Date
1 - 14 of 14
Crane CC Pocket
|
Hi to all, Every time I listen to MW with a CC Pocket and compare it with my Sangean DT-250 and DT-800 I am always surprised with the high level of noise generated by the receiver itself or catched from surrounding sources. None of the Sangeans are affected to these high levels of QRM. I don’t know why this is happening, which it’s a pity as this small receiver is quite sensitive on MW, but the noise ruins much signals. Is this a problem of internal screening? Can be solved in any way? Would you share your experiences with this CC model and solutions found? Thanks in advance! 73 de Jorge. -- |
|
|
|
Hi to all,
Every time I listen to MW with a CC Pocket and compare it with my Sangean DT-250 and DT-800 I am always surprised with the high level of noise generated by the receiver itself or catched from surrounding sources. None of the Sangeans are affected to these high levels of QRM.
I don’t know why this is happening, which it’s a pity as this small receiver is quite sensitive on MW, but the noise ruins much signals.
Is this a problem of internal screening? Can be solved in any way? Would you share your experiences with this CC model and solutions found?
Thanks in advance! 73 de Jorge. Hello Jorge, The CC Pocket model was fully reviewed in the 2015 Ultralight Radio Shootout article, which is posted at Gary DeBock’s 2015 Ultralight Radio Shootout Review | The SWLing Post In this article its DXing capabilities were fully tested against the Sangean DT-400W, Tecsun PL-310ET, C. Crane Skywave (non-SSB basic model) and Eton Traveler III models. Overall, I was not very impressed with the CC Pocket model's performance as a DXing Ultralight radio, as described in the article. As for a noise problem specific to the CC Pocket, I didn't notice that at the time. It could be that C. Crane has made a revision to the radio over the past 8 years which introduces more noise, or possibly that your model has a bad component which has causes the noise problem. Maybe some other CC Pocket owners on the list can share their experiences with this model, especially if they have noticed any noise like you describe. 73 and Good DX, Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA) |
|
|
|
chevargasluis@...
Yo he notado en otros radios DSP que el ruido es ocasionado por los circuitos de la misma radio, si se quita la barra de ferrita del interior de la radio el ruido desaparece
|
|
|
|
Gord Seifert
chevargasluis, the new Bing app AI Chat on my Android tablet tells me that "Yo he notado en otros radios DSP que el ruido es ocasionado por los circuitos de la misma radio, si se quita la barra de ferrita del interior de la radio el ruido desaparece" means “I have noticed in other DSP radios that the noise is caused by the circuits of the same radio, if the ferrite bar is removed from inside the radio, the noise disappears.”
I suppose, if you mean that when the ferrite is simply moved a few inches away (as far as the wiring will allow) the noise drops away, then that is pretty solid proof that it is internal! And it is a good reason for requesting a replacement or refund if they can not prove it has been opened. Regards, Gord |
|
|
|
radiojayallen
In fact the CC Pocket has rcently been revised with some new features and I am working on a comparative review of it along with the previous version and the Sangean DT-800...I hope to post it soon.
However I did compare the original CC Pocket with the Sangean DT-400 and here are some coomments from that artcvle: "I compared it (the CC Pocket) directly against the Sangean DT-400W which is also a good performer but each had areas of superiority. On FM the CC Pocket fairly trounced the Sangean primarily because of the CC’s absolutely superb selectivity,
On AM it was a slightly different story. The Sangean is a little more sensitive to weak AM signals…on my daytime test stations at about 100 miles distance and beyond, both radios could receive most of the same signals but there was somewhat more noise on the CC Pocket. However the CC still had the advantage of greater selectivity because of its dual bandwidths and 1 KHz tuning steps".
It will be interesting to see how thse gthree fare side by side. Jay Jay |
|
|
|
Hi Gary, Jay and the group,
Well, could be that I got a faulty unit, I don't know. Mine was sent from Crane shop in the USA and it is not easy to return it back and get a new one. It was much easier with an faulty ETON Elite Traveler unit but as it was purchased via Amazon and they manage very good and quick return shipment. I will carefully check again the Crane CC Pocket against the others but it seems a receiver with a lack of screening. It is the unit itself which is noisy because of the LCD screen but also with the environment QRM if any. Even in the middle of nowhere the internal noise is quite evident in every empty channel. It does not affect to the sensitivity as it is able to hear, but with no success. Something that I am starting to think is about the lack of quality control. That was the case with my ETON Elite Traveller. The second unit seemed a totally different radio and I am satisfied with it, even when other models I own could be better as DXing ULR. When there is a lack of quality control, are testings we do valid at all? Imagine Jay your test Crane/Sangean. You start with a (partially) faulty unit and the results are "A". But if you order a second one and repeat testing procedures, result is "B", and even worst... Who can be sure than a third unit does not give a "C" result. This is a serious matter, I reckon! Perhaps the brilliant comparisons we were used to (WRTH, JayAllen, Universal Radio and similars...) were perfect in our beloved old era, when a receiver was something to be proud to be created and offered. Now, with the Chinese steamroller, radios are in an industrial age where everything can be replaced easily don't even thinking in customers's comments or opinions. Then, how can we trust in a new released radio? 73 de J |
|
|
|
radiojayallen
I am used to seeing unit to unit differeces in general but my experience seems to indicate that with the major manufacturers, modern designs seem to have reduced such variability. Of coure you can still get a bad unit from anyone but in general I see fewer differences unit to unit within a production run than, say, 20 years ago.
And it has also become more common for some companies to make minor revisions form one production run to another and often without any indication this has happened...we see that all the time. Jay |
|
|
|
Hi, In response to your questions, I would like to highlight the following points: 1 - The more electronic components and welds there are, the more the variability of the characteristics of an electronic circuit can vary from one circuit to another. To reduce the variability of the circuits, it is necessary to reduce as much as possible that of the components, which amounts to increasing the cost of their production. Manufacturers also seek to reduce the number of welds for reasons of labor cost but also for long-term reliability issues. 2 - In DSP receivers we often find the same electronic chips. Only the firmware will vary by manufacturer. IT is not always easy to know the version of the firmware which evolves over the course of production either to eliminate a bug or to introduce new functions. On TECSUN receivers there is a hidden function to display the firmware version. For instance: For XHDATA or HaRongDa receivers I never found anything on this issue. But maybe there are other explanations... To be continued... Paul JAMET De: "radiojayallen" <radiojayallen@...> À: "main" <main@UltralightDX.groups.io> Envoyé: Dimanche 19 Mars 2023 15:14:07 Objet: Re: [UltralightDX] Crane CC Pocket I am used to seeing unit to unit differeces in general but my experience seems to indicate that with the major manufacturers, modern designs seem to have reduced such variability. Of coure you can still get a bad unit from anyone but in general I see fewer differences unit to unit within a production run than, say, 20 years ago. And it has also become more common for some companies to make minor revisions form one production run to another and often without any indication this has happened...we see that all the time. Jay |
|
|
|
Have you tried turning off the LCD display once tuned to the selected frequency?
CCrane obviously knew about internally generated noise from the very start, that is why the option to turn off the display exists. |
|
|
|
Mark Roberts
Remember that there have been at least two versions of the CC Pocket.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The first was widely panned due to so-so audio recovery on weaker MW signals. The second appeared to fix that problem. The first version does not have any numbers embossed into the five front pre-set buttons; the second version does. On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 5:59 AM Michael Schuster <schuster.ma@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 05:50 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Remember that there have been at least two versions of the CC Pocket.I know, I had (and returned) one from the very first shipment, due to poor-to-nonexistent AGC effectiveness on MW, and digi-hash leaking into the audio chain from the display controller. Ccrane sent me a "fixed" version of the above, in which AGC worked properly but the hash persisted. I was not happy with having to turn the display off in order to tune weak signals. Then came version three .... |
|
|
|
Hi Mark, 73 de J |
|
|
|
Hi Paul, Well, that's interesting! But what really shocks me is to see that a company releases a model which is not working properly or not giving a more-than-decent performance. The proof is a second and a third version released in a short time, or have to disconnect the LCD screen to avoid noise. And more appealing is that I saw this review calling it "DX Hunter" Unbelieveable!! And I ordered after I saw it. https://youtu.be/by3tb8J8lrQ |
|
|
|
Mark Roberts
Sorry, Jorge, this email became lost in all my other emails and I just now found it. CCrane didn't offer a replacement, but I didn't ask. I just went ahead and bought the "version 2" radio. I haven't bought any later versions from CCrane. It may be worth it to send them an email asking. They acknowledged there was a problem with "version 1".
|
|
|