Grundig SAT. 700 vs SAT 500?
EDWARD HILLYER
Peter Maus
> EDWARD HILLYER wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me of the main difference between the Grundig
> Satellit 500 from the early 1990s and the Satellit 700 from a few
> years later?
> I used to own the 700, but never a 500.
>
They're similar in appearance, and ergonomics, but much different
radios.
Sat 700 is more sophisticated in almost every way. More memories
on removable eeproms, more comprehensive display, stereo line out
on dedicated RCA's instead of mini, better FM sensitivity and
selectivity, better MW/SW sensitivity and selectivity. Preselector
tuning was still manual, but faster tuning over a wider range. Sync
worked without modification.
Sat 50O, however had smoother audio from the internal speaker,
with better bass.
If you owned a 700, you had the best of the 500, with all the
improvements, and latest developments, except for audio.
> Much obliged,
> Edward
EDWARD HILLYER
john KB5AG
had the two at the same time, but I do remember being disappointed in the
audio from my 500, versus the 400 I was planning to replace. Audio memory
is a very unreliable thing, but I thought the second 700 I had sounded
better than I remembered, and better in comparison with the 400 than did the
500. BTW, I just couldn't get rid of the 400; its still the best!
John B.
"Peter Maus" <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D4D5191...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
Peter Maus
john KB5AG wrote:
>
> Peter, you really think the 500 sounds much better than the 700?
Yes.
> I never
> had the two at the same time, but I do remember being disappointed in the
> audio from my 500, versus the 400 I was planning to replace.
Well, now, the question wasn't about the 400. Compared to the 400,
500 is definitely lacking in audio performance from the internal
speaker.
> Audio memory
> is a very unreliable thing, but I thought the second 700 I had sounded
> better than I remembered, and better in comparison with the 400 than did the
> 500. BTW, I just couldn't get rid of the 400; its still the best!
You have to understand, that audio is subjective matter, and I'm
looking strictly at the natural curve of the response from each.
From the internal speaker, 500 has a smoother low end, and a natural
top, if lesser in amplitude above 8k. 700 has more top end, but at
the expense of natural mids, and the bottom end is definitely
lacking. Distortion is lower on 500 than 700. So for long term
listening, I prefer the 500. By a considerable margin.
Now, through the line outs into a top flight amp, 700 wins hands
down.
But with the internal speaker, 500 beats 700 easily with a
smoother and more natural sound.
Neither of which are in the same class with 400. Not even close.
Gary
I've owned BOTH the 500 and the 700. I found the following:
The 500 had much better sound than the 700. The 500 has BETTER
selectivity than the 700, very noticeably better. Sensitivity was
equal between the two. The sync detector was better on the 700, but
not even good on it. I much preferred the 500 to the 700.