"Al Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist gang
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi dt,
If you want to listen to AM, why not use a receiver that was designed
primarily to receive it, not one that was primarily designed for SSB? It
works in both directions, it's a bit of a job to modify an AM rcvr for
SSB, & vice versa. The Drakes are great at what they're designed to do,
SSB/CW, the SP-600's and R-388's, etc, are great at what they're designed
to do, AM, & ok on CW.
Just another grouchy opinion, maybe worth abt what you paid for it.
73,
Al, W8UT
New Bern, NC
BoatAnchors appreciated here
http://www.thecompendium.net/radio/
http://www.hammarlund.info
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Toepfer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <drakelist@www.zerobeat.net>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: [drakelist] QUESTION S: R-4 and 2-B IF bandwidth filtering
>
> David Toepfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the drakelist
gang
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> R-4 questions:
>
> The Drake R-4(a/b/c) seems universally regarded as a file receiver. It
seems
> bets regarded by CW and SSB users, and less so by AM users. At 4.8kHz
max IF
> bandwidth it is usable for AM, but does not seem to lend itself to
current
> practices of AM users.
>
> Does anyone have any experience at opening up the R-4(a/b/c) IF to
> 6/7/8/10/12kHz more in keeping with current practices?
>
> Would the R-4B tend to lend itself better to such a modification because
of
> what I believe is it's LC IF filters as opposed to the crystal filters
used in
> the R-4C?
>
> ----
>
> 2-B questions:
>
> The Drake 2-B seems even less well regarded by AM users. At 3.6kHz max
IF
> bandwidth its use beyond simple communication via AM seems limited.
>
> Similarly, does anyone have any experience at opening up the 2-B IF to
> 4.8/6/7/8/10/12kHz more in keeping with current practices?
>
> Similarly, would the 2-B tend to lend itself better to such a
modification
> because of what I believe is it's LC IF filters?
>
> ----
>
> R-4/2-B questions:
>
> Or, is it perhaps a simple matter of limits imposed or at least evident
earlier
> in the IF chain preclude aspirations of such receiver modifications?
>
> dt
> .
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Behalf of David Toepfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Submissions: drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
> Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist
in body
> Hopelessly Lost: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
> Zerobeat Web Page: http://www.zerobeat.net
> Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net http://www.tlchost.net/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Behalf of "Al Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Submissions: drakelist@www.zerobeat.net
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe drakelist in body
Hopelessly Lost: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message
Zerobeat Web Page: http://www.zerobeat.net
Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net http://www.tlchost.net/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
