On 5/18/2013 8:42 PM, Rsoifer@aol.com wrote:
Thanks for doing the test. Sounds like John Henry was right in not
classifying the RX366 as general coverage.
That is not how I read Mr. Henry's comment.
I believe he said, "Some very astute ears will notice
the difference between the original receiver ...and the
RX366 in AM broadcast reception or SWL or WWB, but
a lot most won't..."
I believe John Henry said the difference in general
coverage performance is barely discernible. He did not
say it was a lousy general coverage receiver, just that
it is a better ham band receiver than it is general
coverage receiver, but the difference in general
coverage is only apparent to the most critical ear.
I take it one will see substantial improvement in
ham band reception, but very little degradation in
general coverage reception.
Just MY take, anyway.
-------------------- K8JHR ---------------------------
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|