RufusDawes
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2025
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 73
Agreed on the Icom 705, I know its a transceiver but only 10W... aside from that it is the best modern day portable SWL radio today IMO.
Best HF Receiver
- Thread starter shirsch101
- Start date
RufusDawes
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2025
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 73
I have my eye on that receiver (Drake SPR-4).... how is it performing for you? My understanding is that is is double conversion.
Token
Member
I do not currently own an SPR-4, but I have in the past. At one point I had the SPR-4, MS-4 speaker, and FS-4 synthesizer setting on the desk, it made for a nice looking setup. There are a few things to keep in mind with this radio.
Yes, the radio is double conversion.
Yes, the radio (when performing properly) is a decent performer. Maybe not quite world class, but very good all the same.
Assuming the crystal calibrator works, and the crystal has not shifted with age, you can have frequency indication to better than 1 kHz, which is fine for most listening work.
As was fairly common at one point, the radio uses crystals to select each 500 kHz band you are interested in. There are 23 crystal positions possible, so that means you cannot have complete coverage, 0.5 - 30 MHz, at most you can have 16.5 MHz of the shortwave spectrum covered in any combination of 500 kHz chunks you want. There are various ways to overcome this, external oscillators, external crystal banks, etc, but they all require extra add-ons. Today some of the crystals can be hard to find, so you might run into a roadblock getting the specific combination of 500 kHz chunks you want, if the radio is not already equipped with the bands you want.
You probably want the second version of this radio. The quickest away to visually tell is the tuner knob (assuming it has not been changed out), the second version has a depressed spot on the tuning knob to spin with your finger.
The lack of filter selection (a single fixed filter for each mode, CW, SSB, and AM) can be limiting. However, by using one of the SSB modes (to narrow the filter) on an AM signal you can generally find a combination of mode and filter that fits many listening requirements.
Most of the general electrical parts for this radio can still be sourced, discrete resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc. And, repairs can be made with basic equipment, no surface mount stuff or ICs to deal with.
As a thought, if considering the SPR-4, have you considered the Drake R-4B or C instead? It allows more adjustability (selectable filter widths and such) with the same performance and limitations. The R-4B/C with an FS-4 might prove a more versatile version of an SPR-4 with the same FS-4.
T!
Last edited:
pjxii
Member
Right now it's boxed up from my recent move but from when I was using it before it did all that I needed it to do very well, excellent sensitivity and very nice audio. It has the calibrator which is real nice to have. The noise blanker is honestly the best I've ever used in a receiver, I keep hearing about the R7's blanker but both that I had weren't this good. Ironically, here at my new location I won't be needing the NB from using my RF-2200 and testing my newly purchased NRD-525. The lack of full frequency coverage doesn't matter to me, I've never tuned through many ranges that my other receivers cover.
Token pretty much summed up the rest!
Token
Member
Alternately, the RR-2 is a rack mounted version of the SPR-4 that includes a built in FS-4 synthesizer, so it covers the entire SW frequency range. I think the RR-3 is a more modern version, but I have never actually seen / turned the knobs on one of those.
T!
Panasonic RF2200.
+1. The antenna is critical. It would be better to have a mid-level receiver paired to the best antenna you can install vs top-of-the line model with a poor antenna.
This opens up a whole other can of worms.
I always tell people when discussing most radio things to think of it as buying the best stereo stuff for your home or car then putting crappy sounding speakers on it. What would be the point. At that point, at least some people have understood it. I find this especially true with the younger hams we're helping out in the hobby, or some newcomers regardless of age.
Oh yeah. It would easily go more than 6 pages!
pjxii
Member
This is why I've always been a fan of my RF Systems T2FD. It delivers only the signal to the receiver and no noise. Whether I hear a particular signal or not then depends only on propagation.
pjxii
Member
Definitely the best MW that I've ever used, FM is far above most as well.
prcguy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 18,065
- Reaction score
- 13,800
I think this is looking at one of the least expensive properties of any receiver and has nothing to do with the most expensive and hard to design properties. A super sensitive receiver can pick up things on a coat hanger compared to a less sensitive receiver and the difference between the two can be a simple and cheap preamp section. I have various hand held and cheap HF receivers that will pick up much more on a 3ft cliplead than my old Harris RF-590 or current Icom R-8600.
On the other hand my old Harris RF-590 and R8600 can receive a weak signal on a large antenna just fine at a ham radio field day site with many HF transmitters running all around me at the same site and even on the same band. The cheap receivers become completely useless under the same conditions and will be blanked out with just one transmitter running nearby even 20MHz away from where I'm trying to receive. This is why there is a market for expensive "contest grade" high third order dynamic range transceivers for the amateur market using the very latest designs to squeeze the most performance. Super sensitivity as in the ability to receive on a lousy antenna is not even considered in these high end radios that can run $5k to $25k.
One of the best DX 'tools' that tends to get overlooked is your ears, and what's in between them, and how you use them when DXing / listening.
If you don't listen carefully, you'll miss a lot. And it can take some time to learn how, and what, to listen for.
If you don't listen carefully, you'll miss a lot. And it can take some time to learn how, and what, to listen for.
prcguy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 18,065
- Reaction score
- 13,800
So a mediocre receiver and my trained ears = the BEST receiver?
At a certain point of quality, the radio doesn't matter much. At one point, I had a bunch of pretty great ones, including a JRC 515, a 525, Several Icom R71A's, a Kenwood TS-850SAT, and old timers such as the Yaesu FRG7, and Kenwood R1000. Yeah, the modded 515 was the killer radio, but I could hear 99% of what it could hear with a couple of my modded R71A's and the 525 and 850. A stock R71A wasn't quite enough to hear the really really weak stuff. IMHO, a couple of antennas is almost a must, being able to switch between them sometimes made all the difference. For most of the time I owned my house, I had 3 antennas, an Alpha-Delta Sloper, a home brewed BIG "Slinky Dipole", which was fantastic on the low end, and Windom in the attic. I also had a "big stick" CB antenna, which worked well from about 26 MHZ up to the lower 30's. Sadly, I live in an apartment now, and nothing I have tried has had any effect on the insane level of RFI I have from basically 0 to the bottom of the FMBC band. I can barely hear stations that blast in when I get into my car and get away from the area. Most of the hash comes from the assisted living place next door. I have no idea what it is, but it never goes away.
pjxii
Member
No and that's not what he said.
pjxii
Member
I agree with everything you said here. For me, my 525 is my HF receiver of choice for utilities which has become my main interest now. After getting it I decided that I don't actually need to spend $$$ for an R5000 or R8x. All my other receivers I simply find enjoyable to use yet cost less.
Multiple antennas are good to have if possible. I'm planning on putting up at least two outside.
Last edited:
Similar threads
