated QRM. The most rewarding listening spots are now rural, wide open areas, and the wild. So all we that had comms receivers (I have an ICOM R71A and a YAESU FT2000, as I am also a ham op) looked back to small and light receivers to keep enjoying listening. At this level, the only 'serious' receivers on the market were portables: Sony, Sangean, Eton, Tecsun,... and the better ones were much more bigger than ULR's and/or pockets. 

On the other side (at least for me) is the human scale. That worries me, bur what damm is this? Perhaps there is a 'Diogenes' inside of each DXer with the compulsion to add a one more receiver in the shack, or more SDR recordings to check in the future and so on. SDR have changed our DXing scene, but actually has also helped to kill the DXing spirit to discover something new and unknown by spinning the dial keeping the frequency while listening to it carefully. SDR needs a computer, and the flow of signals is so huge that the only way to store those is to schedule recordings and fill external HD with tonnes of GBytes. But storing audio does not mean a balanced and correct management. 

I have been checking my FM dedicated hard disk with e-Skip recordings and I still have 2019 band lifts to check. Same with Medium/Long Wave stations, some of them with NDB signals from Alaska and Pacific Coast of Russia still 'unlogged'. That's crazy! and I wonder... What for? I am not an obsessive DX and as a sensible chaser just catch what he needs to eat, I want to remain a sensible DX and just catch what I can hear and process in a logical way, in a 'human scale' actually. 

So, by using small portables and ULR I keep alive the real spirit of DXing. With them (and also my LOWE HF150 and non-sdr ones) the challenge is also alive. I am not going to curse SDR as it's an awesome and useful technology, but is much less funny and to achieve rare stations, easier. 

I trumbled months ago with this original and lively group after have readen the antenna articles by Graham Maynard and after knowing the DXing tests made by Gary with his FSL samples. I coordinate in Spain the "IberiaDX" group with the only goal to put in touch DXers from the countries in the Iberian Peninsula, but of course opens to other European DXers also. From the group board, the blog and twitter I soon tried to spread the advantages of ULR DXing but, as I told before, "the reality of the DXing panorama in the Old World is slightly different." 

That's why we propose the two categories that you read in the article. Could be also 'ULR' and 'almost ULR', or even simpler, widening the 'ULR' reality to reach 30 cubic inches. For me, the DEGEN DE1103 is the boundary in size. High quality and balanced in both MW and FM, good sensitivity, a decent selectivity, portable, not heavy and comfortable to use, with thousands of units sold in Europe and other countries. That gives us just one thing: Enjoying the hobby. And when people enjoys a hobby and find that can achieve difficult challenges, they stay and want to keep going forward! 

I am sorry for this long message but it's Sunday and I have plenty of time today. In a couple of hours I will be checking the Iberian MW with our "IBOM-ULR" long-term project with a dozen of DXers spreaded on the four corners of the Iberian Peninsula. A proof that people enjoys and keep on going along the ULR scene! 

¡73 y Buen DX! 
--
Jorge Garzón (EB7EFA · EA1036 SWL) 
QTH: IN83ag / 43º15' N · 03º56' W
Urb. San Roque 95, casa 5 (Villasevil)
39698 Santiurde de Toranzo (ESPAÑA - SPAIN)
..................................................................................
Blog: IberiaDX  · Twitter: @IberiaDX


Additional on CCrane Skywave SSB reception of NOAA weather radio frequencies . . . probably for radio nerds only.

Jock Elliott
 

With regard to the NOAA weather radio reception of the CCrane Skywave SSB, here's some info that I posted Radio Reference that might prove useful for anyone for whom NOAA weather radio is a high priority.

As a friend put it: "This is stuff only a radio nerd would chase down."

What follows is a compilation from various posts in the thread:

Perhaps I am the only guy on planet earth with a "kinda" interest in DXing NOAA weather radio, but there you have it, but we'll get to the interesting part in just a moment.

Today I find myself in Sodus, NY, in the western part of the state, near the shores of Lake Ontario. Rochester, NY, is a bit further to the Southwest. I have with me the following: an Icom V80 with a sharply tuned (I think) commercial antenna that works great on my home repeater (146.94) in Troy, NY; a Uniden BC125AT with a Diamond 77 antenna, and a CCrane Skywave SSB. All receive the NOAA weather channels.

Early this AM, I checked www.wunderground.com for weather in the Sodus area. Snow is expected overnight. So I grab the Uniden 125AT, activate the weather scan function, and find that it receives NOAA weather radio channels 1, 2, and 3, and the audio sound great through my headphones. I try stepping through the weather radio channels on my Icom V80 and find that it receives channels 1, 2, and 3 but with just a wee bit of static in the background. I try switching the antennas between the 125AT and the V80, and there is no appreciable difference.

Now, here's the interesting part: I try the same trick on the CCrane Skywave SSB with its telescoping whip fully extended, and it receives weather channel 1 just fine with excellent audio through the headphones. But channel 2 is way down in the soup, a hair above "barely audible." I try waving the Skywave around, point the whip antenna in different directions and orientations to see if I can improve the signal. I succeed only in nulling it out. Weather radio channel 3 is not audible at all, but channel 4 is coming in well, and so is channel 7 . . . and the other two radios were not receiving channels 4 and 7 at all.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of this. To be clear, I was able to hear that forecast that I needed to hear -- for Wayne County, NY -- on all three radios. But why would there be such a stark difference between the CCrane Skywave SSB and the other two radios?

The V80 and the 125AT "agree" with each; both are receiving NOAA weather radio channels 1, 2, 3. The CCrane Skywave SSB appears to be the anomaly, receiving channels 1, 2 (barely), and 4 and 7, which the V80 and 125AT did not receive.

I just checked, and the NOAA weather radio frequencies occupy a fairly narrow spread: each channel represents one of seven frequencies between 162.400 MHz to 162.550 MHz.

All three tested in my lap at the same location and then tested in another room within inches of each other. I turned one radio on, checked the channels it could receive, turned it off, then tested the next radio, etc. Same results in both cases.

Then one of the respondents to the thread posted: "Did you check the actual frequencies received on the radios? Some radios number the channels from lowest to highest frequency and others use the NOAA assigned channel numbers."

I responded:

Hmmmm. Interesting idea.

Modern Survival Blog -- https://modernsurvivalblog.com/weather-preparedness/noaa-weather-radio-channel-list/ -- reveals that NOAA weather channels may displayed in two different ways, depending upon the manufacturer: chronological or in increasing frequency order.

The Uniden displays Channel numbers and frequencies, so: Ch. 1, 162.550; Ch. 2. 162.400; Ch. 3 162.475. The Icom V80 lists only channel numbers, but no frequencies. However, it receives the same channels as the Uniden.

This appears to be the chronological sequence – the sequence to which the radio frequencies were allocated over time to the service. This ordered sequence is used by (some) weather radio manufacturers.

1=162.550 Mhz
2=162.400 Mhz
3=162.475 Mhz
4=162.425 Mhz
5=162.450 Mhz
6=162.500 Mhz
7=162.525 Mhz

The CCrane Skywave SSB lists only channel numbers. BUT, if it follows the weather radio channels in increasing frequency --

1=162.400 Mhz
2=162.425 Mhz
3=162.450 Mhz
4=162.475 Mhz
5=162.500 Mhz
6=162.525 Mhz
7=162.550 Mhz

Then the CCrane receives Ch1, 162.400 (which is Ch. 2 on the other two radios); Ch 2, 162.425 faintly (Ch. 4 on the other radios), Ch 4, 162.475 (Ch. 3 on Uniden and Icom), and Ch 7, 162.550 (which would be Ch. 1 on the other two radios).

So all three radios are receiving the same frequencies, but with different channel numbers assigned to them . . . and the CCrane appears to be a hair more sensitive, also receiving the 162.425 channel very faintly.

As Inspector Clouseau would say: "The case is sol-ved."

Finally, if you have read this all the way to the end, one might make that case that you have tested positive for being a radio nerd.

Cheers, Jock



Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

Jock Elliott
 

Gary,

Wow, this is terrific stuff . . . thorough, useful, and deftly written. Well done! Put a Gold Star on your chart.

Cheers, Jock


Re: XHDATA-808 & the AR-1780

Jorge Garzón
 

Hi Gord, 
Well, I am not proposing changes in the ULR scene. I am just a keen dxer that I do this to enjoy the radio (Paul Blundell statement is right) ;-) 

But the reality of the DXing panorama in the Old World is slightly different. On MW we are changing the scene rapidly: we are leaving the band, less and less stations, and an indecent increase of noise generated by human activities with overall digitalization of our territory with the associated QRM. The most rewarding listening spots are now rural, wide open areas, and the wild. So all we that had comms receivers (I have an ICOM R71A and a YAESU FT2000, as I am also a ham op) looked back to small and light receivers to keep enjoying listening. At this level, the only 'serious' receivers on the market were portables: Sony, Sangean, Eton, Tecsun,... and the better ones were much more bigger than ULR's and/or pockets. 

On the other side (at least for me) is the human scale. That worries me, bur what damm is this? Perhaps there is a 'Diogenes' inside of each DXer with the compulsion to add a one more receiver in the shack, or more SDR recordings to check in the future and so on. SDR have changed our DXing scene, but actually has also helped to kill the DXing spirit to discover something new and unknown by spinning the dial keeping the frequency while listening to it carefully. SDR needs a computer, and the flow of signals is so huge that the only way to store those is to schedule recordings and fill external HD with tonnes of GBytes. But storing audio does not mean a balanced and correct management. 

I have been checking my FM dedicated hard disk with e-Skip recordings and I still have 2019 band lifts to check. Same with Medium/Long Wave stations, some of them with NDB signals from Alaska and Pacific Coast of Russia still 'unlogged'. That's crazy! and I wonder... What for? I am not an obsessive DX and as a sensible chaser just catch what he needs to eat, I want to remain a sensible DX and just catch what I can hear and process in a logical way, in a 'human scale' actually. 

So, by using small portables and ULR I keep alive the real spirit of DXing. With them (and also my LOWE HF150 and non-sdr ones) the challenge is also alive. I am not going to curse SDR as it's an awesome and useful technology, but is much less funny and to achieve rare stations, easier. 

I trumbled months ago with this original and lively group after have readen the antenna articles by Graham Maynard and after knowing the DXing tests made by Gary with his FSL samples. I coordinate in Spain the "IberiaDX" group with the only goal to put in touch DXers from the countries in the Iberian Peninsula, but of course opens to other European DXers also. From the group board, the blog and twitter I soon tried to spread the advantages of ULR DXing but, as I told before, "the reality of the DXing panorama in the Old World is slightly different." 

That's why we propose the two categories that you read in the article. Could be also 'ULR' and 'almost ULR', or even simpler, widening the 'ULR' reality to reach 30 cubic inches. For me, the DEGEN DE1103 is the boundary in size. High quality and balanced in both MW and FM, good sensitivity, a decent selectivity, portable, not heavy and comfortable to use, with thousands of units sold in Europe and other countries. That gives us just one thing: Enjoying the hobby. And when people enjoys a hobby and find that can achieve difficult challenges, they stay and want to keep going forward! 

I am sorry for this long message but it's Sunday and I have plenty of time today. In a couple of hours I will be checking the Iberian MW with our "IBOM-ULR" long-term project with a dozen of DXers spreaded on the four corners of the Iberian Peninsula. A proof that people enjoys and keep on going along the ULR scene! 

¡73 y Buen DX! 
--
Jorge Garzón (EB7EFA · EA1036 SWL) 
QTH: IN83ag / 43º15' N · 03º56' W
Urb. San Roque 95, casa 5 (Villasevil)
39698 Santiurde de Toranzo (ESPAÑA - SPAIN)
..................................................................................
Blog: IberiaDX  · Twitter: @IberiaDX


Re: 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

Paul Blundell
 

I have just had a quick look, this is amazing and you have clearly put a huge amount of time and effort into it.

Paul

On Sun, 2 May 2021, 17:50 Gary DeBock via groups.io, <D1028Gary=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
The 39-page 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout review is available for download! Fully detailed reviews of the XHDATA D-808, Radiwow R-108, C. Crane Skywave (Basic and SSB), Tecsun PL-330 and the Tecsun PL-380 are included, with honest descriptions of the strong and weak points of every model. Finally, a detailed Shootout section compares each model's MW sensitivity, MW selectivity, FM sensitivity, SW sensitivity and AIR band sensitivity in fight to the finish! The Final Verdicts tell you who is still standing--- and why! https://dreamcrafts.box.com/s/8y6855bnfmy45rnk46mzr7hb4pwjz8u8

Good DX to All,
Gary DeBock, N7EKX
Ultralight Radio Group Co-Founder


Re: XHDATA-808 & the AR-1780

Paul Blundell
 

Gord.

Nobody is saying that you can't use any radio you want in anyway you want. I have owned an AR1780 and also found it to be a very good radio.

For the group awards and challenges we have the guidelines, if we don't have a cut off at some point, we would have "scope creep" and have people using Icon R9500 as "ultralight radios".

Personally, any and all portable radios to me are okay to discuss on here.

On Sun, 2 May 2021, 17:51 Gord Seifert, <gks61711@...> wrote:

   Jorge, those receiver classifications make a lot more sense to me than the overly restrictive ones used here. Things like the AR-1780 are not included because they are a few cubic sentimeters too large, but five or ten pounds of ferrite rods, and multi hundred strand wire, that far exceed the size and weight of the radio are OK.
   I actually have an AR-1780 as well as a Tecsun 310et and an Eton Satellit Grundig Edition (also likely too large to qualify as an ultralight). The 1780 is the best of the three in reception in a number of ways. And because it DOES have SSB, and a great fine tuning feature, I can listen to things the Tecsun has no chance at and the Satellit is nowhere near stable enough to receive.
   I do have one of the FSL antennas. I don't mean to put them down at all. It is wonderful! But I just don't understand sticking to a strict classification of ultralights when something slightly bigger just works better.

   Regards,
   Gord


Re: XHDATA-808 & the AR-1780

Gord Seifert
 


   Jorge, those receiver classifications make a lot more sense to me than the overly restrictive ones used here. Things like the AR-1780 are not included because they are a few cubic sentimeters too large, but five or ten pounds of ferrite rods, and multi hundred strand wire, that far exceed the size and weight of the radio are OK.
   I actually have an AR-1780 as well as a Tecsun 310et and an Eton Satellit Grundig Edition (also likely too large to qualify as an ultralight). The 1780 is the best of the three in reception in a number of ways. And because it DOES have SSB, and a great fine tuning feature, I can listen to things the Tecsun has no chance at and the Satellit is nowhere near stable enough to receive.
   I do have one of the FSL antennas. I don't mean to put them down at all. It is wonderful! But I just don't understand sticking to a strict classification of ultralights when something slightly bigger just works better.

   Regards,
   Gord


2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review Ready for Download

Gary DeBock
 

The 39-page 2021 Ultralight Radio Shootout review is available for download! Fully detailed reviews of the XHDATA D-808, Radiwow R-108, C. Crane Skywave (Basic and SSB), Tecsun PL-330 and the Tecsun PL-380 are included, with honest descriptions of the strong and weak points of every model. Finally, a detailed Shootout section compares each model's MW sensitivity, MW selectivity, FM sensitivity, SW sensitivity and AIR band sensitivity in fight to the finish! The Final Verdicts tell you who is still standing--- and why! https://dreamcrafts.box.com/s/8y6855bnfmy45rnk46mzr7hb4pwjz8u8

Good DX to All,
Gary DeBock, N7EKX
Ultralight Radio Group Co-Founder

801 - 820 of 31807