FIRE321FIGHTER1985
Member
Could someone point me in the right direction of a good SW receiver that will not break the bank.
Interested in a short wave reciever
- Thread starter FIRE321FIGHTER1985
- Start date
- Status
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
You're really not telling us much here. Portable or SDR (desktops died out a while ago)? What about your antenna situation? Can you put something outside or are you, as so many are, stuck with no antennas clauses in your home...
Mike
Mike
I'd like to find one as well!
From what looking around I've done so far (which hasn't been too intense, I admit) the desktop models seem a bit better (with features, ease of operation, etc.) but the prices (at least what I was used to in the past) are pretty outrageous. For example many decades ago I had a Sony ICF-2001 (the updated model was the ICF-2010) which went for about $300. When I checked on current Sony offerings, their one and only model went for $899.- Other manufacturers are starting at about $500.-- or so as a minimum.
That got me thinking: in the $500.-- range (give or take a little bit) I can get an amateur ("ham") radio transceiver for the same price, and these transceivers typically have full-coverage receivers. (So I'm basically getting a free transmitter out of it.) So I'm starting to think maybe I'll just wait until I re-build/update my ham radio station...Have you considered getting your ham license?
From what looking around I've done so far (which hasn't been too intense, I admit) the desktop models seem a bit better (with features, ease of operation, etc.) but the prices (at least what I was used to in the past) are pretty outrageous. For example many decades ago I had a Sony ICF-2001 (the updated model was the ICF-2010) which went for about $300. When I checked on current Sony offerings, their one and only model went for $899.- Other manufacturers are starting at about $500.-- or so as a minimum.
That got me thinking: in the $500.-- range (give or take a little bit) I can get an amateur ("ham") radio transceiver for the same price, and these transceivers typically have full-coverage receivers. (So I'm basically getting a free transmitter out of it.) So I'm starting to think maybe I'll just wait until I re-build/update my ham radio station...Have you considered getting your ham license?
How about the Tecsun PL 368? Haven't gotten my hands on one yet but the reviews are mostly good & it definitely won't "break the bank" Good video review here
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
I have posted several links in this forum for reviews of upcoming (and available) portable radios - don't limit yourself to just looking at current messages.
However regardless of what you get - be it a Belka, a ham transceiver, Sangean etc. nothing can perform well without a good antenna, hopefully outdoors and away from the home. Our forum for that is here...
forums.radioreference.com
and we have a couple of wikis on the subject of antennas...
wiki.radioreference.com
wiki.radioreference.com
In addition we have an extensive wiki on SDRs...
wiki.radioreference.com
Mike
However regardless of what you get - be it a Belka, a ham transceiver, Sangean etc. nothing can perform well without a good antenna, hopefully outdoors and away from the home. Our forum for that is here...
Receive Antennas (below 30MHz)
For all topics related to receive antennas used on HF, MW, LW, etc. For transmit antennas use the Amateur Radio Antennas forum.
and we have a couple of wikis on the subject of antennas...
HF Antennas - The RadioReference Wiki
Loops - The RadioReference Wiki
In addition we have an extensive wiki on SDRs...
Software Defined Radios - The RadioReference Wiki
Mike
tuihill
Member
Lots of reviews at Reviews – The SWLing Post
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
In addition take a look thru past threads on this board for links to reviews on the new Tecsuns., Sangean ATS909X2 and Belka DX DSP radios....Mike
Last edited:
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
And speaking of the Belka...
wiki.radioreference.com
Mike
Belka DX and DSP Receivers - The RadioReference Wiki
Mike
majoco
Stirrer
Don't forget that many modern-ish ham desktop transceivers have excellent general coverage receivers in them with more bells-n-whistles than you'll ever use - it's not illegal to own one, just illegal to transmit - so if you disconnect the microphone you'll be good to go.
Lots of older 'anchors' are still in use and give great service - I still use my R-71 from the 1980s. They are pennies on the dollar now.
Paul-W
Member
I’ve come to the same conclusion as well. Looking at the prices for some receivers, it makes more sense to buy a HF transceiver and use it as a shortwave receiver.
Even if you've got a license to transmit, a lot of these radios (especially the "top end" ones) still have more bells and whistles needed in typical operation. (I blame it on advertising departments that charge ten dollars for a fifty cent upgrade convincing us that we absolutely need this upgrade
)ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
I don't entirely agree. If the radio has things like passband tuning, notches, IF shift, DSP, etc. It takes some skill and practice to learn when and how to use these capabilities. It is the difference between listening to the radio vs. using it to it's full potential. Is it necessary to have the bells and whistles? No, certainly not. But it's nice to have if you do.
The main thing is to determine whether the bells and whistles will provide a significant enhancement. I make extensive use of the bells and whistles on the R75, especially the passband tuning, the selectable IF filters and the very fine tuning steps, but I've found that my portable can pull in stations nearly as well, and is more pleasant to listen to.
A lot depends on the kind of station being monitored, whether it's digital data, where frequency accuracy can be critical, sideband voice, where the voice pitch should sound natural, or just a shortwave broadcaster in AM mode. Sometimes, if I'm overly fussy, I wind up paying more attention to the radio's settings than to the station's content.
Similarly, the early tube-type TV sets had a lot of people constantly adjusting things like the vertical hold, brightness, etc., and not getting much out of the programs they were watching. That was "fiddle vision".
A lot depends on the kind of station being monitored, whether it's digital data, where frequency accuracy can be critical, sideband voice, where the voice pitch should sound natural, or just a shortwave broadcaster in AM mode. Sometimes, if I'm overly fussy, I wind up paying more attention to the radio's settings than to the station's content.
Similarly, the early tube-type TV sets had a lot of people constantly adjusting things like the vertical hold, brightness, etc., and not getting much out of the programs they were watching. That was "fiddle vision".
My biggest problem is no longer having the room for serious antennas for my listening post so all my good stuff is put up for now. New stuff is RX888 SDR and looking at German Malachite SDR Shortwave Radio receiver. On the workbench now is a full blown preselector to go with these.
Antennas are the highly amplified miniwhips and loops for indoors. that introduces problems to overcome.
At least I will still have my SWL functionality. Nice thing with the RX88 and Malachite, I can pack either (both) into a tote with my tablet for the camping thing away from all the urban noise. 120' antenna wire strung in the trees with a coupler and ready to go.
Antennas are the highly amplified miniwhips and loops for indoors. that introduces problems to overcome.
At least I will still have my SWL functionality. Nice thing with the RX88 and Malachite, I can pack either (both) into a tote with my tablet for the camping thing away from all the urban noise. 120' antenna wire strung in the trees with a coupler and ready to go.
W0JOG
Member
My first SWL radio was a Hallicrafters S-38. Then followed various up to the Hallicrafters Sx-110. It was my first ham receiver too, using a WWII surplus BC-453 150KC aircraft receiver with its antenna looped around the IF output in the SX-110 to make a Q-5'r for detection of SSB signals. Worked for me. Antenna for all was an 80-meter dipole about 15-feeet in the air. Worked for many years until solid state became firmly entrenched. I then upgraded to a Kenwood TS-430. But bear in mind, ham band rigs are peaked for the ham bands and won't perform as well in the spaces between and below them. Still, tubes are available for most old rigs and they are a heck of a lot cheaper than new rigs wth all their bells and whistles. Still, I do use my ham-IC-718 for occasional SWL ing and it does work very well.
73 de W0JOG
73 de W0JOG
ka3jjz
Wiki Admin Emeritus
Why would the loops cause you issues, Merlin? Mike
- Status
