Shortwave listening and everything radio including reviews, broadcasting, ham radio, field operation, DXing, maker kits, travel, emergency gear, events, and more
After publishing my initial review of the Sangean ATS-405 on July 25, I contacted Sangean and requested a sample radio for comparison purposes. Back story: there were some receiver performance issues that I suspected may have been tied to my particular ATS-405 unit. Sangean kindly dispatched another ATS-405 which I received last week. The following is an update to my initial ATS-405 review.
In truth, there were two main reasons I wanted another unit to compare to my initial review radio:
I wanted to see if the new unit showed improved performance–sensitivity, selectivity, and, specifically, noise floor–in comparison with the first review unit tested
I noted strong DSP “birdies” (noises) on 800 and 1600 kHz on the test model, while several of our readers commented that their ‘405s did not feature birdies
Shortwave sensitivity/selectivity and noise
I noted in my initial review that the initial ATS-405 had an ever-present noise, a sort of low-volume static hiss. The noise floor, while not high, certainly seemed to be higher than other comparable shortwave portables, and was most noticeable when tuned to marginal/weak stations. I suspect many listeners may not notice it unless they compare it with other portables.
Fortunately, my new review unit’s noise floor seems to be slightly lower than that of my initial review unit. [Perhaps this unit’s board is better soldered–?] The noise is still there, but can be better mitigated by judiciously using narrow filters and the three-position audio tone control.
I suspect this is a noise somewhere in the audio amplification chain, because I find it less noticeable with headphones, and more pronounced via the ATS-405’s internal speaker.
In terms of sensitivity and selectivity on the shortwave bands, I believe my new unit is identical to that of the initial review unit. That is to say, the ATS-405 is not an especially sensitive shortwave receiver, but fairly average, and thus will fit the bill for most but not for the discriminating weak-signal hunter. Frankly, even my $46 Tecsun PL-310ET does a better job of pulling in weak stations.
I’ve tried tinkering with the AGC settings and soft mute–very cool features!–in an attempt to improve sensitivity, but alas, these only help the quality and stability of the received signal.
Birdies
Immediately after opening the box of the new ATS-405 sample, I popped in a fresh set of AA batteries and tuned the Sangean to 1600 kHz AM. [If you read my initial review, I noted a strong DSP birdie on 1600 and (to a lesser degree) on 800 kHz].
At first listen, I was happy to note that the new unit lacks the wild DSP noise that overwhelmed my favorite local station on 1600 kHz.
As I listened more carefully, though, I did note a metronomic “chick” sound that was also present but partially buried in the noise on my initial ATS-405.
Below, I’ve embedded audio comparing the two receivers:
Initial review unit:
New review unit:
Listening to these samples, I realize I may have had the filter set to the middle position on the first sample and the wide setting on the second (hence, the brighter tone).
To further demonstrate the difference between the two, I made this short video; I start with my initial review unit, then switch to the new review unit provided by Sangean:
Note that this was recorded at least 100 feet from my house on the tailgate of my pickup truck. DSP birdies on 800 kHz sounded very much like the 1600 kHz sample, save the noise level on the latter is slightly lower and there are no broadcast stations in the background.
None of my other portables have digital noises or birdies on 800 and 1600 kHz.
So, the bad news: I do still hear a noticeable (and slightly annoying) internally-generated noise on the new review unit. The good news: it isn’t as objectionable as that on my initial review unit.
While the new ‘405 review sample seems to perform better than the initial ‘405 sample, I find the discrepancy somewhat marginal, especially since I spend the bulk of my time on the shortwave and mediumwave bands.
I’m not a fan of production runs where units vary so greatly from one to another, making accurate testing difficult. Therefore it’s quite possible you might receive a unit that performs better than those I tested…but unfortunately, the opposite is also true.
So, if you’re a Sangean fan, if you don’t mind the birdies on mediumwave, and if you mostly listen to strong shortwave stations, you may entertain purchasing an ATS-405. The keypad layout is almost identical to previous Sangean models.
To be clear, of course, this radio’s negatives above have been viewed under a microscope; the ATS-405 is not a “bad” receiver, it’s just not that exceptional. Other than the added mute/AGC/squelch features, when compared to its predecessors, it’s really not a better iteration.
Many thanks to Jarkko Mäkivaara with Siru Innovations who writes with the following update:
We have added some new features to our SDR20 portable radio!
Please see the video [below] for a demonstration of the following features:
* Smooth zoom in FFT/waterfall view
* Adaptive menu
* Frequency memory with snapshot pictures of signals
* Sliding effect between views
* Keyboard beep
* FM broadcast receiver
* Example of Ham radio transceiver with Narrow-FM mode
You also might got the email sent out Today where this is in HTML format.
Many thanks to SWLing Post reader, Paul, who commented with a link to the new Degen DE221 “ultralight” radio: http://ebay.to/1fKWZ2m
Paul’s link lead to the discovery of several new Degen models, in fact. Many of the new models have the same form factor–and a slightly different model number–from their predecessors.
There may be even more 2015 Degen models than those I listed here and, in fact, they could’ve been on the market for a while.
I’ve already purchased the Degen DE221 for review since its predecessor, the DE321, was an acceptable radio for the $20 price tag. The DE321’s analog dial made for very vague tuning, however, so I’m curious if the DE221’s new digital display will be a worthy improvement. At this point, I don’t plan to review any of the other models above.
Just last week, I received the new Sangean ATS-405 on loan from Universal Radio. Though I’ve only had the radio for a week, I thought I’d share a few un-boxing photos (by request) and my initial impressions/review of this radio.
Unboxing
The ATS-405 comes with a thick owner’s manual (in five languages), a 7.5 volt AC adapter, and a soft radio case. The package does not contain rechargeable batteries nor a clip-on wire antenna (like many Tecsun products do, for example).
Overall, the packaging accommodates the radio and accessories efficiently and would probably ship safely even if the carrier doesn’t handle it with particular care.
The first thing I noticed about the ATS-405 is the near-identical design and layout Sangean has used in their design of past shortwave radios. If you’re a Sangean fan, you’ll find all of the functions, buttons, and labels pretty much in the same place; virtually no learning curve.
Performance: first impressions
After unboxing the ATS-405, I installed a fresh set of AA batteries in it and turned on the radio…
Display
Like most Sangeans, the display is crisp, clear and can easily be read straight-on or at low angles, like when the radio is resting on its back stand, for example. If you look at the display from a higher angle, however, you’ll find that the LCD digits nearly disappear.
Back-lighting is perfect: it’s soft and consistent across the display, very much like the ATS-909X.
Audio
Audio from the internal speaker is good. It’s in the same league with most similarly-priced competitors.
Receiver performance
Keeping in mind that I’ve only logged a few days of listening time on the ATS-405, I do have some initial impressions about receiver performance across the bands:
Right side view (click to enlarge)
FM
On a positive note, I believe FM performance is quite good. Perhaps not in the same league with my PL-660 or PL-680, but still the Sangean offers above-average sensitivity. I was able to pick up my distant benchmark FM stations with ease, though to help with the signal lock, I had to switch from stereo to mono reception.
AM/Mediumwave
AM reception is a bit of a mixed bag. I find that the ‘405’s overall sensitivity and selectivity are quite good for broadcast band listening.
When I first tuned around on the AM broadcast band, however, I found the noise floor a little too high. Regardless of whether I was tuned in to a station or not, there was an ever-present high-pitched hiss, like static. It was quite disappointing, especially since I read a review by Jay Allen that really complimented the AM performance on the ATS-405.
I trust Jay’s reviews, however, so I promptly contacted him. Jay pointed out that the problem may be that I was listening in the default “wide” filter setting on AM. And indeed, he was right–though I had changed filter settings a few times while tuned to local stations, I had moved it back to wide and didn’t make note of this. (The ATS-405, by the way, has three filter settings: wide, medium and narrow.)
Left side view (click to enlarge)
But the wide setting is really too wide, and was certainly the source for the bulk of the high-pitched hiss I heard. The best filter setting for most broadcast band listening is the middle position, which sounds like a 5-6 kHz filter. In the middle position, noise is decreased significantly. I also believe selecting the “music” audio tone setting helps dissipate some of the noise.
Regarding the noise floor: to be clear, I still feel like the noise level is slightly more noticeable, to my ear, on the ATS-405 than on the PL-660, PL-600, and PL-310ET when band-scanning or weak signal listening. This is most likely some internally-generated noise that somehow still meets Sangean’s engineering spec.
Local AM stations sound fantastic, and the ATS-405 can detect all of my benchmarks. AM audio fidelity is better than that of my PL-660 and, even, PL-310ET. When locked on a local station, the noise floor also seems to disappear. For some reason, I even find that the ATS-405 does a better job receiving local AM stations from indoors–even near noisy electronics–than other sub-$100 portables with which I’m familiar.
Uh-oh, birdies
The most disappointing discovery I made on the Sangean’s AM broadcast band is that it has DSP birdies. Birdies are internally-generated noises resulting from the outputs of the oscillators that form part of the DSP receiver circuit. While almost all receivers do have birdies somewhere in the receiver’s reception range, radio engineers try to keep them out of the way of the important parts of the band.
Unfortunately, my ATS-405 has strong DSP birdies on 800 and 1600 kHz. This is a big negative for me, since my favorite regional AM broadcast station is located on 1600 kHz (WTZQ). Rather than attempting to describe what the birdies sound like, here are a few audio clips that will give you an idea–I start with 1350 AM, which has no birdies and is representative of good AM reception:
WZGM 1350 kHz (broadcast sample with no birdie):
800 kHz (birdie on frequency with no broadcast signal):
WTZQ 1600 kHz (birdie on broadcast signal):
The ATS-405’s birdies almost sound like a jamming signal on 1600 kHz. Indeed, if this station were only located on a different frequency, I’m sure it would be quite audible on this radio…too bad.
Birdies on 800 and 1600 kHz may very well be deal-breakers for many of us. Again, since one of my favorite regional independent broadcasters is on 1600 kHz, it’s a deal-breaker for me.
Jay specifically mentioned a lack of birdies on the AM broadcast band in his review. It could very well be that he doesn’t hear them on his particular receiver–variations in quality control on a radio production line are certainly a real phenomena (the Grundig G3 is a case in point). This could indicate that some units may have pronounced birdies while others don’t. If you purchase an ATS-405, I would check to see if your unit has birdies after powering it up.
When I contacted an engineer for Sangean North America, and described my listening experience, he confirmed that he believed these are, indeed, DSP birdies. I may ask Sangean if they can send another ATS-405 for comparison.
On a more positive note, I checked harmonics in the HF/shortwave bands and heard no DSP birdies there.
Country of origin?
Bottom view with charge and keylock mechanical switches (click to enlarge)
One additional question I posed to Sangean: where is the ATS-405 made? One reader told me the radios are produced in both Taiwan and China. Thinking variations in quality control may be accounted for by two different production lines, I checked my radio to see where it was made. Unfortunately, my unit has no mention of country of origin; not on the radio, the box, the manual, behind the battery cover, nor on the back stand. It’s possible it could be marked internally, but I didn’t want to take apart a receiver I’ve been loaned.
Sangean came back with a firm answer:
“I can confirm that the ATS-405, along with all our radios, are manufactured in China. We have an office in Taipei for engineering, sales, marketing and customer support.”
Not a big surprise here; I expected China was the country of origin.
To sum up AM performance: if you aren’t bothered by the birdies on 800 and 1600 kHz, or if your unit isn’t producing them, you’ll find the ATS-405 a capable little AM broadcast band receiver.
Shortwave
Our HF propagation conditions since last Friday (when I first turned on the ATS-405) have been poor. Other than a few short band openings, I’ve struggled to hear anything other than the normal blow-torch broadcasters we hear in North America. Still, bad propagation conditions are actually good for reviewing some aspects of a shortwave receiver, so I used the opportunity.
In terms of sensitivity on the shortwave bands, I think the ATS-405 is mediocre. It lags behind my Tecsun PL-660, PL-600, PL-310ET, and CC Skywave. Adding a clip-on wire antenna to the telescoping whip (there is no aux antenna port) does help in terms of sensitivity.
Since I do most of my listening on the shortwave bands, this, too, is a deal-breaker for me. If you primarily listen to stronger shortwave stations, or spend most of your time on the FM/AM bands, then you might still consider the ATS-405.
The ATS-405’s selectivity seems to be on par with my other DSP-based portables. In truth, though, band conditions have been so unfavorable, I don’t feel like I’ve had ample opportunity to test selectivity. I’ll likely follow up this initial review with an update.
And as on medium wave, the noise floor on the shortwave bands seems a little high to me–especially with the filter set to the “wide” position.
Cool, innovative features
While I clearly haven’t been wowed by the ATS-405’s shortwave performance, I have been more favorably impressed with some of its innovative features: specifically, the ability to control squelch, tuning mute, and soft mute.
Using the menu button (see image above), you can engage or disengage the tuning mute and soft mute by pressing the “2” or “3” buttons on the keypad, then using the tuning up/down buttons to toggle these features on and off. Squelch works the same way, using the “1” button and volume control to set the threshold.
This menu control works regardless whether the radio is turned on or off.
Of course, by using the menu button and the keypad, you can also control the ‘405’s tuning steps, AGC, clock, and backlighting functionality; each of these are marked in green next to the appropriate button on the keypad (see image above), a very useful feature.
I wish other radio manufacturers would give users the ability to control some of the DSP chip’s built-in functionality, as the ‘405 does with the muting–especially since over-active soft muting has been the downfall of several DSP-based radios. Thanks for trail-blazing, Sangean!
Summary
Invariably, all radios have strengths and weaknesses; here is a list of my notes from the moment I put the ATS-405 on the air:
Pros:
Improved features and controls:
Soft Mute
Tuning Mute
Squelch
AGC
Crisp, clear display
Good travel size, similar to the Grundig YB400
Good AM/mediumwave sensitivity
Three audio/tone settings: Music, Norm, and News
Good FM sensitivity
Dedicated mechanical switches for keylock, audio tone, FM stereo/mono, and charging.
Cons:
Lackluster shortwave sensitivity
DSP Birdies on 800 and 1600 kHz
Higher SW/AM noise floor (especially in wide filter setting)
No tuning wheel
No AUX antenna port
No shortwave SSB reception (AM only)
No audio line-out port
I’m going to hold onto the Sangean ATS-405 for a few more weeks, as I’d like to give it a more thorough test on the shortwave bands. I hope to follow up with a post offering a few representative recordings.
My nutshell opinion of the ATS-405 so far is that it’s a decent little radio with a lot of functionality and features for a rig in its price class. But overall, its performance seems to me rather mediocre. If you primarily listen to FM, you’ll be pleased. If you’re a mediumwave listener, you’ll be pleased only if you don’t mind the 800/1600 kHz DSP birdies. If you’re primarily a shortwave listener, you’ll need to carry a clip-on wire antenna to bring the sensitivity up to the level of similarly-priced receivers.
In short, I do want to like this radio unreservedly. But it appears that Sangean may need to pull up its socks on their quality control. Readers: please comment if you’ve purchased the ATS-405–I’m very curious to learn whether there are QC discrepancies in performance from one unit to the next.
PLEASE NOTE: After publishing this following review, Sangean kindly agreed to dispatch a second unit for comparison.
Many thanks to Jeff, over at the Herculodge for sharing information about the new Sangean PR-D19 AM/FM radio which is now available at Universal Radio and Amazon.
Keith Perron’s review of the new Sangean ATS-405 appeared in the last show of Media Network Plus. There is an archive of the show on the PCJ website for you to listen:
The review’s at the beginning of the episode and Keith had multiple complaints about performance, build quality and the radio’s overall engineering. I don’t remember him having anything positive to say about it. Sad because I had hoped this new Sangean would be better.
Thanks for the link, Mike. For what it’s worth Jay Allen was actually mostly impressed with the ATS-405.
I’ll receive an ATS-405 later this week; and I’m very interested to see how it compares to other portables like the Tecsun PL-310ET, CC Skywave, and Tecsun PL-660. I’ll certainly report on what I find.
Here’s the audio from the Media Network Plus review:
The following review originally appeared in the May 2015 issue of The Spectrum Monitor magazine.
Good things often come in small packages. But not all of these things are…well, affordable.
Ironically, earlier this year, just after I began to evaluate and review the superb TitanSDR Pro, a robust military-grade SDR, I was approached by the UK-based manufacturer of the SDRplay RSP software-defined radio and asked to review their receiver. I was instantly intrigued––and, truth be told, just a bit amused, considering the difference between these two receivers. And what, exactly, separates the SDRplay RSP from the TitanSDR? At least $1350.
The SDRplay RSP is one of the recent generation of economical wideband SDRs based upon innovative, inexpensive chipsets; in the RSP’s case, based upon the Mirics MSI3101 SDR chip, and a MSI001 tuner. Priced at a mere $149 US (plus shipping), the SDRplay RSP is one of the least expensive, yet full-featured SDRs which actually include the HF bands and below, and which require no extra upconverter. Preliminary reviews of the SDRplay RSP were quite positive, so when the folks at SDRplay requested that I review an RSP on loan, I immediately seized the opportunity.
Unboxing and connecting
My review unit of the SDRplay RSP has blue ends caps and an F style connector. All current production units have the new back case and SMA connector.
My SDRplay RSP arrived in a modest well-padded box. And what was inside? Only the SDRplay RSP and a small F-to-BNC adapter. You’ll need to supply a USB cord, as it’s not provided by SDRplay. If you’re like me, though, you already have a number of these around; I prefer USB cables with ferrite chokes (click here for an example).
Note that shortly after I received my review unit, SDRplay made two design changes to the RSP:
1) the F style antenna jack has been replaced with the more common SMA connector, and 2) the chassis color has been changed to black.
There are only two ports on the RSP: the antenna port, and on the other side of the box, a USB B-Type port (see photo above). Connecting it to your computer and antenna are a cinch.
The RSP’s chassis is made of a strong, lightweight plastic. A very simple design, and one that, I expect, would easily survive the rigors of my favorite brand of one-bag air travel to international DX destinations.
Software Installation
Unlike many of the other SDRs I’ve reviewed in the past (see the Elad FDM-S2 and TitanSDR), the SDRplay RSP does not come with a proprietary (OEM) SDR application. Meaning, the SDRplay company does not make their own SDR application that controls the RSP. Instead, SDRplay provides an API to allow application and demodulator development. There are already plug-ins for third-party SDR applications (like SDR# and HDSDR, for example); once installed, these plug-ins create an excellent compatibility bridge with the RSP.
But note that since the SDRplay RSP relies on third-party applications, the installation process isn’t exactly plug-and-play; you must typically download USB drivers, then the SDR application of your choice, and finally (typically) a dedicated plug-in for the software. Yet it’s not a complicated process by any means; SDRplay’s website has links to all of the necessary downloads (http://www.sdrplay.com/downloads.html) and installation manuals (http://www.sdrplay.com/documentation.html). No intimidation factor here.
Advantages and disadvantages of third-party applications
I should also note that I’ve always been a fan of SDR manufacturers offering open compatibility with third-party applications; in fact, when hardware manufacturers have approached me in the development stages of product design, I always suggest they leave room for third-party development.
HDSDR running the SDRplay RSP (Click to enlarge.)
Why? First, as free SDR apps are so widely used in amateur, scanner, as well as shortwave radio circles, there is already a very large user-base for support when you have compatibility issues. Additionally, third-party applications often work on multiple platforms, like Windows, OSX, Linux and even Android/iOS; OEM application tend to work only on Windows OS. Secondly, if you’re already using, for example, HDSRDR to control a radio, adding the SDRplay RSP is very easy, and as a bonus, you’ll already be familiar with the user interface––there’s hardly any learning-curve involved. Finally, I find I’m much less concerned about product obsolescence when hardware is designed to work in such an open-development environment, thus indicating greater potential for forward-compatibility.
Of course, on the flip side, not having an OEM application means that troubleshooting is often more difficult. If you encounter a problem you’ll have to determine whether the problem lies with OS, computer/tablet, USB driver, SDR application, or hardware––or whether the problem is in a combination of two or more of these, or the communication between them.
Fortunately, I’ve been very pleased with the SDRplay support team; this group has promptly addressed any questions or concerns I’ve had. Moreover, the RSP also has an active forum of users (http://www.sdrplay.com/community/).
Scope of review
In most reviews, I focus the majority of my SDR review upon the pros and cons of the application’s user interface. In this case, since the SDRplay RSP is using widely-distributed third-party applications, I can focus primarily on the SDR’s performance, instead.
The SDRplay RSP is currently compatible with the following third-party SDR applications:
The ExtIO screen–available in your application of choice via the RSP plugin–allows you to change the RSP’s IF Bandwidth/Mode, LNA GR Threshold, Mixer and ADC settings.
Indeed, when I asked the SDRplay support team about a comprehensive list of supported SDR apps, they responded:
“We should be compatible with any SDR application that supports the EXTIO library––this is what we are using for SDR# and HDSDR. [We] should also be compatible with any Linux application that uses the gr-osmosdr interface library (such as GQRX and Gnu-Radio).
We have just released it and I’m in the process of writing up the installation instructions. We have also had this running on a Raspberry Pi 2.”
…A Raspberry Pi 2 application? I, for one, can’t wait to try this in the near future––!
For this review, I used two favorite apps with which I’m familiar: SDR# and HDSDR.
SDR# running the SDRplay RSP (Click to enlarge.)
Wideband
I should note here that the SDRplay RSP also has an exceptionally wide frequency range covering from 100 kHz to 2 GHz, with only a narrow gap between 380 MHz and 430 MHz. With the appropriate software, you can use the RSP for a number of applications, for example, scanning, FM DXing, and possibly even radio astronomy.
Performance
So, how about receiver performance?
I’ll going to cut to the chase here: For the $149 price tag?I’m very impressed.
Keep in mind, this is the first SDR I’ve ever reviewed––or even spent more than a few hours exploring––that costs under $400. My only other experience with a low-cost SDR was a few hours spent with the Funcube Dongle Pro+––a popular wideband SDR dongle that also covers the HF spectrum. Frankly, I was disappointed with the Funcube Dongle Pro+, which I found subject to unwanted noises and even some imaging, which I assumed might be indicative of this class of SDR. Fortunately, I’ve not experienced this sort of thing with the SDRplay RSP.
In short: I fully expected $149 performance out of the RSP, but was very surprised to find performance on par with a receiver two or three times this cost.
So for comparison purposes, I chose the Elad FDM-S2 as the benchmark. I currently have three other SDRs in my shack, but the FDM-S2 is the next-lowest in price (currently listed at $539). But to be quite clear: the FDM-S2 is a pretty high benchmark, as I consider it a superb receiver for its price class.
When I first turned on the RSP and tuned through the HF bands, I was quite amazed at the relatively low noise floor of this receiver. Stations seemed to “pop” out of the static. I had assumed that the SDR# application had some sort of DSP noise reduction engaged, but this proved not to be the case––I confirmed the same low noise floor level via the HDSDR application.
SDRplay actually gave the RSP to me on an extended loan, so I’ve had the opportunity to use it both in quiet winter conditions and more unsettled, noisier conditions indicative of spring and summer here in the US. I used the RSP almost exclusively for two weeks in an effort to uncover its most notable strengths and weaknesses. But by the end of the two-week period, I began to suspect that the RSP might actually have sensitivity on par with my other SDRs. To answer this question, I turned to A/B comparisons with the FDM-S2.
Sample audio
I believe the following is a good representative comparison between the SDRplay RSP and the Elad-FDM S2.
The following recordings are of Radio Riyadh on 15,225 kHz. Riyadh’s signal is quite weak and voice levels are barely above the noise floor. Both the Elad FDM-S2 and SDRplay RSP (via HDSDR) were set to a slow AGC, AM sync, and a 8.2 kHz bandwidth.
In this representative sample––and pretty consistently throughout all my comparisons––the FDM-S2 was able to pull voice and music out of the noise better than the RSP. In weak signal DXing, this is important, especially when you’re listening for a station ID.
So would I ever replace my FDM-S2 with the RSP? No.
Still, for a $149 receiver?This performance is most impressive!The RSP is only a little less sensitive than my much pricier SDRs.
Summary
Invariably, all radios have strengths and weaknesses; here is a list of my notes from the moment I put the RSP on the air:
Pros:
Excellent performance for price
Good sensitivity and selectivity
Low noise floor
Compatible with multiple open source SDR applications
Very wide frequency range (frequencies above 30 MHz not tested in this review)
Works with multiple operating systems
Selectable USB/LSB sync detection via supported third-party applications
8 built-in switched preselectors that cover various portions of the RSP’s entire bandwidth
Compatible with a number of excellent third-party SDR applications (see con)
One of the few low-priced SDRs that doesn’t require a converter for HF coverage
Exceptional value
Cons:
No OEM SDR app (see pro) SDRuno is now SDRplay’s OEM/native application for the RSP line
Some moderate overloading on very strong stations (though a little tweaking of SDR applications settings can largely remedy this)
Via the current offerings from third-party apps, no multi-channel audio recordingsSDR Console allows for multi-channel recordings with the RSP
Conclusion:
I walked into this product review expecting to be…well, disappointed. As I have some benchmark SDRs on my desk at all times, I hadn’t investigated inexpensive SDRs because I felt they would simply be redundant.
Fortunately, the SDRplay RSP really impressed me from the beginning with its low noise floor, variable IF bandwidth options, and relative ease of installation. Since the RSP only requires one USB cable for both data and power, it’s also an ideal portable SDR.
Up to this point, I’ve always hesitated suggesting that those interested in a beginner’s SDR invest in any sub-$200 SDR, unless they simply want to get their feet wet and aren’t interested in performance. But at $149 US––the price of a good shortwave portable radio––I can confidently recommend at least the SDRplay RSP to those readers who want to start out with a good-quality rig. Indeed, for many, it might out-perform other receivers in their shack.
I see the RSP having a place in my shack as well, especially on my portable shortwave listening adventures. If you’re looking for a quality first SDR, or, like me, are interested in a supplemental or remote receiver that won’t break the bank, the RSP is just the ticket. And at just $149, you simply can’t lose.
Meanwhile, what’s next for me? I plan try the RSP via the Raspberry PI 2 and my newly acquired Dell Venue 8 tablet.
After publishing my initial review of the Sangean ATS-405 on July 25, I contacted Sangean and requested a sample radio for comparison purposes. Back story: there were some receiver performance issues that I suspected may have been tied to my particular ATS-405 unit. Sangean kindly dispatched another ATS-405 which I received last week. The following is an update to my initial ATS-405 review.
Using the menu button (see image above), you can engage or disengage the tuning mute and soft mute by pressing the “2” or “3” buttons on the keypad, then using the tuning up/down buttons to toggle these features on and off. Squelch works the same way, using the “1” button and volume control to set the threshold.
