[TenTec] RX366

[Barry N1EU]

Sorry James, but the degradation in general coverage is more than
"very little" and "barely discernible", per my previously posted test
results.

73, Barry N1EU

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Richards <jrichards at k8jhr.com> wrote:
>> 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  ---------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec