Category Archives: Shortwave Radio Reviews

A review of the SDRplay RSP software defined receiver

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.

First, the Elad FDM-S2:

Now the SDRplay RSP:

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 recordings~~ SDR 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.

The SDRplay RSP can be purchased directly from SDRplay via their online store: http://www.sdrplay.com/purchase.php

Resources:

Spread the radio love

A review of the TitanSDR Pro software defined receiver

16 Replies

The following review originally appeared in the May 2015 issue of The Spectrum Monitor magazine.

It’s no secret…I’m a bit of an SDR geek. Yes, after discovering the power of software-defined radios a few years ago, I’m hooked: SDR listening represents nearly 95% of my home listening and monitoring. And I love it.

As a result, I’m always looking at new SDR technologies to note advances that could improve both my at-home and on-the-road listening––not to mention, satisfy my appetite for spectrum and broadcast recordings.

A few months ago, I heard about a new military-grade SDR called the TitanSDR. Being eager to check it out, I reached out to the Italy-based manufacturer, Enablia; they kindly lent me a TitanSDR Pro for review.

TitanSDR back panel (Photo: Enablia)

But here I must insert a disclaimer. Even though I love SDRs, I always find myself hesitating slightly when it comes to writing a review of one––simply because, when compared with tabletop and portable radios, SDRs tend to be so very complex. While I’m fairly well versed in what to expect of an SDR application, the learning curve (and sometimes even installation curve) can be formidable. And the TitanSDR seemed especially daunting: since it’s designed for heavy, full-duty, multi-channel SIGNET and military use, I expected to need a at least a few days to both install the device and, more significantly, to learn the ropes of the application which drives the SDR.

Fortunately, my fears were unfounded. The TitanSDR and I were in sync almost before I knew it, hinting favorably about an accessible user interface.

First impressions

The TitanSDR ships in a box with the following components: the Titan SDR “black box” receiver, a TitanSDR installation DVD, a printed installation manual, a USB memory stick with a license key, USB cable with chokes on both ends, and a separate regulated power supply.

Not purely a plug-and-play device, the TitanSDR requires a proper three-step installation. Fortunately, the installation manual walks you through the process, which is actually quite simple. Within a mere five minutes, I had the TitanSDR installed and on the air.

The TitanSDR application

The application which runs an SDR is your interface to all of the radio’s capabilities. A top-notch SDR paired with a confusing SDR application will greatly diminish usability and, frankly, sheer enjoyment.

Fortunately, this is where the TitanSDR comes up trumps. To be clear: the TitanSDR has one of the best user interfaces of any SDR I’ve ever tested. While SDR interfaces are subjectively evaluated––some prefer a more dense, involved GUI––I always appreciate simplicity and overall usability over lots of (visible) bells and whistles.

Click to enlarge

I’m especially impressed with how easily the TitanSDR app is designed to cope with multiple band windows, both wide and narrow, while many SDR manufacturers struggle with making an intuitive interface for merely one wideband and one narrowband window, each.

The user interface is divided into three major components: the panoramic scope, the wideband scope, and the narrowband scope. Let’s take a look at each.

Panoramic Scope

TitanSDR Panoramic Scope. Click to enlarge.

When you first open the Titan application and connect the SDR, the panoramic display, which spans the top of the window, comes to life. If hooked up to an antenna, you’ll see spectrum peaks across the display, but you’ll hear no audio because you must first select a wideband and then a narrowband window.

Wideband Scope

At the upper left portion of the panoramic scope, you’ll find a button that allows you to add a wideband selection/channel. After clicking the “add” button, you’ll need to choose the width of your wideband slice. Your choices:

2.1875 MHz
1.875 MHz
1.5625 MHz
1.25 MHz
937.5 kHz
625 kHz
312.5 kHZ

After selecting your wideband width, the wideband scope will appear with the spectrum and waterfall in action. At this point, you’ll still hear no audio, but you’ll see a wideband swatch of frequency represented by your selection.

New wideband selections default with a beginning frequency of 0 kHz. To place the wideband selection into the part of the shortwave spectrum you want to hear or record, you simply click and drag the appropriately colored wideband swatch within the panoramic display to the part of the HF spectrum you wish to monitor.

Selecting a Wideband channel size. Click to enlarge.

Your first wideband selection is labeled in red, the second in green, third in blue, fourth in purple. While there are limits to the number of wideband selections you can make, based on the total bandwidth of your selections [the TitanSDR owner’s manual provides a matrix of possible combinations], each is readily identifiable by color in the panoramic display.

After you’ve created a wideband selection and placed it where you’d like to listen, you’ll now need to make a narrowband selection in order to begin tuning and listening.

Narrowband Scope

Creating a narrowband channel is similar to creating a wideband channel: at the top of the wideband scope window, simply click on the “add” button, and then click within the wideband scope spectrum display to place the narrowband channel where you want it.

Once placed, this new narrowband scope will be visible in the lower right portion of the TitanSDR application window. You’ll also hear audio for the narrowband selection.

The narrowband selection defaults in USB mode, but you can quickly change modes by selecting one from the panel above the narrowband spectrum. Your choices:

USB
LSB
AM
CW
NFM
FSK
DRM (built-in, no separate license needed)
eUSB
eLSB

Tuning

After using the TitanSDR for only a couple of days, I found I was quite comfortable tuning through the bands. Every SDR application has its own quirks; the TitanSDR app gives you several tuning options.

Within a narrowband window, you may tune by:

Clicking the center of the shaded area (representing the frequency and mode you are monitoring) and moving it within the NB spectrum display
By manually keying in the frequency within the frequency display window
By placing the cursor within the frequency display and using the scroll wheel of your mouse to increase and decrease frequency increments
By using hot keys: “Ctrl + K” to increase frequency, “Ctrl + J” to decrease frequency

Tuning within the wideband scope is as simple as clicking and dragging the narrowband shaded area.

Of course, wideband areas can be moved to different parts of the HF spectrum by simply clicking on the shaded wideband area within the panoramic scope and moving it to a different location. But you can only do this if there are no active narrowband channels within the selected wideband channel.

With the ability to load multiple wideband channels with multiple embedded narrowband channels, you might think tuning and manipulating the various channels would get confusing. But this is just not the case. Herein lies the excellent user design behind the TitanSDR.

The software engineers at Enablia obviously put time into designing their application for users who routinely use multiple channels. Each channel is clearly color-coded across the scopes, and selecting them is a simple process: one of four wideband channels via the panoramic display, and one of many narrowband channels via the wideband display. Indeed, TitanSDR produced a brief video (http://youtu.be/XDdilGykSuY) describing how to use the TitanSDR application interface. The concept of selecting and manipulating the various channels is so easy, I actually knew how to do it prior to receiving and installing the software…and all from this eleven-minute video tutorial.

Without a doubt, the TitanSDR user interface is one of my favorites among the numerous SDRs I’ve evaluated.

Speaking of multiple channels, if you have a particular combination of wideband and narrowband channels that you like to load each time, you can save the full configuration and reload it at startup, preserving every frequency and channel. Brilliant.

Recording

For shortwave archivists (like the author of this review!), the TitanSDR is very enticing. Even the most basic version of the TitanSDR allows for 4 wideband channels and 8 narrowband channels of simultaneous recording. This means that you can record a wideband channel and as many as eight individual live broadcasts consecutively. While rarely needed, it’s an impressive feature. Quite often I’ve wanted to record as many as three broadcasts simultaneously; my WinRadio Excalibur, for example, allows for as many as three consecutive broadcast recordings, but limited within a 2 MHz bandwidth. The TitanSDR has no such limitation. You could load four wideband channels across the spectrum––say, one within the mediumwave band, one on 41 meters, one on 31 meters, and one on 10 meters––and record or listen to up to eight individual broadcasts within those channels. The TitanSDR pro will even allow for up to 40 consecutive narrowband channels of recording.

The record and schedule functions are most accessible in the narrowband scope window (above) and the wideband scope window.

The record and schedule functions are prominent in the narrowband scope window (above) and the wideband scope window.

What’s more, the TitanSDR has one of the most versatile automatic file naming systems I’ve ever used. Not only can it embed the date, frequency, and mode, but also the start time and end time. It also has a user-defined string which allows for more file name customization. And another nifty feature: the Titan can be set to embed either local or UTC time in the filename.

Yet another feature the archivist in me delights in? You can schedule narrowband and wideband recordings within the application––no need for an external program or macro.

Missing features?

As a product designed specifically for military and government applications, the Titan application currently lacks many of the features you might expect in a $1000+ software defined receiver. The version of the TitanSDR application (at time of publishing this review) lacks a variable notch filter, 90 second waterfall review, and an embedded time stamp––features one might well expect from a receiver in this price class.

Prior to publishing this review, I contacted Enablia with a list of features I thought should be included, and they agreed that these features should be added to appeal to the ham radio and shortwave listening customer base. Indeed, within a matter of two weeks, I was sent a new version of the Titan application with the addition of a number of keyboard shortcuts that I recommended. A few weeks later, I received another update which included the ability to set the maximum size of spectrum recording “chunks” to anything between 50MB and 2GB. Enablia plans to add more of the features for the radio hobbyist in time, but after this review has been posted.

If you’re seriously considering purchasing the TitanSDR, you might contact Enablia first to see if and/or when these features are to be added. I’m confident they will be added in time.

Summary

When I begin a radio review, I keep a checklist of pros and cons as I discover them to remind myself of my initial discoveries.

Here’s my list from the TitanSDR:

Pros:

Superb sensitivity and selectivity
No less than 16 preselectors (hardware)
Brilliant application user interface, one of the best I’ve encountered
- Simple controls, logically laid out
- Effective selection system to move between narrow/wide band windows
- Customizable waterfall and spectrum displays
- Frequency display can be set to Hz, kHz or MHz
- Full panel configuration with multiple custom wideband and narrowband channels can be saved and loaded in the future
Recording functionality
- Up to one spectrum recording can be made, while four wideband windows may be open
- Between 8-40 AF/Audio recordings can be made simultaneously live or from wideband recordings
- File naming convention automatic with excellent customization options
- Full recording scheduling in both wide and narrow bands
- Spectrum recordings can be parsed to anything between 50 MB to 2 GB each, or left to grow to without a size ceiling; like other SDRs, recording chunks are played consecutively
Excellent overall build quality
SDR application very stable and quick to load
Supplied power supply is regulated and quiet
TitanSDR application updates are simple to install
Enablia support has been responsive

Cons:

Both the TitanSDR and TitanSDR Pro are pricey for most radio enthusiasts
Missing some features that would be expected in a radio of this price class (though Enablia have confirmed these features may be added in future updates):
- No notch
- No waterfall review
- Neither embedded time code nor memory labeling in spectrum display
Windows/PC only (not supported by OS X or Linux)

Conclusion

No doubt, I’m impressed with the TitanSDR, performance-wise. It’s as sensitive and selective as any SDR I’ve ever tested. Serious weak-signal DXers will be pleased with this rig.

Of course, there’s the daunting price tag of the TitanSDR, which makes it clear that this was a receiver designed for government and commercial use: the basic version of the TitanSDR retails for 1380 EUR, the TitanSDR Pro for an even heftier 1970 EUR.

This pricing places it well above the Microtelecom Perseus, WinRadio Excalibur and Elad FDM-S2, all of which can be purchased for $1000 or less.

Who might benefit from the extra cost of the TitanSDR? Those who need a receiver with a very robust front end. With no less than 16 pre-selectors, the TitanSDR is a great choice for those living in the vicinity of blowtorch radio stations. If you’re looking for a stable, easy-to-use flagship SDR with a rock-solid application to support it, you might just splurge on this impressive SDR.

I always ask myself at the end of a review if I would purchase the equipment I’ve spent a couple of months evaluating. I can honestly say that if I had the money, I would not hesitate to purchase the basic version of the TitanSDR. With its four wideband and eight narrowband channels, it would more than suit my receiver needs as a broadcast archivist.

1,380 EUR buys the basic version of the TitanSDR – With four WB (Wideband) channels, eight NB (Narrowband) channels (to be allocated on WB channels) and VAC (virtual audio) interfaces to third party SW decoders, this is a solid and adaptable SDR.

1,970 EUR buys the TitanSDR Pro – With four WB channels, 40 NB channels (to be allocated on WB channels), VAC interfaces to third party SW decoders, basic LAN control and plug-in software interfaces (by LAN Ethernet) to software decoders CODE300-32 by Hoka Electronic (http://www.hoka.net/products/code300-32.html) and Krypto500 by Comint Consulting (http://www.comintconsulting.com/k500.html), this SDR can sing and dance.

View TitanSDR purchasing information and options on Enablia’s website: http://www.enablia.com/titansdr-receiver.html

Spread the radio love

Dan compares the McKay-Dymek DR33-C6 to three other benchmark receivers

1 Reply

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Dan Robinson, who shares this YouTube video comparing four of his receivers: the McKay Dymek DR33-C6, the East German made RFT EKD 515, Japan Radio Company NRD-301A, and his Watkins Johnson 8718A/MFPWJ WJ .

Spread the radio love

My new (to me) Sony ICF-2001 shortwave radio

41 Replies

A few weeks ago, I made an impulse purchase: a Sony ICF-2001.

Perhaps it was the post about John Lennon’s ICF-2001, or perhaps it was the simple fact I couldn’t afford a ‘2001 when I was a kid; either way, I saw what I thought was a fair price and I bit the bullet.

At about 9-10 years old I remember seeing the (above) image of the ICF-2001 in an advertisement and imagining all that I could hear with this amazing–microprocessor-controlled, dual conversion, frequency synthesized general coverage(!)–portable receiver.

At the time, my only shortwave radio was the Zenith Trans Oceanic Royal D7000–a wonderful radio for sure–but the convenience of digital tuning? I could only imagine.

The ICF-2001 had revolutionary featured like direct access keypad tuning and an LCD digital readout. The ICF-2001 covered 150 to 29,999 kHz and, like my Transoceanic, could receive single sideband. It also had six memories that could be assigned to buttons for quick access to my favorite frequencies. Six. Whole. Memories!

Sony-ICF-2001-1

I picked up my used ICF-2001 for $67.00 US shipped. The seller (a fellow ham radio operator) insured that the radio was in excellent mechanical shape, though cosmetically showed some signs of wear. The only thing missing was the ICF-2001’s shoulder strap. That was fine by me, though, because the seller included all original manuals/documentation and a very cool canvas carry bag (below) that fits the ICF-2001 like a glove.

I’ve had the ICF-2001 for a few weeks now and I must say that I’m quite pleased. It’s much larger that most portables currently on the market, but was probably slightly smaller than the venerable ICF-2010.

The audio from the ICF-2001’s built-in speaker is top-notch; with separate treble and bass control, it’s easy to adjust audio to your taste.

Would the ICF-2001 out-perform a modern portable receiver? Probably not. Was performance similar to the ICF-2010? No way. The ICF-2001 has a few annoying quirks (like muting between frequencies, no tuning knob, a backlit display that’s rather small and hard to read at certain angles)–items most modern portables have long since addressed.

With that said, the ICF-2001 does have a few features I wish modern receivers would adopt, like, a built-in antenna trimmer.

This morning, on my porch, I listened to several broadcasters across the bands and used the antenna adjustment to tweak the match. The adjustment would sometimes increase reception by three S units. I would love to have a similar feature on, say, my Tecsun PL-680.

I also like the old school power switch–a proper mechanical switch that makes it much more difficult to accidentally turn the radio on while traveling or operating in a portable setting.

Even thought the ICF-2001 was a bit of an impulse purchase, I have no buyer’s remorse at all. She’s a sturdy rig with great audio and, I believe, decent performance on the shortwave and medium wave bands. I can certainly confirm that it would have blown my mind when I was 9 years old!

Besides..if the ICF-2001 is good enough for John Lennon, it’s good enough for me!

Any SWLing Post readers out there still have a Sony ICF-2001?

Spread the radio love

A review of the Tecsun PL-680 with reader survey results

84 Replies

When I heard early reports about the new Tecsun PL-680, I was already wondering how it would stack up alongside other Tecsun portables. An early photo of the Tecsun PL-680 revealed how very similar it is, indeed, to the Tecsun PL-600, which has been on the market for many years. Moreover, the features of PL-680, which I heard about only a few weeks ago, sounded to me like a carbon copy of the venerable PL-660. I investigated further, and spoke with Anna at Anon-Co; she was given to understand that the Tecsun PL-680 was essentially a re-packaged PL-660 with improved sensitivity. I was curious enough about the PL-680 that I ordered one from Anna as soon as they were available, even paying for expedited shipping in order to have it in hand a bit sooner.

The Tecsun PL-660 has been on the market for several years now; it’s one of the most popular shortwave portables on the market. And for good reason: the PL-660 is relatively inexpensive, simple to use, packs all of the most vital and desirable functions/modes, and is available from a variety of retailers that ship worldwide. I have reviewed it numerous times and often used it as the basis for comparison with other shortwave portables. It’s China-based manufacturer, Tecsun, has emerged over the past few years as the dominant manufacturer of shortwave radios.

First impressions

I posted a few unboxing photos the day I received the PL-680.

The Tecsun PL-680 looks like the Tecsun PL-600 body, with the Tecsun PL-660 features and layout. Indeed, the full complement of buttons, switches and dials are identically positioned to those of the PL-660.

Let’s cut to the chase…

Question: So, does the PL-680 have more functions than the PL-660?

Answer: No. It appears to be, and likely is, identical in every (functional) respect to the Tecsun PL-660. No surprises here, unless there are hidden features I haven’t discovered…!

Check out the following comparison photos–the PL-600 on the right, PL-660 in the middle, PL-680 on the right (click to enlarge):

The similarity is so striking, in fact, that I believe the PL-680 is the first radio I’ve ever turned on for the first time, only to find I immediately knew every function. I’m so familiar with the PL-660 that I could even use the PL-680 in the dark the first night I used it.

It also helps, of course, that the PL-680 is nearly identical to the PL-600, too, which I’ve owned for many years.

Here’s how I see the PL-680 product development equation:

In truth, I was quite disappointed that Tecsun did not add a line-out jack to the PL-680.

The PL-660, alas, lacks line-out, and though my Tecsun PL-880 has a line-out, its default shortwave volume is simply too high to be used by most digital recorders. I had hoped that the PL-680 might have a proper line-out jack, potentially making it a replacement for my trusty Sony ICF-SW7600GR. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

But other than missing a line-out jack, I really have few complaints. I’ve always been a fan of simple radio design and I believe Tecsun has done a good thing by keeping the user experience so similar in their PL-6XX line of portable shortwave radios. Apparently, a good thing is a good thing.

But here’s what everyone wants to know…

Question: Does the PL-680 have any performance advantages over the PL-660?

Short Answer: Yes! (But keep your PL-660.)

I should add here that I’m about to get rather technical and radio-geeky, so if you’re only interested in a summary, please skip to the bottom of the page.

Otherwise, help yourself to a cup of coffee, and let’s talk radio…

Shortwave performance

Since I spend 95% of my listening time on shortwave, I’ll begin with shortwave performance. Again, we’ll compare the PL-680’s performance with that of the PL-660.

Reader survey results

Having had such great results from radio comparison shoot-outs in the past (check out our shoot-out between top portables and ultra-compact radios), I decided it would make sense to invite our informed readership to evaluate the PL-680’s performance in a series of blind, informal tests. (For information about these surveys, please read through the first of the three surveys.)

Shortwave AM broadcast listening

In most circumstances, you’ll find that the PL-680 has better sensitivity than the PL-660. It’s a marginal improvement, but one I certainly notice on the shortwave bands–and so did the majority of readers who participated in the shortwave AM reception survey.

The survey had recordings from a total of three broadcasters: Radio Prague, WWV, and Radio France International.

The PL-680 was “Radio A,” and the PL-660 was “Radio B.”

The Radio Prague recording was quite strong and was the only broadcast in our survey in which the PL-660 and PL-680 ran neck-and-neck.

Radio Prague on the PL-680

Radio Prague on the PL-660

In truth, I believe strong signal reception on both these radios is excellent and nearly indistinguishable from each other.

Survey results from the WWV and Radio France International recordings showed a strong preference for the Tecsun PL-680. Again, here are the original recordings:

PL-680 – 1st WWV recording

PL-660 – 1st WWV recording

PL-680 – 2nd WWV recording

PL-660 – 2nd WWV recording

Based on comments from those who participated, the PL-680 came out ahead of the PL-660 in two respects: better sensitivity, and more stable AGC. In both sets of recordings, the signal was weaker than the Radio Prague recording, and QSB (fading) more pronounced. Herein lies a well-known weakness of the PL-660: soft muting and a sometimes over-active AGC equates to more listening fatigue.

Here is a chart with the full survey results based on 194 listener reports. The number of responses are represented on the vertical axis.

Obviously, the engineers at Tecun addressed the soft muting/AGC problem of the PL-660. In all of my time with the PL-680 on the air, I haven’t noticed any soft muting; the audio has been smooth and the AGC copes with fading much better than the PL-660. No doubt, these two improvements alone make the PL-680 a worthy portable for shortwave radio listening.

There is a downside to the improved sensitivity, however: the PL-680 has a slightly higher noise floor than the PL-660. This is mostly noticeable during weak-signal listening. Though I haven’t compared it yet, I’m willing to bet that the noise floor is comparable to that of the Sony ICF-SW7600GR. Personally, if increased sensitivity and stability means a slightly higher noise floor, I’m okay with that. I find that I listen better when the signal is stable and not fluttering/muting with every QSB trough.

Synchronous detection

The second survey focused on synchronous detection, which is a very useful receiver tool that mitigates adjacent signal interference and improves a signal’s stability. Perhaps it was my good fortune that the same day I tested synchronous detection, fading on even strong stations was pronounced at times. Perfect!

The first recording set was from Radio Australia, a relatively strong signal here in North America. Still, QSB was pronounced–making for an unstable signal–and there was hetrodyne interference in the upper sideband of the broadcast. When I switched the radios into lower sideband sync, halfway through, it effectively mitigated the hetrodyne in all of the recordings.

PL-680 – 1st recording Radio Australia

PL-660 – 1st recording Radio Australia

PL-680 – 2nd recording Radio Australia

PL-660 – 2nd recording Radio Australia

The second set of recordings were of Radio Riyadh–a much weaker station–also affected by QSB:

PL-680 – 1st recording Radio Riyadh (wide band filter)

PL-660 – 1st recording Radio Riyadh (wide band filter)

PL-680 – 2nd recording Radio Riyadh (narrow band filter)

PL-660 – 2nd recording Radio Riyadh (narrow band filter)

While I have always considered the PL-660 to sport one of the stronger sync locks in current production portables, it did truly struggle to maintain a lock in both the Radio Australia and Radio Riyadh recordings. Indeed, I was so surprised by how comparatively feeble the sync lock was on Radio Australia, that I disconnected the PL-660 from the recorder and moved to a different location to verify that something nearby wasn’t causing the sync lock instability. It was not; it was solely due to unstable band conditions.

It came as no surprise that survey respondents took note of the PL-680’s stronger sync lock: the PL-680 beat the PL-660 by a wide margin in both sample recordings. I chart the results, below, from a total of 85 responses:

Very good, PL-680! Someday I’d like to compare the PL-680 with the Sony ICF-SW7600GR, which I’ve always considered to have, among current portables, the strongest sync lock.

Single Sideband

I wasn’t able to provide an audio survey of SSB performance since the PL-680 picked up too much noise from my digital recorder to make for a fair contest.

Meanwhile, I’ve spent time listening to both radios in SSB mode and comparing the models. To my ear, both are very close in SSB performance, but again the PL-680 does have a slight edge on the PL-660 in terms of sensitivity and AGC performance.

SSB audio fidelity is very similar in both radios.

FM Performance

While I haven’t spent more than, let’s say, an hour with the PL-680 on the FM band, I have concluded that it is very sensitive–able to receive all of my benchmark local and regional FM stations.

An informal comparison between thePL-680 and the PL-660 also leads me to believe that they are both excellent FM performers and seemed to compare favorably. I would certainly welcome FM DXers to comment with their own evaluations of the PL-680.

Medium Wave Performance

I’ve also posted a medium-wave listener survey since many of you asked that I provide an evaluation of the medium-wave band.

In short, here is where the PL-680 loses to the PL-660: whereas, on the shortwave bands, the PL-680 is more sensitive, it lacks the same sensitivity on the medium-wave bands.

Though I believe the PL-680 does a marginally better job than the PL-660 of handling the choppy conditions of nighttime MW DX, the PL-660 still pulled voices and music out of the static and made them noticeably more intelligible.

The survey result swung very hard in favor of the PL-660, which has long been one of the more notable medium-wave performers among shortwave portables.

I provided a total of four sample broadcast recordings for comparison. Below, I have embedded one of them–a recording of 940 AM in Macon, Georgia, for your reference.

PL-680 – 940 AM

PL-660 – 940 AM

You can listen to all four recordings in the original survey (again, note that Radio A is the PL-680, B is the PL-660).

Survey results were definitive, with a total of 116 responses:

In all but the strong station sample (750 AM – WBS Atlanta), the PL-660 was preferred by a wide margin.

Summary

Invariably, all radios have strengths and weaknesses; here is a list of my notes from the moment I put the Tecsun PL-680 on the air:

Pros:

Excellent sensitivity and selectivity on the shortwave bands
Improved weak signal stability over the PL-660
Stable sync lock
Proven PL-600 form factor with good overall ergonomics
Great internal speaker–an improvement over the PL-660 (but not as good as the PL-880 or Sangean ATS-909X)
Other than medium-wave performance (see con), a worthy replacement for the PL-660
Excellent audio from the PL-680 internal speaker (improved over the PL-660, but not matching the fidelity of the PL-880)

Cons:

Medium-wave performance for is a step backwards from the PL-680’s predecessor, the PL-660. Okay on strong and moderate-signal reception, somewhat poor for weak signals
Marginal noise floor increase on the shortwave bands
Like the PL-660, lacks a line-out jack (Please note this, Tecsun!)
SSB frequency display on my unit is + 1 kHz, slight BFO adjustment is needed (details in this update)

Conclusion

If you’re a shortwave radio listener, you’ll be pleased with the Tecsun PL-680. In all of my comparison tests between the Tecun PL-660 and Tecsun PL-680, the PL-680 tends to edge out the PL-660, performance-wise. This coincides with the user surveys, too.

If you’re a medium-wave DXer, you might skip over the PL-680. That is, unless Tecsun makes a good iterative design improvement. If you’re a casual medium-wave listener, on the other hand, you’ll probably be pleased with the PL-680.

All in all, I like the Tecsun PL-680 and I see myself using it more than the PL-660 when I’m on the go. If you’re primarily a shortwave radio listener, the PL-680 may very well be worth the upgrade. At $95 US plus shipping, it is certainly a good value. Note that Anon-Co plans to post the Tecsun PL-680 for sale on eBay in March 2015.

Click here to find the PL-680 on eBay.

Addendum:

PL-680 calibration: Dennis Coomans confirms via Anon-Co that the PL-680 (like the PL-660) can be calibrated by long pressing the AIR button (for SW, AM, etc) and by pressing SYNC for FM. According to Anon-Co, “all PL-680 receivers from production lines after November 2017 have this (hidden) manual calibration feature.”

Spread the radio love

Reader Survey: Comparing the Tecsun PL-660 and PL-680 on AM shortwave

13 Replies

[Update: Please note that this survey has been closed, but the audio samples–labeled Radio A and Radio B–will remain to allow others the opportunity to make an evaluation prior to reading the PL-680 review.]

[Update 2: The PL-680 review and readers’ survey results have now been posted! Check it out here.]

I’ve been spending a little time with my new Tecsun PL-680 today, and it’s been most interesting. Of course, I’ve already begun to form a few opinions about the radio and am taking notes. Yet I never believe a shortwave radio can be judged in one sitting; there are simply too many variables to account for, such as minute changes in propagation, fading, local radio interference, all of which can have a temporary effect on performance. It’s better to judge a radio after having used it over the course of at least a week or so, in diverse reception conditions.

Still, as I tuned the PL-680, I was already wondering how it compared with its predecessor, the PL-660–? And since I’ve received at least ten emails from readers curious about the same thing, I thought I might start a series of blind audio tests in order to let our readers decide for themselves.

So…ready for some fun?

Below, I’ve embedded eight recordings comparing the PL-660 and PL-680 on shortwave. All of these are recordings of broadcast stations, no SSB yet (I simply didn’t have the time today).

To participate, just listen, then fill out the form that follows with your choice of “Best Radio” for each broadcast. But do note the following:

I’ve attempted to set the audio levels equally on both radios. Iused the broadcast in the first recording to set the audio levels; they remain at this level for the remainder of the recordings. Nonetheless, you’ll note that one of the radios seems to have lower audio on a couple of the higher-band recordings; this is not due to any change in the incoming volume nor adjustments to the audio levels.
As seen in the photo above, I used a Zoom H2N digital recorder to make these recordings on the tailgate of my truck. Any time you hook a digital recorder up to a radio on the medium wave or shortwave bands, you most likely will inject a little noise. When I listened to each radio without the recorder in-line, I determined that the Zoom injected very little audible noise.
The assignment of “Radio A” and “Radio B” was chosen by a coin toss–so pretty much at random!
I included two recordings of WWV on 25 MHz. This is because the reception conditions from WWV change in a a matter of minutes, which would provide recording variation. I thought it would be best to include two such recordings.
Both radios have the gain set to “DX” and bandwidth set to wide. None of these recordings employ synchronous detection. The telescopic antenna was fully extended on both units. Additionally, both radios had the tone control set to “bass.”
No less relevant: it was 32F/OC with strong wind gusts and blowing snow in my face when I made these recordings. But I knew our readers would understand (and likely appreciate) this dedication to the absorbing art of SWLing…just as I appreciate your participation in judging this head-to-head radio showdown!

Audio Samples

9,395 kHz – Radio Prague via Global 24 (strong signal example)

Radio A

Radio B

25,000 kHz – WWV Fort Collins, CO

Radio A – 1st recording

Radio B – 1st recording

Radio A – 2nd recording

Radio B – 2nd recording

17,620 kHz – Radio France International (weak signal example)

Radio A

Radio B

Submit your response

Click here to use our response form to vote on your favorites, or simply use the form embedded below:

Loading…

Spread the radio love

Tom Stiles’ Eton Satellit video reviews

4 Replies

Many thanks to SWLing Post reader, Thomas Ally, who points out that Tom Stiles has published an array of videos featuring the Eton Satellit. The actual reviews and features begin with TRRS #0446.