[TenTec] RX366

[Richards]

> On 5/18/2013 8:42 PM, Rsoifer at 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  ---------------------------