Informal HF Receiver SSB Comparison

[K0WWX]

To amuse myself, I did an informal shootout a few nights ago between eight HF receivers with SSB capability. I was listening from my location in Colorado to a lengthy conversation between three hams on 7208 kHz LSB. I don't want to to give out their call signs but one was in Maine, one in Ohio, and one in Pennsylvania. All had very strong signals, all 59s when listening on my ham transceivers.

For the shootout, I had four of the receivers sharing a long random outdoor wire antenna with a coax switch. Those receivers were a Kenwood R-820, a Kenwood R-5000, a Realistic DX-160, and a Drake 2-B.

Another receiver, a Kenwood R-1000, was connected to a long indoor wire antenna in the basement.

The other three portable receivers were using their built-in telescopic whip antennas. These receivers were my old Sony ICF-2003, a Tecsun PL-990X, and a Tecsun PL-330.

Here's my informal ranking, from last to first, 8th place to 1st place.

8) Realistic DX-160 - I played around with the bandspread tuning and BFO for a long time but couldn't find the signal on 7208 kHz. The radio is in good condition, it's just a very poor radio for listening to SSB. It's just too unstable, and anyone who has had one knows how hard they are to tune. But I like it for some reason and keep it around.

7) Sony ICF-2003 - I could hear the conversation, but just barely. The Sony has good audio, and is fine for listening to SW broadcast stations, but it is barely usable on SSB. It only has 5 kHz tuning resolution and no USB and LSB buttons, just a rotary SSB switch. I've had this radio since it was new and its held up well, but the frequency accuracy and stability just aren't good enough to listen to hams with any consistent success.

6) Tecsun PL-990X - This radio is superior to the old Sony in every way, but the audio on SSB is not great. Even so, it was very easy to copy the conversation.

5) Kenwood R-1000 - I've always found the R-1000 to be very sensitive with good audio, and it was fine for listening to the hams talk. Not the greatest SSB radio, however, because it only has 1 kHz resolution, and stability is only fair.

4) Tecsun PL-330 - This little radio works great on SSB, even with its tiny 19" whip. It has 10 Hz tuning resolution, which is remarkable. I've posted about it before, and to me its only real shortcomings are its flimsy construction quality. Tecsun should reissue it with a sturdier case, and some knobs that are easier to turn and they'd have an all-time great little portable.

3) Kenwood R-5000 - It's a high quality receiver that does everything pretty well, and it easily tuned in to this conversation. The audio quality is fine, but just a tad worse than the R-1000.

2) Drake 2-B - This old tube receiver is incredible, especially when you consider it is more than 60 years old. I believe mine was built in 1962. Unlike the newer receivers, you have to know something about the controls before you can use it, the passband and the preselector have to be properly adjusted. However, once she is tuned in it sounds like the hams are sitting in the room next to you.

1) Kenwood R-820 - Even better audio than the Drake 2-B, an outstanding SSB receiver, made way back in 1978. It has all kinds of controls to peak up the signal, including an IF shift and receiver incremental tuning (RIT), plus the optional 2.4 kHz SSB filter. It does a terrific job overall and was the winner of the shootout.

Obviously, this was a very informal test and it wasn't a very fair comparison. The three top finishers were on an outdoor antenna, which was a huge advantage, but even that didn't help the last place DX-160. Also, the top two were designed as amateur radio receivers, made specifically to listen to hams, which wasn't a top design priority with the other six receivers. Therefore, don't read too much into any of this, but hopefully some of you find it interesting.

 

[pb_lonny]

That is very interesting and is the best way to test radios, in use...

 

[K0WWX]

As a short follow-up to the shootout, I have two other SSB receivers that I could have included, but that weren't set up to use that night.

The first was the Grundig Satellit 700, which I bought new somewhere around 1993. The Tecsun PL-990X obviously copied its styling, and I'd rate the two radios as about equivalent for SSB reception. The Grundig is much larger and has much better audio, but as the Tecsun has better tuning resolution, 10 Hz as opposed to 100 Hz, and seems to pick signals out of the noise almost as well. Used 700s often come up for sale for about the same price as 990X. The Tecsun is far more portable, and buying new is less risky than buying a 30-year old set, but both are good SSB receivers and some might prefer the Grundig.

The other radio I excluded is the AirSpy HF+ Discovery SDR, which is a fantastic receiver. Its not currently connected to its own antenna, but instead is connected to my TS-590SG transceiver as a panadaptor. Passed on past results, the AirSpy would probably have won the shootout, or in the worst case, have come in second. I'll always have a soft spot for standalone radios, but I highly recommend the AirSpy as an HF receiver.

 

[ka3jjz]

Have you got a Belka or know someone who does? It would be very interesting to have a shootout with that radio in the mix

Mike

 

[K0WWX]

Have you got a Belka or know someone who does? It would be very interesting to have a shootout with that radio in the mix

Mike

No, I have thought many times about getting a Belka, but haven't acquired one yet. I agree that it would be interesting to include, especially seeing how well it would fare with just the telescopic whip. Everything I've read suggests it would do well.

I'm also interested in the Malahit DSP2 with the V2.4 firmware after watching some of the YouTube videos.

I received an April Fools Day email from Airspy a couple years ago showing a portable Airspy in a case with a display. It was a joke, of course, but it would be nice if they actually offered one of those. If done right it might dominate the HF portable market.

 

[Boombox]

I had good luck on SSB with my DX-160. The key was letting it warm up, and also moving the BFO to the right or left (depending on whether you were listening for USB or LSB), which seemed to sharpen the passband and separate the signals more. This method worked even in the 1990s when bands like 20M had a lot more crowding of signals. I still have mine, but only use it for periodic MW DXing, as I don't presently have the right antenna set up to get the most out of it.

The DX-160 will drift, and it is tricky tuning it if you're not used to it.

Maybe try DXing MW with it next time. The 160 is pretty stable on that band, and performs fairly well. I used to hear Hawaii and Chicago stations with it, just using an 80 ft wire, back in the 80's, and dial readout isn't much of a problem being that with MW and analog dials you're counting the channels as you tune through them anyway.

RE: the R-1000: that was a dream receiver for years.... just never had the money to buy one. Got an FRG-7 instead.

 

[Engine104]

RE: the R-1000: that was a dream receiver for years.... just never had the money to buy one. Got an FRG-7 instead.

I just recently sold my R-1000. It was on consignment at HRO for several months and somebody ended up with a heck of a deal. It sold for around $140, which is crazy considering it was in amazing condition for a radio that old. Oh well...

 

[bearcatrp]

No, I have thought many times about getting a Belka, but haven't acquired one yet. I agree that it would be interesting to include, especially seeing how well it would fare with just the telescopic whip. Everything I've read suggests it would do well.

I'm also interested in the Malahit DSP2 with the V2.4 firmware after watching some of the YouTube videos.

I received an April Fools Day email from Airspy a couple years ago showing a portable Airspy in a case with a display. It was a joke, of course, but it would be nice if they actually offered one of those. If done right it might dominate the HF portable market.

If we were close enough, would bring my belka and my lan IQ to compare. Would have been a good comparison. To late though. I sold my belka. The best HF receiver I have owned. I just enjoy a waterfall display so my LAN IQ took over HF duties. Sold my R8600 last month. Was a great receiver too. But enjoy sitting in my recliner while scanning the frequencies instead of sitting at a desk. Getting old sucks so might as well be comfortable while enjoying the hobby.

 

[K0WWX]

I had good luck on SSB with my DX-160. The key was letting it warm up, and also moving the BFO to the right or left (depending on whether you were listening for USB or LSB), which seemed to sharpen the passband and separate the signals more. This method worked even in the 1990s when bands like 20M had a lot more crowding of signals. I still have mine, but only use it for periodic MW DXing, as I don't presently have the right antenna set up to get the most out of it.

The DX-160 will drift, and it is tricky tuning it if you're not used to it.

Maybe try DXing MW with it next time. The 160 is pretty stable on that band, and performs fairly well. I used to hear Hawaii and Chicago stations with it, just using an 80 ft wire, back in the 80's, and dial readout isn't much of a problem being that with MW and analog dials you're counting the channels as you tune through them anyway.

RE: the R-1000: that was a dream receiver for years.... just never had the money to buy one. Got an FRG-7 instead.

I wanted a DX-160 back in the 70s, used to go to RS to look at it, but like most high school kids, couldn't afford it. The one that I have now was bought used in the 1990s, so I've owned it for a long time and have a lot of experience with it. I've always like the way it looks, and have had some success with it at times, but never have thought of it as a good receiver. I suppose it was a decent value when new, because even though it seemed expensive back then and was the most expensive in the RS lineup, it was a very low end radio by communication receiver standards.

The DX-160 was listed at $179.95 in the 1979 RS catalog. For comparison, I just flipped though some 1979 issues of QST and 73 on-line to check what other receivers cost that year.

Kenwood's low-end receiver was the R-300 at $279, or $100 more than the DX-160. Never tried one, but would guess from what I've read that it would outperform the DX-160.

The FRG-7, which I don't currently own but have a lot of experience with, was $370. A good radio.

The R-1000 was $100 more at $470, but it's PLL design was so much easier to use than the Wadley loop design of the FRG-7.

The R-820 was $1,099, or about 6X the cost of a DX-160.

The Drake R-7, which I've never owned, was even more expensive at $1,295. But it was general coverage and the R-820 only has limited coverage of the shortwave broadcast bands.

It's a lot of fun looking at those old ads, especially when you consider how many of the old rigs are still around.

 

[JeffChells]

LOL there's a funny story in the "WebSDR Handbook" ebook, in which the author did not like the single sideband reception on his DX-160 and patched in a mechanical filter. Then he and hated it more because of the passband ripple and oscillator drift.

I was able to enjoy some time with the Drake R7 and cannot imagine anything being much better at sideband. It was wonderful. Maybe the Kenwood 870 sounds better. Certainly the modern SDRs can be configured for any filter passband an op could want, and they don't drift. That puts better gear just a little ahead of the R7 in terms of listening experience.