{"id":14308,"date":"2015-08-11T08:09:35","date_gmt":"2015-08-11T12:09:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/swling.com\/blog\/?p=14308"},"modified":"2015-08-11T08:09:35","modified_gmt":"2015-08-11T12:09:35","slug":"update-sangean-ats-405-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/swling.com\/blog\/2015\/08\/update-sangean-ats-405-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Update: Sangean ATS-405 review"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Sangean-ATS-405\"<\/a>After publishing my initial review of the Sangean ATS-405<\/a>\u00a0on July 25, I\u00a0contacted Sangean and requested a sample radio for comparison purposes. Back story: \u00a0there were some receiver performance issues that I suspected\u00a0may have been tied to my particular ATS-405 unit. Sangean\u00a0kindly dispatched another ATS-405 which I received last\u00a0week. The following is an update to my initial ATS-405 review<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In truth, there were two main reasons<\/em> I wanted another unit to compare to my initial review radio:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. I wanted to see if the new\u00a0unit showed improved performance\u2013sensitivity, selectivity, and, specifically, noise floor\u2013in\u00a0comparison\u00a0with\u00a0the first review unit tested<\/li>\n
  2. I noted strong DSP “birdies” (noises) on 800 and 1600 kHz on the test model, while\u00a0several of our readers commented<\/a> that their ‘405s\u00a0did not feature\u00a0birdies<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Shortwave sensitivity\/selectivity and noise<\/h2>\n

    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\u00a0tuned to marginal\/weak stations. I suspect many listeners may not notice it unless they compare it with other portables.<\/p>\n

    \"ATS-405-9580kHz\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    Fortunately, my new review unit’s noise floor seems to be slightly lower than that of my initial review unit<\/em>. [Perhaps this unit’s\u00a0board is better soldered\u2013?] The noise is still there, but can be better mitigated by judiciously using narrow filters and the three-position audio tone control.<\/p>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    In terms of sensitivity and selectivity on the shortwave bands,\u00a0I believe my new unit is identical to that of the initial review unit. That is to say, the ATS-405 is not an especially\u00a0 sensitive shortwave receiver, but\u00a0fairly average, and thus will\u00a0fit the bill for most\u00a0but not for the discriminating weak-signal hunter. \u00a0Frankly, even my $46\u00a0Tecsun PL-310ET<\/a> does a better job of pulling in weak stations.<\/p>\n

    I’ve tried tinkering with the AGC settings and soft mute\u2013very cool features!\u2013in an attempt\u00a0to improve sensitivity, but alas, these only help the quality and stability of the received signal.<\/p>\n

    Birdies<\/h2>\n

    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<\/a>, I noted\u00a0a strong DSP birdie on 1600 and (to a lesser degree) on 800 kHz].<\/p>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    \"ATS-405-1600kHz\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    Below, I’ve embedded audio comparing the two receivers:<\/p>\n

    Initial review unit:<\/strong><\/p>\nhttp:\/\/swling.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/08\/1600kHz-ATS-405-InitialUnit.mp3<\/a><\/audio>\n

    New review unit:<\/strong><\/p>\nhttp:\/\/swling.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/08\/1600kHz-ATS-405-NewUnit.mp3<\/a><\/audio>\n

    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\u00a0on the second (hence, the brighter tone).<\/p>\n

    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:<\/p>\n