Category Archives: Reviews

Jeff reviews the Sangean DT-160

SAngean-DT-160-Jeff-McMahon

My buddy, Jeff McMahon, has just published a review of the Sangean DT-160 on his blog, the Herculodge. It’s well-worth reading if you’re considering a DT-160.

Overall, Jeff believes the DT-160 is a keeper and he’s very pleased with FM performance. He notes one major annoyance:

“The toggle tuning wheel on the radio’s right side. You hold it to set the time. You wait for the hour number to flash, then set with preset 1. You do the same for the minute. You have to click downwards to scroll through the numbers. The toggle feel is awkward.

You use the same toggle for tuning, and here I really dislike the tune/set jog wheel because it’s impossible to scroll through the stations without prompting the set button to flash. It’s like my wife doesn’t like me brushing my teeth in the shower. Don’t mix the tuning with the time set. They belong in separate chambers, so to speak.”

Wow–what a poor design decision on the part of Sangean. I suppose they did this to eliminate the need for extra clock set buttons?  Still.

But as Jeff says, once presets are assigned, no more tuning woes.

Click here to read Jeff’s DT-160 review.

On a side note, I’m looking forward to receiving my DT-160CL later this week. Since I think the “CL” version lack a clock, I’m curious if tuning will be more pleasant.

Spread the radio love

Wi-Fi Radio Primer Part 1: Radio station aggregators and alternatives

I originally wrote this three-part WiFi radio primer and review series for the April, May and June issues of The Spectrum Monitor magazine.  Each part of this series will be posted with the tag: WiFi Radio Primer. I hope you enjoy Part 1 below:


The Grace Digital Mondo

I’ve always been a hard-core shortwave radio listener.  I like the tactile experience of turning the knobs of the shortwave, tuning in stations across the globe. So when online listening became popular, it never occurred to me to engage in this new, seemingly lesser sport; I put trying it on the back burner, and continued to enjoy my shortwave. After all, I rationalized, why listen to anything other than an actual radio?

Then, at the 2012 Winter SWL Fest, an excellent presentation on the merits and technologies behind Wi-Fi radio intrigued me. I found myself downloading and installing the Pro version of the TuneIn radio app. On the twelve-hour drive back home from the Fest, I tuned to local radio stations across the world via the TuneIn app. I had to admit, it was a pretty powerful listening experience…one I could easily get used to.

And get used to it, I did.  That’s when I realized that streaming radio stations over the Internet is, essentially, content DXing. For while there isn’t any particular skill required to listen to Internet radio, it offers convenient listening opportunities I wouldn’t otherwise have, and without the rigors of travel.  For example, from my home in the southeastern US, I can listen to a station in Perth, Australia––one local to that area and one that has never been, nor is likely to be, on shortwave. I found it frankly addictive.

uneIn's iPad app has a beautiful, simple user interface. If you purchase the TuneIn Pro version ($9.99 for the iPad) banner ads disappear.

TuneIn’s iPad app has a beautiful, simple user interface. If you purchase the TuneIn Pro version ($9.99 for the iPad) banner ads disappear.

Since 2012, I’ve relied on my TuneIn app and either a tablet or smartphone to listen to stations. I found I could hook up my tablet to a portable powered speaker, an SStran AM transmitter, or even a whole-house stereo, and enjoy music from all over the world.

There was only one problem, however: while they enjoyed the music, my busy family didn’t appreciate the complexity of my radio set-up. The truth is, it did require warming up a lot of equipment––most of which is in my shack––not to mention making sure connections were in place, logging in, launching apps, and then searching for stations.  One day, referencing the cobbler’s children (who, in the old adage, go without shoes), my wife asked in exasperation, “Isn’t there some way to make listening to music around here just a little more accessible to all of us?  Maybe something we could just turn on––?”

The Quest

Thus began my quest to purchase a dedicated Wi-Fi Radio, an Internet appliance with a singular purpose:  to play online radio stations from across the globe.  Simply. 

Fortunately, I reasoned, the process of choosing such a radio was likely to be just as simple.  I mean, how hard could it be?  I was already familiar enough with the wider radio landscape to know that these radios range from about $110 to $250 in price, and that they’re widely available from a number of radio and online retailers. Moreover, I’m lucky enough to count among my friends some of the most knowledgeable experts on the topic of Wi-Fi radio––Rob De Santos, Richard Cuff, and last but not least, John Figliozzi, author of the recently updated Worldwide Listening Guide––all of whom had jointly presented at that 2012 Fest that ignited my interest in WiFi radio. No doubt, I thought, a group-email to these experts would rapidly solve our dilemma.

Boy, was I ever wrong.

My expert friends all had excellent advice, but made me aware that there’s much more involved to choosing a WiFi radio than simply selecting the best-priced or the latest model. Firstly, they advised, it’s very important to identify a good station aggregator, and then select a good radio that relies upon it.

Radio Station Aggregators

WiFi radios are Internet appliances with the ability to stream Internet content, but they’re not endowed with the ability to seek out stations in the wild and import their audio streams. WiFi radios, I soon learned, rely on “aggregators,” or online databases of curated links to radio stations.

In the early days of WiFi radio, there were several models of radios on the market that linked to proprietary aggregators, many of which eventually closed down. When a WiFi radio loses its ability to link to an aggregator, it becomes no more than a pricey paperweight, especially if the WiFi radio doesn’t have traditional AM/FM reception as a backup.

The CC WiFi uses the popular Reciva aggregator.

The CC WiFi radio uses the popular Reciva aggregator.

So not only does an aggregator need to have some longevity, it also needs to be actively curated. This means having to staff actual human beings to help manage additions, deletions, and changes to the large database of broadcasters. This is necessary because radio stations and radio networks often change their streaming server address or format with very little notice. Good aggregators have methods that allow for broadcasters and listeners to submit such changes for approval so that streaming can be fully reestablished across the network of subscribing WiFi radios.

It should be noted as well that some aggregators may not support the protocol broadcasters choose to use for their streams. So, prior to purchasing a radio, buyers should attempt an Internet search to make sure their favorite broadcasters are listed among those offered by the radio’s aggregator. This being said, buyers must be aware that a number of aggregators require a username and password to search through their listings, thus limiting any pre-purchase search.

Types of Aggregators

Aggregators fall into two categories: those that are radio-dependent, and those that are not.

Radio-dependent aggregators are those that you can use only if you own a compatible device. For example, to stream from the Reciva system, you must first own a Reciva-connected WiFi radio. With your radio model/serial number in hand, you’ll be able to create a login on the Reciva system. From there, you can create lists of favorite stations and manage them.  If you don’t own a Reciva radio, however, you can’t log into the Reciva database. The same applies to Frontier Silicon (Sangean), as well as Pure.

The dominant open (or, non radio-dependent) aggregator on the market as of this publication is TuneIn Radio. TuneIn does not require a compliant device; you can create an account with TuneIn and stream from it via your computer, tablet, or smartphone. And of course, there are now radios that link to TuneIn as their aggregator.

VTuner is another open aggregator that can be explored prior to purchasing a compatible WiFi radio. Note that in this WiFi primer we will not explore the VTuner aggregator, however it will be covered in the upcoming review of the Como Audio Solo.

Following is a list of the most popular aggregators with a brief description of each.

Radio-dependent Aggregators

Reciva (https://radios.reciva.com/)

Reciva's station search function is more functional than that of Frontier Silicon. I can typically find a station by searching by call sign. When that doesn't work--as in this case when I searched for CKUT--I simply searched by city.

Reciva’s station search function is more functional than that of Frontier Silicon. I can typically find a station by searching by call sign. When that doesn’t work–as in this case when I searched for CKUT–I simply searched by city.

[Important Update: Reciva has announced that they are closing for business on April 30, 2021. Do not buy a new or used WiFi radio that relies on the Reciva aggregator as it will not function properly without the service.]

The Reciva aggregator has been around for many years. At one point, it was the most user-friendly and most actively curated aggregator on the market. Today, Reciva is still the most popular choice in a WiFi radio aggregator.

I find the Reciva website easy to use, even if its design and user-interface are slightly outdated. Reciva also seems to be relatively quick to respond to stream-server changes. When my favorite Internet radio station changed streaming servers last year, Reciva was quick to update the link. Reciva also allows you to build folders of favorite stations that make it easy for you to navigate with your radio. Moreover, Reciva has an advanced search function that also makes finding particular stations relatively easy.

Frontier Silicon (http://www.wifiradiofrontier.com/)

Frontier Silicon's website is clean, simple and responsive. Their "My Favourites" page makes organizing your many station memories an intuitive process.

Frontier Silicon’s website is clean, simple and responsive. Their “My Favourites” page makes organizing your many station memories an intuitive process.

As far as I can tell, Sangean is the only WiFi radio manufacturer using the Frontier Silicon aggregator. The Frontier Silicon interface is very basic, but gets the job done. Adding stations to a playlist also seems to be very straightforward.

With that said, however, if you chose the option of browsing stations by category––say, by language or genre––Frontier Silicon doesn’t allow you to search within the category’s results for specificity. For example, I recently wanted to search for new French language stations in a certain town in France. Once I had chosen the French language, then the country, I was presented with a list of over 1700 stations arranged alphabetically with twenty results per page, and with no way to search among them. It was frustratingly imprecise. Not only could I not find the town, but the station list was simply too broad, too unwieldy, to navigate.

Frontier Silicon’s database of information can be incomplete––and inconsistent.  Nonetheless, there are some tricks to help you find stations; for example, an online search by call sign and name may lead you to the desired result (then searching Frontier Silicon for other station keywords). A quick Internet search can also help you find regional broadcasters.

Frontier Silicon provides an easy means by which to submit new stations and provide updated information, should your station change server locations, but one must be patient. For example, I submitted a station’s updated URL to Frontier Silicon; it took them almost a week to update the stream, whereas Reciva took only a day or so to do the same.

All in all, the Frontier Silicon platform, though more bare-bones than its competitors, does the trick and seems to work quite well.

Pure (http://www.pure.com/) (Untested)

purelogoThe manufacturer, Pure, also has their own aggregator for their radio product line. Since I didn’t test a Pure WiFi radio for this review, I haven’t tried their system. I do have two friends that tout the virtues of Pure’s radios as well as Pure’s aggregator, claiming superb customer service and overall product quality.

As Pure is a “closed” ecosystem, I suppose there could be concerns about their products should the company ever close its doors.  But the company’s strong consumer following makes this relatively unlikely. One pleased user of my acquaintance claimed that Pure is to WiFi radio what Apple is to computers––in other words, it’s a company that provides a quality product, excellent design, as well as a user-friendly interface. I can’t speak to this comparison.  But I do know that, also like Apple, Pure’s products top the market in terms of price:  their Pure Evoke F4 (without extra speaker or battery) retails for $225 – 250 US. To put this in perspective, the priciest radio I reviewed was purchased for $170.  So, clearly, Pure’s products can double the cost of their competitor’s.

Open Aggregators

TuneIn (http://tunein.com)

You don't have to own a WiFi radio to begin organizing your favorite streaming broadcasters. Simply create a free account at TuneIn Radio (http://TuneIn.com), search for and organize your favorites and changes will propagate to all of your TuneIn connected devices and apps.

Create a free account at TuneIn Radio (http://TuneIn.com), search for/organize your favorites and changes will propagate to all of your TuneIn connected devices and apps.

I have been using the TuneIn system for at least four years. It is, without doubt, the most user-friendly database of radio stations I’ve tested. TuneIn’s search functionality is exceptionally powerful; I’ve found that I can almost always locate a station in a matter of seconds. And of course, you can hone in on a favorite station by region and genre.

The TuneIn search screen.

The TuneIn search screen.

The great thing about Tunein is that you don’t have to own an Internet device to use it. You can use a free account to organize your favorite stations, which will then propagate to the TuneIn app on your phone or tablet––as well as to your web browser, should you decide to listen on your computer.

Overall, the TuneIn user interface is pleasant and responsive; in short, it’s my favorite among the aggregators I tested.

Live365_logoLive365

Live 365––an aggregator with some history, which may very well have been in existence longer than any other––specializes in Internet stations rather than radio broadcasters who also happen to stream on the Internet.

[Update] Sadly, on February 1 st , 2016, Live365 closed for business. It is unlikely another company will pick up the reigns.

Why did Live365 close shop? Here’s what Forbes.com suggests:

“It is rumored that the service is being forced into early retirement because of new royalty rates that digital radio producers now need to adhere to. Late in 2015, the Copyright Royalty Board handed down its decision about what internet radio services will need to pay per stream, and it apparently hurt Live365 so much that it can no longer afford for the rights to play music.”

Among WiFi radios, Live 365 functions as an “add on” rather than sole default aggregator. If your radio has Live 365 functionality, the loss of service will have no effect on other radio functions.

Network-Specific Aggregators and services

iHeart-Radio-LogoiHeart Radio: iHeartRadio is an Internet radio platform owned by iHeartMedia, Inc. The iHeart radio app functions as both a radio network for the 800+ iHeart radio stations around the world and also as a music recommendation system. There are no WiFi radios that use iHeart as a default aggregator, but there are several that include iHeart as a featured app.

SiriusXM (paid): SiriusXM is a satellite radio subscription service; subscribers at a certain subscription level can also stream 130 channels over the Internet.

Music and other internet radio services

Spotify-LogoThere are a number of Internet radio services that are not curated.  Many of these services are adaptive platforms that create impromptu radio “stations” based on your preferences. These services may be included with a WiFi radio, but most are used in conjunction with smartphone apps, among them, Pandora, Slacker, LastFM, Spotify, and Aupeo. Note these services are outside the scope of this review for the simple reason that, as a content DXer, my interest is on actual radio stations rather than music services.

A final note about aggregators

There are likely other aggregators and services in existence that I’ve omitted from this review. Again, I focused on the better-known aggregators and services, most of which are considered relatively stable and well-supported by both manufacturers and WiFi radio enthusiasts.

In conclusion, I’ll say once more:  it’s important to check whether a particular aggregator supports your favorite radio station(s) and broadcast network(s) prior to purchasing the adjunct radio. And if it doesn’t, you need not necessarily rule out the system altogether; often an aggregator will have the capability to add the preferred station(s), so this is also worth investigating. The obvious exceptions are stations using streaming formats not supported by your radio or your aggregator (or both). In short, do check before you buy.

I’ve been testing WiFi radios supported by Reciva, Frontier Silicon, and TuneIn, and can say that I haven’t been displeased with any of them. All seem to support my favorite stations and networks.

Alternatives to WiFi radios

The Roku 3

The Roku 3

Before we look at the WiFi radios on the market in Part 2 and 3 of this feature––coming up in the coming weeks––I should note that there are certainly cheaper alternatives to a dedicated WiFi Radio, especially if you already own a device that can play Internet radio content. By and large, smartphones, tablets, as well as PCs offer the most convenient access to online broadcast streaming, though even some TVs and video streaming devices (Roku, AppleTV, Amazon’s Fire TV Stick, Google’s Chromecast, and so forth) contain basic audio streaming apps.

Smartphones

Since the majority of us have a smartphone or tablet, you’ll find this provides a convenient and readily accessible means by which to enjoy the functionality of a portable WiFi radio.  If you haven’t already done so, the process couldn’t be easier:  simply download the TuneIn app (Android: http://bit.ly/1gB1DAh and iOS: http://apple.co/1O9aZxI).

Though TuneIn offers a monthly premium plan (primarily for those who want coverage of sporting events), even the free plan unlocks the full database of radio stations across the globe.

With the app installed, you can plug in headphones and tune in thousands of stations. If you want improved audio, simply plug in an external amplified speaker, or connect a speaker via BlueTooth.

iPodTouch-TuneIn

The app is lightweight and doesn’t rob you of much of your device’s resources. And of course, it can play in the background as you do other things.  As a bonus, TuneIn can stream thousands of podcasts––including those from the Shortwave Radio Audio Archive. There’s a curious pleasure in riding a train or subway while listening to an archived off-air recording of Radio Moscow from the 1970s!

While we’re talking about apps, there’s also an excellent one written by shortwave listener, Steven Clift, called the 1 Radio News app. At the moment, it’s only available for Android devices. There’s also a free version with some banner ads and a Pro version ($.99) with no ads and more stations.

WiFi radio?  We’re hooked

For many––myself included––this was my WiFI set-up for many years:  a smartphone and headphones, plus a tablet hooked up to a powered portable speaker. I never felt the need to have a dedicated Internet appliance for tuning radios stations…until, that is, my family needed something more, launching this investigation into the world of WiFi radio.

Now, having experienced the benefits of dedicated WiFi radio, I don’t think I’d choose to be without one. It’s just incredibly convenient to tune in a station on a simple device which has as its sole purpose streaming audio. All of the units I reviewed have excellent audio via the internal speaker, too.

Best yet, I’ve now found a radio that my entire family––yes, even my wife––enjoys. With the touch of a button or a voice command, they now tune to favorite stations in Brazil, Africa, Europe, or Canada.  And our house is now full of their music choices, too.

Coming up in the next two issues: Parts 2 and 3 which include reviews of four popular WiFi radios.

I will post each part of this three part series with the tag: WiFi Radio Primer.

Spread the radio love

Sangean DT-160CL: The correctional version of the DT-160

Sangean-DT-160CL

After publishing a post referencing the new Sangean DT-160 AM/FM radio, a number of readers noticed that Sangean has also produced a clear-cased version of the DT-160: model number DT-160CL.

This version, no doubt, was designed for sale in prison commissaries and is probably seen as a replacement for the venerable Sony SRF-39FP (which has been discontinued). The SRF-39FP is widely regarded as a superb mediumwave (AM) DXing ultralight.

In reference to the Sangean DT-160CL, SWLing Post contributor, Dan Hawkins recently commented:

Which begs the question: is this prison-quality radio really that good? I ask the question only because a good AM-FM prison radio must perform exceptionally well behind formidable prison walls. After all, nearly one percent of the US population is currently behind bars (down slightly from 2008) which is a substantial pocket radio market. Prison radios are typical sold in prison commissaries and prisons are big business nowadays. How does this radio compare to the famous Sony SRF-39FP? Inquiring minds want to know. Sangean is legendary for build quality. Does it beat the Sony?

After reading Dan’s comment, I couldn’t help but order the DT-160CL from Amazon.

The Sony SRF-39FP

The Sony SRF-39FP

I, too, am very curious how it will compare with the SRF-39FP in terms of battery longevity, audio fidelity, and overall performance.

I suspect the SRF-39FP will remain dominant on the AM broadcast band and possibly have better battery life (keep in mind, the SRF-39FP only uses one AA battery–the DT-160CL requires two).

As soon as I receive the DT-160CL (Amazon notes delivery will be Wednesday, August 3), I’ll pop fresh batteries in the DT-160CL and the Sony SRF-39FP, set them to the same volume level and frequency, then allow them to run continuously until the batteries are depleted. Of course, I’ll use the opportunity to compare performance on both AM and FM.

I’ll post comparison updates with the tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP.

Spread the radio love

Ron’s mini review of the Sangean DT-160 AM/FM radio

Sangean-DT-160Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Ron, who shares his impressions of the new Sangean DT-160:

The DT-160 just came in and here are a few impressions:

1.) The heft and feel of this set is superb…it has that solid feel the earlier DT-200X doesn’t. It is markedly smaller,too and the buttons have a firm solid feel the earlier models lack (finally!).

2.) Jay’s review is spot-on as usual…but the AM section is not what you find in a Sony SRF-59 or SRF-37W digital. Expect to get locals and semi-locals fine but it’s not going to be a DX machine on AM as the Sony’s are.

This is doubtless due to the need for a smaller ferrite bar; a Q-Stick or loop will fix that.

3.) On the other hand as Jay said it leaves the Sonys in the dust on FM, which is superb.

4.) Audio is very good as is ease of operation.

5.) The closest comparison is probably the CC Pocket; they doubtless use the same/similar Silicon Labs IC.

But unlike the CC no birdies were heard on AM. [Update: Ron has since discovered a few birdies on AM, like the CC Pocket.]

Is it worthwhile?

Yes, if only for the promised 100 hour battery life. No other similar receiver will run nearly as long.

[Thomas,] you may wish to order two; one for Dad,and one for you.

I will definitely buy the DT-160 for my father. I wonder if it’s packaged in a way that I could take it out, play with it, then re-package it as a gift? 🙂 Would that be wrong? Of course not! 🙂

I noticed that Universal Radio now also stocks the DT-160 and retails for $49.95 plus shipping.

Amazon’s price (today–they do fluctuate) is $39.99 with free shipping.

Spread the radio love

Grundig G6 vs CC Skywave: Post Reader seeks a travel radio

The Grundig G6 (top) and C.Crane CC Skywave (bottom)

The Grundig G6 (top) and C.Crane CC Skywave (bottom)

Many thanks to SWLing Post reader, Neil Bernstein, who writes:

I travel quite a bit for my job and I want your opinion and your readers’ opinions on whether it is more important to have the NOAA weather radio stations or shortwave radio (with or without SSB), in a compact travel emergency radio.

At this point I’m trying to decide between the CCrane Skywave and the Grundig G6 Aviator.

Any input would really be appreciated.

Ah, the travel radio! One of my favorite topics, Neil.

I’ve used both the Grundig G6 and CC Skywave during domestic and international travel. In my opinion, both are great receivers, especially considering the compact size of each. Here are a few things to note about each radio…

(And Post readers, you’re most welcome to comment with your own additions and views.)

The Grundig G6

2012-03-09_08-53-50_742

  • A great little unit, albeit no longer in production; you can buy a used unit on eBay or similar sites. A quick eBay search reveals that prices vary between about $75-150 US. Note: Personally, I believe anything over $80 shipped is probably asking too much for a used G6.
  • Like other Grundig portables of the era, the G6’s rubberized coating will eventually become sticky/tacky. But fortunately, we’ve posted a few proven remedies.
  • Re emergency use: this one offers SSB, but lacks NOAA weather bands

The C.Crane CC Skywave

CCrane-CC-Skywave

  • Currently in production––and supported by C.Crane
  • Great overall sensitivity and selectivity (read our full review)
  • No external antenna jack
  • Mutes between frequency changes
  • This unit offers weather frequencies, useful in emergencies, but lacks SSB mode

Since the CC Skywave hit the market, it’s been my go-to portable for travel at least 80% of the time. Of course, I still pack the Grundig G6 occasionally, and even my Sony ICF-SW100.

Personally I prefer the Skywave because, frankly, it’s just better tailored to one-bag travel. I like listening to the airport tower and other comms while traveling. Since most of my travel is in North America, I appreciate the weather radio frequencies as well.

I suppose if all of my travels were outside North America, I might lean slightly toward the Grundig G6 just so I could have the added benefit of SSB reception. In truth, however, I rarely listen to SSB while traveling.  SSB may possibly be useful during civil/communication emergencies. If SSB reception and portability is important to you, another radio worth considering would be the CountyComm GP5-SSB–though, like the G6, it also lacks weather frequencies.

My opinion?

Grab a CC Skywave. It’s a great performer, very compact, and–unlike the Grundig G6–is currently in production. I’d only buy a new CC Skywave, however, since some of the early models were prone to overloading. The current production run incorporates an update which remedies this.

Post readers: Please comment with your thoughts and suggestions! What radio do you pack for travels, and why?

Spread the radio love

Guest Post: Patrick compares four receivers

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Patrick Canler who writes to us from France and shares the following guest post which he translated into English:


4 rec

The number of receivers on the market is quite large, and all are sold to be the “best”. I have thought it useful to compare materials using them in the shack as a neophyte SWL; going beyond the features in the brochures to talk about everyday utility. This article does not pretend to do “scientific” testing of the four receivers–skills and special equipment are needed and some specialized laboratories already do it.

The four receivers cover thirty years of electronics manufacturing; four different brands with their own technology and specifications. Over such period, technologies and innovations have evolved. One of the questions I had was: “Does efficiency give any receiver an advantage?”.

The Contenders:

NRD-535 from Japan Radio Company.

nrd535

A reference of the 90s! It received 5 stars from WRTH (which publishes annually the almanac “World Radio and TV Handook”). The NRD-535 has conventional construction with an electronic card per function and discrete and analog filters.

This is a home station receiver, weighing in at 10 kg. The NRD-535 ceased to be produced in 1996, and its value second hand is growing due to its reputation.

AR7030 from AOR

ar7030

Designed by the engineer who developed the LOWE receiver line, the AR7030 is also famous for its reception. It uses special ergonomics and a hybrid of software menus and conventional controls. Quite small, it is easily transportable, due its design that already uses SMC but keeps the analog filters.

IC-R75 ICOM

ICR75

Modern device, classical format and renowned–the R75 is the only receiver tested that is still in production [Note: it was recently removed from production]. It uses CMS, combines analog and DSP filtering (the DSP option is present on the device under test). Its ergonomic design is intuitive and so too are controls and menus.

1102S RADIOJET Bonito,

SDR windows

The 1102S RADIOJET is the only unit in this comparison that is produced in Europe!
The Radiojet includes the latest developments in technology, its performance is simply stunning on the data/spec sheet. The application includes many tools (spectrograph, digital filters, IF and AF recorders, decoder, list of broadcast stations, etc.). It brings together all the SMC receiving electronics in a small box that can fit in a pocket.

SSDR box

The commands and tools are assigned to a software (highly evolved) that runs on the PC which is connected the SDR. The power of the PC also brings graphics, memory, recordings etc.

Why these four rigs?

In the beginning, and it was it which led me to be SWL, I acquired the RADIOJET based on its announced characteristics: sensitivity of “secret services”, adaptable to all cases with filters, graphics tools–“Star Wars equipment” is not it! Later I learned about 50 MHz and at the same time I was struggling to exploit the Radiojet SDR.

A good opportunity to purchase an ICOM R75 brought me back to conventional radio ergonomics. As time passed, I felt my listening skills improved with these 2 receivers and the receiver syndrome grew! A Kenwood R5000 joined the others for its VHF potential and HF reputation.

Then I discovered an NRD-525 on Ebay at a fair price point (rare)–it joined the group of receivers. The latter two were sold and replaced respectively by an AOR 7030 and by NRD-535. I really enjoyed the 525, but the 535 is even better.

In use, the RADIOJET and R75 have always posed problems with settings and sound quality. Kenwood reassured me about the fact that we could get some nice reception without fighting against the controls. validated by the AOR, the NRD 525 & 535. Perhaps I did not understand the manipulation of digital filters???

Now to the shack!

The four receivers are placed side by side, but arranged so as not to disturb each other (eg. the display of the ND535 disrupted the RADIOJET).

The antenna is a 25m random wire oriented East/West with 9:1 balun and its own ground. The passage from a receiver to the other is done by a conventional antenna switch.

All the tests were performed in one evening for constant conditions, there was a fairly present QRM which, was not too bad for comparison purposes. The tests were made in SSB or AM. Preliminary tests had shown that the results in digital modes (PSK31, JT65, ..) relied more on the decoder performance of the PC rather than the receiver. The tests increased from the lowest frequency detected this evening (Europe 1-163 kHZ) to the highest (Foreign Broadcast =15,545 MHz).

The highest frequencies, up to 30 MHz, were deserted in phone, at least for my installation.
The procedure was:

  1. Signal is detected from the spectrograph SDR: it typically “sees” almost inaudible signals.
  2. The candidate frequency is tuned on all four receivers
  3. I listening to all of the signals on all receivers, seeking to get the maximum performance, using all possibilities (notch, passband, IF Shift, integrated amplifiers, attenuator, etc.)
  4. Results are reported in the table below.

One can notice rather quickly:

  • that age is not a handicap
  • the number of functions is not always an advantage
  • 1102S RADIOJET
    Performance and capabilities above the rest (on paper) and requires being connected to a PC. At the present time, on an old Celeron 2Gb ram, the RadioJet’s application never saturated the CPU. The band spectrum display allows one to find the QSO, to filter theoretically perfectly, but it does not always equate to the understandability of the signal or give a pleasant audio. And the number of software features and functions complicates the signal manipulation. The sound is still a little metallic, perhaps due to the signal processing software. Its small size makes it a unbeatable mobile receiver for travel, functions are incredibly useful for those who master the RadioJet application.
  • AOR AR7030
    Inherently simpler at face value–the AR7030 is ultra easy to use. It makes it easy for the user to find and tweak a candidate signal. It’s intuitive and has essential functions only. It has well-designed electronics. The AR7030 is also best receiver tested for handling strong signals without overloading (broadcasts stations or nearby hyper-kilowatted amateur radio operators) which seems to prove that it is designed for these stations. Its limit is the lack of adaptive notch filter types to clean the noise, which is still quite present when the QRM is there. (The newer version 7030+ has added features to help). Finally, it is the smallest stand-alone, portable and with 3 options of antennas connections.
  • ICOM R75
    The R75 climbs up the frequency band all the way to 50 MHz, the only receiver tested with this frequency range. It enjoys an excellent reputation, and can be equipped with a DSP (digital signal processing) on audio. The DSP provides adaptive noise reduction and automatic notch, but has a relative effectiveness which is not always successful in clarifying the signal. Sometimes it adds an unpleasant “rattling”. In use, the interface is pretty intuitive–mixing commands by buttons and menus. Twin pass band tuning (PBT) is effective and allows for IF Shift and/or notch. The speaker is (very) small and gives an aggressive/harsh sound. This receiver is relatively small in size and lightweight. It has a mobile stand and is designed for a 12-14V power supply.
  • JRC NRD-535
    The NRD-535 is the oldest tested–indeed, it was already discontinued before the other receivers were in production. A solid and reliable construction, good ergonomic with conventional front panel controls, good sensitivity, and a decent sized speaker have earned it status as a benchmark in its time. Very sensitive, it extracts the signals and, once found the right filter, gives it pleasant audio. Some signals are not completely cleaned but it does rarely less than others. The NRD-535 is designed for home use: it is heavy, almost 10 kg, and is contains several circuit boards which should not be too exposed to excessive shocks, especially considering they’re over 20 years old.

Summary

My ranking is as follows:

  1. JRC NRD-535 for its ease of use and ability to dig out a usable signal from the QRM.
  2. AOR AR7030 for its simplicity, portability and the fact that it extract good sound/audio quickly, even if a little noisy at times.
  3. Bonito RADIOJET for its small size and its extensive feature set. It is ultra-mobile with a laptop.
  4. ICOM R75 does the job and covers a wide frequency range. But lags in performance relative to the other receiver tested, with a “nasal” sound and a DSP that does not keep its intended promises.

About digital filters: the SDR and ICOM have them, the possibilities are extensive and allow adaptive filtering that others do not with analog filters. By cons they give a dry sound and sometimes add “snap” under whistles. Listening is overall less pleasant in comparison.

Receivers Advantages + / Disadvantages –

Bonito RADIOJET
+ Top technology, visual and many new features over the others on this point
– Complicated, metallic sound, emphasizing the sometimes painful receiver interaction with a computer mouse

Icom R75
+ Great value at the present time
– Audio and imperfect signal cleaning

AOR AR7030
+ Simple and effective
– Ideal companion if it had a notch filter: noise is present

JRC NRD-535
+ Effective sensitivity and clean audio
– Older technology, less portable

Note that this is a personal opinion: a computer geek will certainly get the most of performance and possibilities from an SDR like the Bonito RadioJet.

The NRD-535 shows its age, will one day reach the end of its useful life despite its robust construction. ICOM can cover up to 6m remaining mobile and has a good filter possibilities (DSP). The AOR is easy, fast and gives a correct listening, general purpose. It is the only one to pass the VLF.

The ideal then?
* RADIOJET for sensitivity,
* The RADIOJET for tools/features and functions
* AR7030 for the lower bands
* Icom for the higher bands
* NRD-535 for ergonomics
* AOR for portability

Personally, I use the NRD-535 for DXing (due to superior audio), the AR7030 for digital modes,
the RADIOJET to visually search for signals, and to sometimes clarify the signal even better and because it’s ultra-mobile and always in my PC case.

73,
Patrick F61112


Thank you, Patrick!

I should mention that I think you did a fine job translating your article into English for us! I would not be as successful writing an article in French!  

I’ve never owned a JRC of any sort. If I ever found an NRD-535 for a good price, I would purchase one without hesitation. I’ve never spent much time on the AR7030 either. It’s simple “Lowe-like” front panel is quite appealing for field use. I found that the RadioJet audio is quite nice when paired with a good set of headphones. 

Spread the radio love

Dave’s review of the Icom IC-7300

Icom-IC-7300-Front

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Dave Zantow (N9EWO), who shares a link to his excellent review of the Icom IC-7300:

Click here to read Dave’s review.

I can tell Dave has put a lot of time and thought in this evaluation of the IC-7300–it’s a worthy read, especially if you’re considering an IC-7300 yourself.

Overall, Dave’s impressions of the ‘7300 are similar to mine (click here to read my ‘7300 review). The IC-7300 is a great rig and (though there are a few minor tweaks needed) the general coverage receiver is sensitive and selective enough to satisfy even the seasoned SWL DXer. Dave even pits the ‘7300 against the WJ-8711A commercial receiver.

Note Mike commented in a previous post that the IC-7300 had difficulty coping with the RF-dense environment of Field Day, but in truth, that is one of the most difficult environments for any ham radio transceiver.

If you own an IC-7300 and have any comments or impressions, please share them with us!

Spread the radio love