Kenwood RZ-1?
Mike Nowicki
>> What do people think of the Kenwood RZ-1 scanner?
>
>Anything with so broad of an unfiltered front end has just got to be trash.
>
It is trash. It has a wide freq range and mode selection but it's
general performance leaves a *lot* to be desired.
Maybe the RZ-2 (if and when) will be better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michael Nowicki N6LUU Atari Corp,Sunnyvale CA /TT/UNIX/X team |
|............................................................................|
| char *disclaimer=" Views expressed are my own, not my employer's"; |
| char *good_quote=" 'Wait'll they get a load of me!' - The Joker"; |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Robbins
> What do people think of the Kenwood RZ-1 scanner?
In addition to the review in the 1989 WRTH, a couple people over in ham-radio
have commented on it. Two didn't like it, one said he had one and was happy
with it.
I bought one as a replacement for the el-cheapo am/fm in my car, but with
the chilly weather, haven't gotten around to any kind of permenant installation
yet. Be warned that, though it is "DIN size", the only provision for mounting
is a couple holes in the side and butt, so unless you are doing a under-dash
mount with the supplied brackets, it may not be that easy...
The real issue seems to be that the design represents a compromise,
especially in the short-wave and AM-broadcast performance. A good quality
"communications receiver" will break up the band into segments of maybe one
or a few MHz each and block all other signals. It will also attempt to
mazimize the dynamic range so that both real weak and very strong signals
can be received and also so that a strong signal you're not tuned to will
not interfere with a weak one you're listening to.
The RZ-1 has only 5 band filters(*) to cover the broadcast and short-wave
bands (.5-60 Mhz), and supposedly pretty poor dynamic range. This is a
problem, especially in an automobile where you're going to have trouble
getting an antenna to be effective for shortwave and have to deal with
passing CB'ers and local radio stations.
(*) this is probably no worse than you're average portable, but then you
probably don't expect the portable to work in a car or while moving
through varied terrain and past different interference sources...
Anyway, the shortwave section is probably a better compromise for Europe
or where there are lots of "local" sw broadcast stations to listen to. I'm
a bit pessimistic about getting anything other than the "big 10" shortwave
stations while commuting to work.
The VHF and UHF section is apparently in better shape, alledgedly comparable
to normal "scanners". Mine seemed to do pretty well on TV and celluar (when
hooked up to a "TV" antenna system that blocked everything else) but I haven't
had a chance to plug in the numbers for other local services.
Also, somebody noted in ham-radio that ICOM had just released an equivalent
unit in Japan so it might be worth waiting to see if that shows up in the
US and is a better try. In the meantime, if you may want to consider either
a normal scanner or if you want .5-30 Mhz and have a non-compact car, mabye
mount a Kenwood or ICOM SW receiver under the dash...
--
George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!g...@uunet.uu.net
Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)