I had to go over and fire up my 525 when I read the above. I couldn't disagree more. It's awful.
Best HF Receiver
- Thread starter shirsch101
- Start date
I had to go over and fire up my 525 when I read the above. I couldn't disagree more. It's awful.
Granted, the audio is no where near as good as my boat anchor Hammarlund HQ-129X or Drake R8/R8B. but it's a communications receiver. I was not expecting it to sound like a concert hall and it's fine for my ears.
An external speaker or headphones will certainly improve the 525's audio.
pjxii
Member
Having the R7A on the desk really was something special. Back when the HF bands were full around the year 2000 I pulled stations out from underneath others with the PBT and a Sherwood 3 kHz filter that was installed. These days with so few broadcasters there's no need for that ability, and the utility stations I look for are all clear enough.
I"m a big fan of headphones so I bought JRC ST-3 phones to see if the reputation is deserved. It is, and it's a perfect match for the receiver.
I like the sound of closed type headphones, but I haven't found a pair of open or closed that didn't bug me after a couple of hours, max. Probably the most comfortable headphones I ever had were my first, a Koss Pro-4AA with the fluid filled cushions. I could take those for about 2.5 hours, and then I was done. Same goes for ear buds, except I tolerate them even less than headphones.
Nice! Never used any of the Sherwood filters but know their reputation. Yes, the bands are much emptier today than 25+ years ago. You can run a wide filter and have few issues with adjacent channel interference.
I remember those. Might have to pick up a pair if I see a good price. The 525 is not going to compete with a Drake R8 or boatanchor on audio quality, but it's good enough for its intended purpose.
Ratboy, I had that same problem until I tried Radiosport headphones. I got the RS20CR listening only from HRO when HRO sold them. I don't believe they sell them anymore but they are still available. I use them at all the Field Days I used to go to and had to keep my eyes on them lest they got legs and walked away, lol.
They are a bit pricey, but very well worth it!
Sorry, I posted the wrong Radiosport model. It should be RS20S-10A.
RufusDawes
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2025
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 73
Over the last year since reading this thread I have had my eye out for the higher end vintage desktop SWL receivers, looking for bargains and pulling the trigger when they come:
Yaesu FRG-7
Kenwood R-5000
Drake R8A
Icom R71A
JRC NRD-525
Hammarlund HQ-180A
Hallicrafters SX-42
Best of the bunch so far is the Drake R8A, really fantastic receiver.... a close second is the JRC NRD-525. Next would be the Kenwood R-5000, not in the same class as the R8A and 525 but still a really fine receiver.
One advantage to buying these vintage receivers is that you have the benefit of knowing how they fail over time, and usually someone has posted information on how to repair the issue, or do preventative maintenance to avoid it all together.
On the lookout now for a Icom R75, Drake SPR4, and a Collins R390A, this will fillout the collection from WWII to the end of the modern day desktop era.
Yaesu FRG-7
Kenwood R-5000
Drake R8A
Icom R71A
JRC NRD-525
Hammarlund HQ-180A
Hallicrafters SX-42
Best of the bunch so far is the Drake R8A, really fantastic receiver.... a close second is the JRC NRD-525. Next would be the Kenwood R-5000, not in the same class as the R8A and 525 but still a really fine receiver.
One advantage to buying these vintage receivers is that you have the benefit of knowing how they fail over time, and usually someone has posted information on how to repair the issue, or do preventative maintenance to avoid it all together.
On the lookout now for a Icom R75, Drake SPR4, and a Collins R390A, this will fillout the collection from WWII to the end of the modern day desktop era.
pjxii
Member
I love my SPR-4. Even though it wouldn't be in the top tier on your list it's worth having for the pure analog tuning and the fun factor of bandscanning like the old days. When I set the notch filter just right on the edge of being off it's so quiet and signals appear from nowhere as you come across them. The noise blanker (if installed) is the best I've ever heard. The limited frequency coverage never bothered me.
pjxii
Member
Never had an ICOM R-75 but I did see one at an HRO many years ago, too much noise to get a feel for it.
I did have an R390A for a while until I decided to move from PA to FL and couldn't fit it in my Jeep Wrangler with all the other stuff I was taking. Ended up giving it away to a local ham. Cumbersome is a good word to describe it.
I did have an R390A for a while until I decided to move from PA to FL and couldn't fit it in my Jeep Wrangler with all the other stuff I was taking. Ended up giving it away to a local ham. Cumbersome is a good word to describe it.
The R75 is a great HF receiver. Had one along with the R8500. Sold those to get the R8600.
K0WWX
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2023
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 130
To add to the discussion of the best HF receiver, it's really interesting to look at some actual measurement data.
I'm sure that most of you know about the receiver rankings (Receiver Test Data) based on Rob Sherwood's extensive measurements. They are sorted by just one measurement parameter, third order dynamic range narrow spaced (dB). However, another radio amateur named Frank Howell has a site where the table can be sorted by any of the nine different parameters, or by a composite parameter called the Sherwood Performance Index (SPI). You can find that table here:
foxmikehotel.com
Most of the radios tested are amateur radio transceivers. However, I went through the table, sorted by the SPI, and extracted just the 40 receive-only units from the list. A few are wideband units whose coverage includes all of the HF bands. Most are general coverage HF receivers, but some are amateur band only. To get all the details, please visit the above sites, but here are the 40 HF receivers ranked in order:
I'm sure that most of you know about the receiver rankings (Receiver Test Data) based on Rob Sherwood's extensive measurements. They are sorted by just one measurement parameter, third order dynamic range narrow spaced (dB). However, another radio amateur named Frank Howell has a site where the table can be sorted by any of the nine different parameters, or by a composite parameter called the Sherwood Performance Index (SPI). You can find that table here:
Sortable Sherwood Receiver Bench Test Table – Fox Mike Hotel
foxmikehotel.com
Most of the radios tested are amateur radio transceivers. However, I went through the table, sorted by the SPI, and extracted just the 40 receive-only units from the list. A few are wideband units whose coverage includes all of the HF bands. Most are general coverage HF receivers, but some are amateur band only. To get all the details, please visit the above sites, but here are the 40 HF receivers ranked in order:
| Receiver | Type | SPI |
| Icom IC-R8600 | Wideband | 116.77 |
| Drake R-4C (modified) | Amateur Bands | 113.63 |
| Icom IC-R9500 | Wideband | 107.89 |
| Collins 51S-1 | General Coverage | 102.79 |
| Collins R-390A | General Coverage | 101.66 |
| Drake 2-B | Amateur Bands | 98.40 |
| JRC NRD-93 | General Coverage | 98.32 |
| Drake R-7 | General Coverage | 98.08 |
| Icom IC-R70 and R71 | General Coverage | 97.35 |
| Racal RA-6790/GM | General Coverage | 95.66 |
| Icom IC-R75 | General Coverage | 94.21 |
| Collins 75S-3C | Amateur Bands | 94.14 |
| Drake R-4C (stock) | Amateur Bands | 93.94 |
| Palstar R-30 | General Coverage | 93.57 |
| Icom IC-R72 | General Coverage | 91.52 |
| Collins 75-S3B | Amateur Bands | 91.53 |
| JRC NRD-545 | General Coverage | 91.24 |
| JRC NRD-525 | General Coverage | 90.93 |
| AOR AR3030 | General Coverage | 90.77 |
| Kenwood R-820S | Amateur Bands | 90.21 |
| Icom IC-R8500 | Wideband | 89.50 |
| Drake R8 | General Coverage | 89.26 |
| Watkins Johnson HF-1000 | General Coverage | 89.15 |
| JRC NRD-515 Kenwood R-5000 | General Coverage General Coverage | 89.03 88.85 |
| Drake SW8 | General Coverage | 88.85 |
| JRC NRD-535 | General Coverage | 87.80 |
| Grundig Satellit 700 | General Coverage | 86.27 |
| Yaesu FRG-8800 | General Coverage | 86.21 |
| Yaesu FRG-100 | General Coverage | 86.09 |
| Ten-Tec RX-340 | General Coverage | 83.64 |
| Lowe HF-235 | General Coverage | 82.34 |
| Collins 75-S3 | Amateur Bands | 81.44 |
| Lowe HF-150 | General Coverage | 80.32 |
| Heathkit SB-303 | Amateur Bands | 79.53 |
| AOR 5000 | Wideband | 78.48 |
| Kenwood R-1000 | General Coverage | 75.09 |
| Yaesu FRG-7700 | General Coverage | 74.45 |
| Kenwood R-600 | General Coverage | 71.45 |
| Kenwood R-2000 | General Coverage | 67.88 |
Last edited:
Thanks for posting this! Of all the receivers I own, the R-75 ranks the highest, above my R8/R8B, NRD-525, NRD-515 and R-5000.To add to the discussion of the best HF receiver, it's really interesting to look at some actual measurement data.
I'm sure that most of you know about the receiver rankings (Receiver Test Data) based on Rob Sherwood's extensive measurements. They are sorted by just one measurement parameter, third order dynamic range narrow spaced (dB). However, another radio amateur named Frank Howell has a site where the table can be sorted by any of the nine different parameters, or by a composite parameter called the Sherwood Performance Index (SPI). You can find that table here:
Sortable Sherwood Receiver Bench Test Table – Fox Mike Hotel
Most of the radios tested are amateur radio transceivers. However, I went through the table, sorted by the SPI, and extracted just the 40 receive-only units from the list. A few are wideband units whose coverage includes all of the HF bands. Most are general coverage HF receivers, but some are amateur band only. To get all the details, please visit the above sites, but here are the 40 HF receivers ranked in order:
Receiver Type SPI Icom IC-R8600 Wideband Drake R-4C (modified) Amateur Bands Icom IC-R9500 Wideband Collins 51S-1 General Coverage Collins R-390A General Coverage Drake 2-B Amateur Bands JRC NRD-93 General Coverage Drake R-7 General Coverage Icom IC-R70 and R71 General Coverage Racal RA-6790/GM General Coverage Icom IC-R75 General Coverage Collins 75S-3C Amateur Bands Drake R-4C (stock) Amateur Bands Palstar R-30 General Coverage Icom IC-R72 General Coverage Collins 75-S3B Amateur Bands JRC NRD-545 General Coverage JRC NRD-525 General Coverage AOR AR3030 General Coverage Kenwood R-820S Amateur Bands Icom IC-R8500 Wideband Drake R8 General Coverage Watkins Johnson HF-1000 General Coverage JRC NRD-515
Kenwood R-5000General Coverage
General Coverage
88.85Drake SW8 General Coverage JRC NRD-535 General Coverage Grundig Satellit 700 General Coverage Yaesu FRG-8800 General Coverage Yaesu FRG-100 General Coverage Ten-Tec RX-340 General Coverage Lowe HF-235 General Coverage Collins 75-S3 Amateur Bands Lowe HF-150 General Coverage Heathkit SB-303 Amateur Bands AOR 5000 Wideband Kenwood R-1000 General Coverage Yaesu FRG-7700 General Coverage Kenwood R-600 General Coverage Kenwood R-2000 General Coverage
I'm a bit surprised to see the R-5000 and NRD-515 above the NRD-535.
W8WCA
Member
Hum Never heard of SPI ! Had to look that up on your referenced page!
Time for an update as this test was in 2022. Not easy am sure but with newer models out, it may change. The R8600 is no doubt the best.
K0WWX
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2023
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 130
It's interesting to note that if you count both IC-R70 and IC-R71 (which had identical scores), there are seven Icom receivers listed in the top 21. Even the IC-R72, which I don't think has been brought up before in this thread, scores well.
I'm more of a Kenwood guy, but Icom has obviously made some great receivers.
pjxii
Member
Rob Sherwood's site has a PDF file describing what the numbers mean and even sometimes the relevance to a particular situation. He even states that the order of the list will be different for everyone. The entire testing is actually geared towards CW and SSB contesters and listed in order on his site by close-in dynamic range.
4nradio
Member
Most of my activity is DXing trans-Pacific medium wave. Interestingly, Sherwood's criteria for receivers is also applicable to overseas medium wave DX. If you're in this camp you are usually seeking weak signals wedged between strong 10 kHz-spaced domestic channels-- very similar to the ham contesters, so parameters like dynamic range and IP3 are important.
I've owned the highly rated FT-DX10 from Sherwood's list, and in actual use on medium wave it is very close to my Perseus and FDM-S3 SDRs (on overseas 9 kHz MW frequencies). The FDM-S3 has a bit lower noise floor, so if I had to choose I'd rank it #1 in this subset of medium wave DXing.
I've owned the highly rated FT-DX10 from Sherwood's list, and in actual use on medium wave it is very close to my Perseus and FDM-S3 SDRs (on overseas 9 kHz MW frequencies). The FDM-S3 has a bit lower noise floor, so if I had to choose I'd rank it #1 in this subset of medium wave DXing.
Last edited:
4nradio
Member
I should have added that the overseas, 9 kHz spaced MW stations are often 1-3 kHz away from powerful local/regional signals, similar to closely spaced stations in a ham radio SSB contest. The nearer to "brick wall" filtering in your receiver, along with other tools like ECSS and passband tuning, the better will be your reception in these tough conditions... as during a crowded ham radio contest. This assumes excellent narrow-spaced dynamic range, etc.
