Wideband receiver vs. Scanner Advice sought (for listening to ham radio)

[Knuckle_head_Ouch]

I love listening to ham radio when I fall asleep. Problem is, my scanner set-up (old handheld RS pro-46/and 20-176 antenna) doesn't pull in enough communication when I really need it (when all the repeaters around here go quiet late at night).
I may buy the good Radio Shack pro-2096 Base scanner, but is there an advantage of having a Wide Band Receiver over a scanner? I hear, the best way to listen to ham radio is to buy a ham radio, and not a scanner because it pulls in more signal-- then I came across a wide band receiver. Never heard of them before except till now.
In order for me to listen to the ham radio at the far left of the dial, must I get a large antenna that differs from my 20-176?

 

[majoco]

Need a bit more information. Which ham bands do you want to listen to? Frequency bands 144-148MHz and 432Mhz or the HF 80/40/20meter bands? Scanners which say they cover down to HF bands usually have poor performance down there and don't usually decode SSB transmissions. I don't really understand what you mean by "doesn't pull in enough communication". Scanners don't really get many signals beyond your antenna horizon. A "wideband" receiver (I assume you mean a communications HF receiver) receives worldwide if you have it on the right frequency at the right time, but your reception of local traffic will be very little - and you'll need a long wire antenna.

 

[Knuckle_head_Ouch]

listen to 440 & 144 mhz primarily, though never listened in the range of 1.8 mhz - 28 mhz and am excited to. Don't know if it is expensive to get a radio that can pick up all the above frequencies and what antenna's are needed to obtain transmissions on the lower MHZ.
Don't even know if there is any activity on those lower bands-- I am accustomed to 144/440 but is 220 pretty active? I'd imagine because the lower frequencies travel further, I can pick up more transmissions at night time, thus hopefully, always having something to listen to which is MY ULTIMATE GOAL.

 

[elocutionist]

For VHF and UHF listening (the 144/220/440 ham bands) as majoco said you won't typically receive anything beyond line of sight - so if the local hams are quiet at night I don't think you'll be able to hear anything more on those bands.

You may get some enjoyment listening to the HF bands with a receiver that can receive SSB signals, but bear in mind those bands are quite free-form and not strictly channelized like the VHF/UHF bands so it becomes more difficult to program specific frequencies. An HF receiver can be as simple as a world band radio that receives SSB, but you'll have few options for fine-tuning signals. A larger (and of course more expensive) HF receiver will give you more flexibility.

For receiving in the HF bands it would be best to put up a larger antenna than a regular telescoping scanner antenna. It can be inexpensive wire, but you'll want a fairly good length like majoco said.

 

[Knuckle_head_Ouch]

As I understand it, you can't program HF freq's like you can in the 144/440 range because they fluctuate much more.
Also, what I understand is that a long length of wire is needed if one is to listen to the freq's between 1.8-28 mhz. Is there an equation of the length of wire per freq?
Thank you for both of your replies.

 

[lanbergld]

If you enjoy listening to Hams, then you're thinking along the right lines by considering the shortwave bands. At night there's a whole lot more activity there -- especially between 3700 and 3999 kHz, lower sideband mode. And the conversations are far more interesting than what you hear on VHF.

A good wideband receiver for this is the Yaesu VR-5000. It receives very well on all bands. An effective antenna for the HF bands is simply a "slinky antenna", which you can buy on Ebay for about $15 or $20. When you get the antenna, snip-off the terminal alligator clip and remove 1/2" of insulation. Run this bare end right into (+) spring clip terminal on the back of the radio. You'll be good-to-go for listening to 80 meters.

Larry Lanberg
Richmond VA

 

[majoco]

I'm not too sure about the VR-5000 - the users on the Eham website haven't got a kind word for it. Anyway if you already own a scanner, why duplicate its capabilities? If you're not sure about getting a receiver for the HF bands, try something cheap and good to start off with. I was skeptical about the Chinese made Degen/Kaito/Redsun/Tecsun gear, but after reading quite a few reviews, bought a Degen (thats Kaito to you) 1103 and its a great little performer on its whip antenna and receives 100kHz to 30MHz AM,USB,LSB and the FM Broadcast bands very well. It's cheap too - Search for the Tquchina shop on EPay.

Others will recommend the Icom R75. If it's so good, why are there so many for sale on EPay?

 

[lanbergld]

I'm not too sure about the VR-5000 - the users on the Eham website haven't got a kind word for it.

Have you ever used it?

Its actually pretty good on HF, far better than the Degen/Kaito1103 (which I also had, got disgusted, salvaged the ferrite bar & threw the carcass in the trash). You have to understand why Eham reviewers say what they say about certain radios. A lot of them will buy a highly-touted model & for some strange reason expect it to be exactly like the model they used to own. They go ballistic when it isn't! If you read Eham reviews, you'll see some guys making a big stink that a certain switch is on the left side of the radio when they feel it should be on the right, or that the tuning knob doesn't feel as solid as the old model they had. Silly things like that.

The original poster mentioned wanting to listen to Hams on HF. He will get far better reception with a good wideband receiver (like a Yaesu VR-5000) than he will with one of those pocket-sized portables.

Take Eham reviews with a grain of salt. Or you'll be missing out on a lot of good things in radio.

Larry Lanberg
Richmond VA

 

[kb2vxa]

OK Knuckle Head let a ham set you straight, you're looking at the wrong end of the coax. Before you consider receivers, transceivers or even becoming a ham if you're interested consider a proper antenna. A scanner antenna (with the exception of certain discones) is optimized for the public service bands and the ham bands aren't really considered. With ham antennas quite the opposite is true BUT they DO bring in the public service/govt/mil bands quite well. What bands you want it to cover depends on activity on those bands, it varies from location to location so there is no point buying an antenna that covers a dead band. Point to consider, the more ham bands it covers the more other bands it will receive (some are next to and others between the ham bands) so look for a compromise that will cover what you want to listen to.

They come in all colors from basic little to no gain peanuts to high gain monsters, considering price you'll probably settle on something in between. For what it's worth before I moved and had to redesign my whole installation (presently I'm sans antennas) I used a high gain tri-band vertical for 2M/1.25M/70cM which translates to 146, 223 and 440MHz that gave me one HECK of a range and did a bang up job receiving public service, government and military bands too.

That being said it's time to check out the ham retailers' web sites and on line catalogs. Not knowing your needs but mostly because I refuse to do your homework I'll not make recommendations, you know off in the back of your head what you need so it's up to you to develop the thought while wandering the mall looking at all the goodies.

While you're there you may as well check out the coax, no sense having a good antenna if much of the signal gets lost in the pipe. If you have the "best" (;->) already if it ain't broke don't fix it BUT I'll bet you don't. Here recommendations are easy being less complicated than antenna selection, you need the lowest loss for the lowest price but with the latter nobody can help you but your short stubby fingers on the mouse. Ordinarily I say RG6-U quad shield gives the best bang for the buck but we're not talking receive only scanner installations here, one day you may get the urge to transmit so you need "transmitting coax" and really don't want to replace the whole run... twice. Loss wise Times Microwave LMR400 gives you 2.7dB per 100' @ 440MHz (that's the frequency you really want to look at) and while LMR600 and LMR800 give lower loss they are just a BIT pricey. Belden 9913 show 2.8dB which is a rather insignificant increase so it's worth consideration. There are some others but that's enough homework for one day, I'll let you complete the assignment.

Finally, when you get your new antenna up and the coax all connected (you'll need an adapter for the scanner but not a transceiver) you can donate your old stuff to the new kid down the block just starting out with his brand new portable Radio Shack "police radio walkie talkie" he found under the Christmas tree. Calling all cars, calling all cars, go to ____ and check out a report of a monkey on the roof. HUH?!?! Uhhh, that's what the caller said, a monkey with a big pole and a roll of wire in his hand.

 

[Knuckle_head_Ouch]

Larry, Thank you for the crash course in HF. You got me excited at the line: "And the conversations are far more interesting than what you hear on VHF." Sitting at home, on Saturday night with the fire going, and searching for the next toy that you recommend: The Yaesu VR-5000, which I know NOTHING about. $500 is a bit steep, but might be worth it.
----
Mojoco, I will search for the model you suggested on Epay and see what I come up with. The reviews of the Kaito 1103 are very positive and a great bang for the buck. The reason I was going to duplicate my capabilities was to improve them: My handheld Radio Shack pro-46 seems to not pick up the simplex conversations my mother's Radio Shack pro-2096 would. Yes, the antenna's are different, but that new Pro-2046 would pick up police/fire from 100 miles away! So it seemed to me, that a base unit would be more powerful and more sensitive in receiving frequencies across the dial--and then it was made apparent to me that there is more ham activity at the other end of the spectrum that neither Radio Shack scanner could extend to, thus my interest in a Wide-band receiver, though expensive.
--

 

[prcguy]

I have a VR5000 sitting in front of me and its one of the most susceptible receivers to overload I have ever owned on HF and VHF/UHF. It works ok and is reasonably sensitive with just a whip antenna for VHF/UHF and a length of wire for HF, but when connected to a real antenna outdoors this thing is useless.
prcguy

 

[Knuckle_head_Ouch]

And you, KB2VXA, Thank you. You hit the head of the nail perfectly. I do want to get my ham radio license (as of the last month) and having passed your knowledge onto me has saved much time and money-- so thank you, again. Ok, no more unintended flattery for you.
Yes, a high gain tri-band would be very smart, for receiving and transmitting. I assume such a beauty would pick up and receive 5x the communication as my RadShack 20-176 with the thin cheap coax (but it's 20' long, thus not too much loss.) It has three connectors on it (~2db loss each?), and goes to the portable Radio Shack "police radio walkie talkie". So much loss! This situation sounds viable.
On a side note, I was thinking about Bluetooth technology and such: I think having the guts of a transceiver on the antenna (sealed from the elements of nature) with a bluetooth link to the house might work out, where a box with buttons on it that does stuff, would talk with that box on the antenna-- no loss.

I am still excited about the exciting world of SSB though.

 

[Knuckle_head_Ouch]

prcguy, when you say "most susceptible receivers to overload", what does it do when you encounter a strong/local signal?

 

[prcguy]

prcguy, when you say "most susceptible receivers to overload", what does it do when you encounter a strong/local signal?

When connected to a good outdoor antenna my VR5000 picks up FM broadcast, paging and all sorts of signals where they don't belong. Using the internal attenuator helps but my ancient RS PRO-2004 works fine on the same antennas receiving the same frequencies with no interference or overload. On HF the VR5000 picks up AM broadcast band all over the HF bands when using a G5RV. I've taken the VR5000 camping and it works fine out in the boonies with good antennas but there are no strong signals to cause any trouble.
prcguy

 

[lanbergld]

I have a VR5000 sitting in front of me and its one of the most susceptible receivers to overload I have ever owned on HF and VHF/UHF. It works ok and is reasonably sensitive with just a whip antenna for VHF/UHF and a length of wire for HF, but when connected to a real antenna outdoors this thing is useless.
prcguy

As far as I know, KHO's intention is to enjoy listening to Hams on HF, not so much erecting the tallest antenna in the neighborhood. But maybe I read his post wrong. I only used external antennas with the VR-5000 and I had a great time.

With a Yaesu VR-5000, as compared to say a Kaito 1103, KHO can:

1. Easily tune in Hams on 80, 85 and 20 meters. On a Kaito 1103 he's going to have a heckuva time getting anything on any of those bands. And if he does get something on sideband it'll be loaded with hiss.
2. Do some search-scanning & monitoring of VHF/UHF bands, which of course the Kaito 1103 does not cover. In fact he could easily switch back & forth between HF and VHF Hams.
3. He can toy with the numerous features the VR-5000 has, including the band scope.

I'm not saying that the Yaesu VR-5000 is the world's ultimate receiver, if anyone's taking it that way. But I've been fortunate to've enjoyed more than a few rigs in my time. The VR-5000 is pretty darn good and it covers a lot of ground. I honestly believe he'd really enjoy that radio.

Larry Lanberg
Richmond VA

 

[prcguy]

If you use a VR5000 within limits it does a lot of things, but for the price it should have less limits. On HF SSB the frequency drifts as much as +/- 200Hz and that really annoys me.
prcguy

As far as I know, KHO's intention is to enjoy listening to Hams on HF, not so much erecting the tallest antenna in the neighborhood. But maybe I read his post wrong. I only used external antennas with the VR-5000 and I had a great time.

With a Yaesu VR-5000, as compared to say a Kaito 1103, KHO can:

1. Easily tune in Hams on 80, 85 and 20 meters. On a Kaito 1103 he's going to have a heckuva time getting anything on any of those bands. And if he does get something on sideband it'll be loaded with hiss.
2. Do some search-scanning & monitoring of VHF/UHF bands, which of course the Kaito 1103 does not cover. In fact he could easily switch back & forth between HF and VHF Hams.
3. He can toy with the numerous features the VR-5000 has, including the band scope.

I'm not saying that the Yaesu VR-5000 is the world's ultimate receiver, if anyone's taking it that way. But I've been fortunate to've enjoyed more than a few rigs in my time. The VR-5000 is pretty darn good and it covers a lot of ground. I honestly believe he'd really enjoy that radio.

Larry Lanberg
Richmond VA

 

[majoco]

About all you guys have said so far is that a $500 radio performs slightly better than a $69.95 one. One doesn't need to be a genius to sort that out. KHO has no experience of HF operation, bands, propogation or anything like that. I don't want to see him waste $500 on a radio only to find that the promised 'excitement' is not for him after all - and if he does spend $69.95 on a Kaito/Degen 1103 he will still have a useable portable radio that knocks the spots off other radios UNDER $100.

 

[kb2vxa]

OUCH! "On a side note, I was thinking about Bluetooth technology and such: I think having the guts of a transceiver on the antenna (sealed from the elements of nature) with a bluetooth link to the house might work out, where a box with buttons on it that does stuff, would talk with that box on the antenna-- no loss."

Woah hossie, I said WOAH! (Yosemite Sam?) An idea (more like a pipe dream with some really good stuff in the pipe) but unless you're going up a 1,000' tower 200' from the shack coax will do, methinks you don't even need hard line for your stuff. Today's ham rigs and my IC-706Mk2G is one of them employ CAT technology, run a cable and operate it from your computer. We're getting off the beam here but while I'm at it there is a 2M repeater in Lawrence Township NJ with it's antenna at the 900' level of the WNJT TV tower and even with the best available hard line the 40W output is only 2W at the antenna. It covers 3 states and is 5&9 here, I often wonder what it would be like if a repeater could be mounted on a tower.

Here's a thought now that the antenna information has sunk in, take a look at one of those all-in-one wonder box ham rigs. No you don't have to break the bank, my Mark costs just about the same as a high end scanner and does just about everything but wipe my... monitor off after reading some posts around here. Just as an example look it up on line, get a firm grip on your jaw to avoid bruising your chin though. There are plenty like it so I'll say no more, you have today's homework assignment so get to it. Oh, just to get some ideas you may as well start here but again get a grip and some paper towels while you're at it, your keyboard will thank you.

http://www.hamradio.com/