GE Super Radio III
Kevin Shepherd
I'm in the DC area.
Also, is it worth spending the extra money for a Sangean CCRadio?
Thanks,
Kevin Shepherd
Rampugh Estollische
III. Side by side shows nearly identical sensitivity. Sony 2010 with the
synch det. is best but GE SR III is still best on sound for extended
listening.
"Kevin Shepherd" <k...@afandpa.org> wrote in message
news:9uqipe$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Kevin Shepherd
human voice"
stuff. I have a Grundig 400PE, and am assuming I will get much better medium
wave
performance, e.g DX'ng, from the GE.
Ron Hardin
Get a MW loop and the 400 will do as well. The only difficulty is
that the slow AGC makes it difficult to tune the loop. Sometimes
setting the local/dx switch to local helps, by in effect disabling
the AGC while you're tuning the loop; turn it back to dx once it's
tuned.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
CW
machine. Not that it isn't capable but with it's limited filters and analog
tuning, there are better choices. I have never tried a CCradio but most
people that have both seem to agree that they are about comparable for weak
signals. The only thing these radios have over your YB 400 is a better
antenna. That is easily (and inexpensively) fixed. A MW loop will enable the
400 to compete with either of these radios.
--
CW
KC7NOD
Web Page http://www.kc7nod.20m.com
"Kevin Shepherd" <k...@afandpa.org> wrote in message
news:9uqn5r$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Miles Thornton
> Does anybody know what major chain retailers carry the Super Radio III?
> I'm in the DC area.
>
> Also, is it worth spending the extra money for a Sangean CCRadio?
Yes it is WELL worth the extra money! You can go to a Radio Shack to see
their version of the GE Super Radio just to get an idea of how "cheap" it
looks and feels, then order a CCradio and notice the difference before you
even turn it on. The AM reception is as great as advertised, and the FM
is just as good for DXing!
Miles Thornton
> Forget the CCRadio. Nice to tune but lousy sound quality compared to GE SR
> III. Side by side shows nearly identical sensitivity.
ROTFL! Yeah right. You can just LOOK at them side by side and tell which
one is going to work better before you even turn them on! Note that there
is no way that the $60 General Electric radio is going to perform anywhere
NEAR a $150 Sangean! (CCradio)
HEI002
years concerning the CC radio vs. the GE most of the listings favor the GE. I
do not have any personal experience only the listings I have read.
C Ingram
>one is going to work better before you even turn them on! Note that there
>is no way that the $60 General Electric radio is going to perform anywhere
>NEAR a $150 Sangean! (CCradio)
I disagree. I have both a CCRadio and a GE Superadio III, and while I like the
CCRadio well enough, it's four times the price of the GE and doesn't give you
four times the performance. The GE is an economical alternative, with
respectably similar sensitivity/selectivity, particularly on AM. (I should
add, though, that I also own a GE Superadio II, and prefer it greatly to the SR
III.)
Now, if we can just get a GE Superadio IV with digital tuning (the dial
calibration on the SR III is legendarily bad) and perhaps an integral cassette
deck?
jim menning
"Miles Thornton" <mi...@thornton.com> wrote in message
news:3C111CD0...@thornton.com...
Miles---Don't compare the Radio Shack to the GE! The Radio Shack is nowhere
near the radio the GE is, either in performance or build. Anyone who has
actually compared both would know this.
Jim Menning
Collector of Itsy, Bitsy, Teeny, Weeny, Tiny, Little TVs and Radios
Buyer of Small LCD and CRT TVs-The more unusual, the better!
Jay
than the other, or to tell someone "Get this one, don't get that one." I
have several radios including the CCRadio, Sony 2010, Sony GR7600, GE
Superadio III, Grundig YB400, and I just sold a Radio Shack DX-398. Whew!
Ok, so I'm a collector.
I have always loved radios, but I've never had one that did everything
exactly the way I like. There is no "best."
The question of the CCRadio vs. the GE Superadio vs. the YB400 for AM DXing
are a little confused in some of the reviews. I have found that they offer
similar (not identical) performance in some ways but are very different in
other ways. A dedicated DXer might say none of these are "serious" dx
machines, but for the average listener trying to pull in distant signals and
snag the occasional dx catch, they all offer lots of enjoyment.
For sheer sensitivity, the Sony 2010 and CCRadio in that order are the most
sensitive, and the GE is a very, very close third. They are so close in
sensitivity that unless you compare them against one another you are not
likely to notice a difference. The Sony is the most selective (and with sync
detection much more selective), the CC is also more selective than the GE,
but the GE is more than respectable in this area. I feel it's true that the
GE feels cheap, yet it has clearly the best audio of ANY of these radios,
and I have used mine for several years with no problems, so it would kind of
depend on whether you wanted the best sound or the easiest tuning whether
you would prefer the CCRadio or the GE. That's why I keep both.
The YB400 and 7600GR are much smaller and have much smaller sound. They're
great for travel, but don't have the sensitivity or the sound quality of a
larger radio. They sound like they look. They're lots of fun, but if you
compare them with their bigger brothers they are clearly not in the same
league. Even medium strength signals which you can easily hear on any radio
will sound cleaner and clearer on the top 3, with less noise in the
background and generally more natural sound.
I have always enjoyed radios, feeling that this one was best for this, that
one best for that. I laugh when I read people's comments raving about this
one over that one. They are not separating their personal values from
objective reporting, and I fear many people are mislead by them. If you can
get your hands on some radios, you will soon get a feel for what matters
most to you. Then you will know what you want, and you will view other's
reviews with an appropriate grain of salt.
The most important thing is to start listening and have fun.
"HEI002" <hei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011207152238...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Rhavedx
I have seen the GE Super Radio at Sears electonics dept., and the price was
less than most of the specialty mail order firms.
Kent
"Miles Thornton" <mi...@thornton.com> wrote in message
news:3C111CD0...@thornton.com...
Kent
answer. "Just by looking"???? It is amazing how people get fooled by
digital tuning... some people think that makes a better radio. The digital
tuning actually introduced noise into the radio. Something the GE does not
have to worry about.
Kent, K9EZ
Radios....
Yaesu Ft-1000D
Ft-100
VX-1
Kenwood TS-430
Hammerlund 129X
GE SR III
Philco 39B
(many others)
Antennas....
1500' Beverage
30 Vertical
120' Sloper
Yaesu ATAS-100
2M/440 colinear
27 elements on 432MHz
13 El on 144
3 El on 50MHz
Hamsticks
"Miles Thornton" <mi...@thornton.com> wrote in message
news:3C111D5B...@thornton.com...
radiok3pi
>
> Yes it is WELL worth the extra money! You can go to a Radio Shack to see
> their version of the GE Super Radio just to get an idea of how "cheap" it
> looks and feels, then order a CCradio and notice the difference before you
> even turn it on. The AM reception is as great as advertised, and the FM
> is just as good for DXing!
NO NO NO NO. The Radio Shack version is NOT the same radio and in no
way should be compared to the GE superadio. The RS is a real piece of
trash. Not true of the GE.
Now the GE SR3 vs. CCRadio argument is not that clear cut. If you
need digital readout, TV channels, WX radio, better dial accuracy,
then the CCRadio is an easy decision. For nothing but AM reception,
not such an easy choice. I would argue that the audio on the GE is
better than the CCR. The GE is plagued by a few birdies. I find that
the CCR folds up when faced with a strong local. Battery life on the
GE is outstanding. It is lower (and grossly overstated, I might add)
on the CCR. I think one could easily make the argument that the GE
SR3 is a better value for AM/MW reception. The CCR is 3+ times the
cost of the GE. Is it more than 3 times better. Not in my book.
Don't get me wrong, I like my CCRadio and use it a lot. But after all
the hype, I was really expecting it to blow the doors off the
Superadio. It didn't.
Russ
Miles Thornton
> >ROTFL! Yeah right. You can just LOOK at them side by side and tell which
> >one is going to work better before you even turn them on! Note that there
> >is no way that the $60 General Electric radio is going to perform anywhere
> >NEAR a $150 Sangean! (CCradio)
>
> I disagree.
You disagree, yet you say this:
> Now, if we can just get a GE Superadio IV with digital tuning (the dial
> calibration on the SR III is legendarily bad)
Seems you agree after all, you just don't know it.
Miles Thornton
> The R.S. radio is not quite the same as the SR III.
Close enough, especially when comparing both to the CCradio.
Miles Thornton
> in my book.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I like my CCRadio and use it a lot.
So many contradictions, but this last one was the best.
Charles George
>calibration on the SR III is legendarily bad) and perhaps an integral
>cassette
>deck?
I have found digital tuning adds in more noise, besides on MW/AM a person can
count mentally from a known station, besides using the log scale and some basic
algebra a person can create their own logging system.
A tape deck would take away from the sensitivity and/or selectivity the same it
did for the ATS-818 and its twin the ATS-818CTS. It is better to have a
cassette deck as a add own like you can do with the ATS-909.
Charles George, KC5RAI
P.S. I do have a tape deck built into the Stereo system I got from DAK.
My Stereo is not very sensitive but can get good recordings of my AM/MW DX when
I use the Select-Antenna.
Charles George
>the hype, I was really expecting it to blow the doors off the
>Superadio. It didn't.
>
>Russ
>
I thought about getting the CCrane radio but I decided I could use the money to
buy me a train set instead.
Besides the CCrane doesn't offer shortwave that I can get on my ATS-818 and
DX-398/ATS-909.
My current line-up:
DX-398 with roll away antenna, I found it is the worst of my sets for MWDX.
ATS-818 with another roll away antenna, pre-amp from Radio Shack, and I use the
Select-Antenna when I want to listen to AM/MW DX.
GE Superadio III with Radio Shack loop antenna.
Stereo from DAK which when I use the Select-Antenna I get soe good MW/AM
catches, I have heard Colombia and Venezuela.
I have a GE, their version of a Walkman.
I have a Zenith AM/FM portable, I bought it because it looked pretty, I found
it is worth the $5 I paid at a flea market.
I also have a Pro-2035 scanner.
Also because I have No-Code tech license
and like to talk with others 2, HTX-202 from Radio Shack.
Charles George, KC5RAI
P. S. I have never met a radio I didn't like.
The first radio I ever had was a 9-transistor radio I won in a drawing when I
was 11 at a Radio Shack.
radiok3pi
Hmmm. Not sure I see even the first contradiction. But perhaps the
posting by Jay says it better. My main reason for posting to was to
be sure that no one got the wrong impression that RS is the same radio
as the GE. I bought and returned 2 new samples of that radio (12-903)
and it is a loser. I have corresponded recently with another MW/DX'er
who had the same experience.
The GE/CCR comparision has been going on since the CCR was introduced
& doubt if it will be settled here! The fact that a $45 dollar radio
often gets compared favorably to one at $160, is interesting in
itself. They're both good radios.
I would advise anyone getting a GE SR3 to "try before buy." I got
mine at Sears. Took batteries with me and tried all 5 that they had
for the best dial accuracy (this radio is infamous for poor dial
accuracy). My low tech way to overcome this is to put a removeable
label over the logging scale and mark frequencies on that.
To add fuel to the fire, the old GE SR2 is superior to the GE SR3
(build quality, dial accuracy, selectivity). If forced to keep just
one for for AM/MW performance, I think I would keep the SR2 over the
CCR. My opinion, anyway.
73 Russ
Mike Mc Manus
Where to get a GE Super Radio III? Sears around me has been out of stock.
Try either Universal Radio or Bennett Brothers (in Chicago). I know Bennett
Brothers has them. I just got one.
Audio on the GE is magnificent! I have it next to my Sony 2010.
Mike
"Rhavedx" <rha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011207201446...@mb-ce.aol.com...
tmcc...@carolina.rr.com
I got mine at Service Merchandise for $60
CW
So, how does a tape recorder reduce sensitivity?
"Charles George" <chasg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208025006...@mb-mr.aol.com...
Your Friend Bill
>
> Analog tuning with a digital display. If done right, gives the best of both.
> So, how does a tape recorder reduce sensitivity?
> --
> CW
> KC7NOD
> Web Page http://www.kc7nod.20m.com
Analog with digital readout was very popular about 20 years ago. The
big problem with most of such designs is that they tended to use varicap
tuning which tends to be a bit sloppy and dependent on a pot...which 20
years later is now noisy and the freq jumps around or the calibration is
shot. Typically the 'counter' was not reading the LO signal but simply
aligned to match it. These days when people expect 1 Hz readout (or
even 10 Hz) the scheme cannot be made to work reliably.
As much as I love old analog stuff, synthesizer garbage need not be a
problem these days but thats asking a lot out of a $39.95 radio.
-Bill
CW
this radio is not end all performance. It is performance for the price. If
you start adding PLL and readout, done well enough to not hurt performance,
then the price goes up to the point that the appeal of the radio is
mitigated. I proposed a compromise and was just making a comment. As far as
I'm concerned, it's just fine the way it is. I see the GE SR III as a good
program listeners radio with enough sensitivity to get solid copy on an
otherwise marginal signal and good, room filling audio. In that roll, it
does very well. For a serious BCB DX machine, there are far better choices.
Your last statement summed it up nicely. This radio is an excellent
performer in it's price class. If one wants more, it is available, for a
price.
"Your Friend Bill" <"Remove The NO In The Reply Address"@coqui.net> wrote in
message news:3C127337...@coqui.net...
Your Friend Bill
>
> You have valid points but keep it in context. IMHO, the big advantage to
> this radio is not end all performance. It is performance for the price. If
> you start adding PLL and readout, done well enough to not hurt performance,
> then the price goes up to the point that the appeal of the radio is
> mitigated. I proposed a compromise and was just making a comment. As far as
> I'm concerned, it's just fine the way it is. I see the GE SR III as a good
> program listeners radio with enough sensitivity to get solid copy on an
> otherwise marginal signal and good, room filling audio. In that roll, it
> does very well. For a serious BCB DX machine, there are far better choices.
> Your last statement summed it up nicely. This radio is an excellent
> performer in it's price class. If one wants more, it is available, for a
> price.
> --
> CW
> KC7NOD
all I see posted here is its performance against some other radio and it
usually comes out the loser.
No doubt its a good radio for the price and maybe serves as a wider
stepping-stone in the search for a better radio.
In the world of radios, thinking you can sneakily find the best one for
$39.95 simply says the Yugo salesman still has a grasp on your sleeve.
-Bill
ManKind
tuning via a variable capacitor and the digital readout is via a freq
counter which samples the local oscillator. Quite effective.
ManKind
many more expensive radios like the ICF2010 for instance. :) Surely noone
disputes that the superradio pulls in MW signals better than the ICF2010 ?
Your Friend Bill
You're supporting a losing side, Man. Yes, many of these designs used
old-time air variable caps and a counter sampling that ONLY counted the
LO but thats exactly where the problem lies.
How do you maintain the correlation between the counter and the set's
LO? If you want direct numerical readout you need a separate 'LO' for
the counter. No way to lock the two. And if you pass beyond single
conversion radios, it only gets more complicated and the resulting
readout is totally worthless (ie: un-marketable) by todays
standards...unless there's enough integrity in the circuit to maintain
tracking, etc. But then we have passed the $39.95 sets and are into
sets that could be built with proper synthesizer techniques anyway.
Its a valid scheme but poor by today's standards when the original
question was addressing synthesizer noise as a limiting factor. Those
old flourescent displays weren't particularly quiet either.
Some of the old Panasonics, Grundigs and GEs that used this were, and
still are, very acceptable sets. If you recall the transition from a
SWBC band occupying 1/4 inch on an older dial scale to a digital gizmo
that would get you within a kc or two, that was a very impressive
moment. The newbies nowadays would view it as pretty cheesy, tho.
-ex
ManKind
>LO? If you want direct numerical readout you need a separate 'LO' for
>the counter. No way to lock the two.
Why do you say this ? You dont need a separate LO for the counter. You
couple the LO, through a buffer, to the counter circuit. The counter is
programmed to deduct the IF freq and display the result.
And if you pass beyond single
>conversion radios, it only gets more complicated and the resulting
>readout is totally worthless (ie: un-marketable) by todays
>standards...unless there's enough integrity in the circuit to maintain
>tracking, etc.
Not true. Regardless of how much conversion you do, single to quadruple, if
you sample the LO and feed it to a programmable counter which then deducts
the IF freq and displays the result it works. Lets say we have a dual
conversion receiver and the first mixer is Xtal controlled and beats an
incoming 20 mhz signal to a 10mhz Xtal and outputs to an IF freq of 10mhz.
Now this 10mhz signal is fed to another mixer with a variable LO of
10.455mhz which feeds a 455khz IF. The counter could be fed this 10.455 mhz
signal and be programmed to add (10 mhz - .455 mhz) and display 20.000 mhz
the incoming signal :)
Your Friend Bill
>
> >How do you maintain the correlation between the counter and the set's
> >LO? If you want direct numerical readout you need a separate 'LO' for
> >the counter. No way to lock the two.
>
> Why do you say this ? You dont need a separate LO for the counter. You
> couple the LO, through a buffer, to the counter circuit. The counter is
> programmed to deduct the IF freq and display the result.
Are we talking a real integral circuit here or an add-on product?.
>
> And if you pass beyond single
> >conversion radios, it only gets more complicated and the resulting
> >readout is totally worthless (ie: un-marketable) by todays
> >standards...unless there's enough integrity in the circuit to maintain
> >tracking, etc.
>
> Not true. Regardless of how much conversion you do, single to quadruple, if
> you sample the LO and feed it to a programmable counter which then deducts
> the IF freq and displays the result it works. Lets say we have a dual
> conversion receiver and the first mixer is Xtal controlled and beats an
> incoming 20 mhz signal to a 10mhz Xtal and outputs to an IF freq of 10mhz.
> Now this 10mhz signal is fed to another mixer with a variable LO of
> 10.455mhz which feeds a 455khz IF. The counter could be fed this 10.455 mhz
> signal and be programmed to add (10 mhz - .455 mhz) and display 20.000 mhz
> the incoming signal :)
Back to the original doubt. How would this make a GE SR "4"
cost-effective compared to a $40 2 or 3?
You win. Yes it can be done, and is done with the add-on readout boxes
but they are an expensive adjunct to a $40 radio.
-Bill
CW
that 2010 (or any other good quality radio) and add a loop antenna. The GE
SRIII is a good radio for what it is, I just wouldn't by one as a DX machine
unless I had very little cash. I bought mine because I wanted good
performance and room filling audio in a portable format. For that, it does
nicely.
"ManKind" <man...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9171D2DA8ma...@24.18.102.151...
came...@charter.net
> >How do you maintain the correlation between the counter and the set's
> >LO? If you want direct numerical readout you need a separate 'LO' for
> >the counter. No way to lock the two.
>
> Why do you say this ? You dont need a separate LO for the counter. You
> couple the LO, through a buffer, to the counter circuit. The counter is
> programmed to deduct the IF freq and display the result.
>
for the counter, usually XTAL controlled, and how well the IF frequency that
is subtracted actually matches the center of the passband of the IF filters.
I've seen one design where the value for the IF that gets subtracted was
actually adjusted to match the center frequency of the IF filters.
came...@charter.net
to my SR III and a 7600G and a 398. SR III was dead last, 7600G was top,
followed by the 398 and 2010. Only one sample of each radio and a short
comparison. I didn't judge sensitivity, though. I'd do that during daylight
hours.
"ManKind" <man...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9171D2DA8ma...@24.18.102.151...
ManKind
samples the LO and is quite effective.
>Back to the original doubt. How would this make a GE SR "4"
>cost-effective compared to a $40 2 or 3?
I didnt know that was the argument. No, I dont think it would be feasible to
convert the GE superradio.
ManKind
compensate ? :) When you change bands usually this fine adjustment needs
retouching. OF course, this fine adjustment could be separate for each band
and inside the radio and set once during alignment and then that wouldnt
have to be done. :)
AS for whether it is designed for the center of the IF, if the LO is 10.455
and the IF is 455 khz then you are tuned to 10 mhz. Where that is in the IF
is dependant on the IF alignment. If you tune to 10.456 then counter would
show 10.001 and you would be to the high side of the IF. No ? :)
ManKind
the best in that regard. Best I have heard at least.
ManKind
antenna.
craigm
> Perhaps that is why the RF4900 has a fine adjustment on the front to
> compensate ? :) When you change bands usually this fine adjustment needs
> retouching. OF course, this fine adjustment could be separate for each
band
> and inside the radio and set once during alignment and then that wouldnt
> have to be done. :)
>
> AS for whether it is designed for the center of the IF, if the LO is
10.455
> and the IF is 455 khz then you are tuned to 10 mhz. Where that is in the
IF
> is dependant on the IF alignment. If you tune to 10.456 then counter would
> show 10.001 and you would be to the high side of the IF. No ? :)
>
>
the high side of the IF passband.
ManKind
Frank Dresser
AADE sells a digital display kit which can be used on most analog radios,
including the Superradio.
http://aade.com/Applic~1.htm#SUPERADIO
I guess GE could integrate something like that into it for a lower cost. Don't
know what the cost would be, or how it would compare with putting an accurate
calibration mark every 20 kHz. Getting an analog radio to track accurately can
be time consuming and I don't think GE wants to spend even an extra 20 seconds
on each radio.
Frank Dresser
ManKind
bunch of sales from people who already own a superradio :) I figure they could
get $99 for it with digital display.
Charles George
>--
>CW
>KC7NOD
The ATS-818 that I have has better selectivity and sensitivity than the
versions of the ATS-818CTS with cassette recorder
built in. The space that the cassette recorder uses takes away parts or
whatever that makes the ATS-818 better, Larry Magne in Passport and also the
WRTH give a better description of this than I can do here.
Charles George, KC5RAI
Charles George
>bunch of sales from people who already own a superradio :) I figure they
>could
>get $99 for it with digital display.
>
Not me! If I am going to spend that much, I would save and get something
better with shortwave... Hmm, I might get me another Desktop set.
I find that I have had some sets that I have traded out and/or given away to
friends.
I have had and sold DX-394, Drake SSR-1.
I have given to friends, when getting a new radio that was more desirable to
me, and to get them into the shortwave hobby: Panasonic RF-2600, DX-440, and
several transistor sets from Radio Shack, Sony, Grundig.
I also have had friends who have let me borrow and play with radios from their
collections.
The only reason my GE Superadio III is a little more is because I had bought it
modified with a tuneable SCA. It is fun when the DX is so strong that you can
get the SCAs as DX.
I find it even enjoyable when FMDX can be picked up on my cheap stereo.
Charles George, KC5RAI
David Knisely
Product Review
by David Knisely, KA0CZC
G.E. SUPERRADIO III
Model 7-2887A AM/FM Radio
MSRP: $59.95
The General Electric "Superradio" series has become somewhat of a
legend in medium wave DX-ing circles. Many people have claimed that it
was one of the best AM/FM radios for those who wish to listen to distant
radio stations or do some DX-ing. With that in mind, I found a new
Superradio III on sale at a local discount store, and decided to see
just how good a radio it is. After
some testing here on the plains of Nebraska, I found the SRIII to be a
fairly good portable radio for those who like to listen to distant AM
broadcast stations, but it's somewhat of a disappointment for serious
DX-ing use.
FEATURES: The radio is a rounded boxy black unit 13" long, 9" high, and
3.75" deep, weighing in at about 5 lbs without the batteries. It covers
from 530 kHz to 1700 kHz on AM broadcast, and 87-108 Mhz on FM broadcast
(monaural), in continuous slide-rule type tuning along a 7 inch
non-illuminated analog display across the top of the radio's front
panel. The frequency markings
are somewhat small and grey in color, which can be difficult to read in
less than bright room illumination. The tuning knob is on the right
side of the radio, and the tuning is smooth and easy. Below the tuning
knob is a 1/8" earphone jack, and the top of the radio contains the
power button on its right end, as well as a carrying handle and the 35
inch telescoping whip for FM
reception. The front panel has the large speaker grille containing a 6
inch woofer and a 2 inch tweeter. The right side of the front panel
contains the AM/FM, AFC, and bandwidth switches, along with the volume,
treble, and bass controls. The back of the radio has screw terminals
for 300 Ohm FM external antennas, as well as a terminal for an external
AM wire antenna. The battery
compartment houses 6 "D" cells, as well as the AC power cord. Unlike
some radios, the SRIII has automatic switching between AC and the
internal batteries, so the user isn't forced to remember to flick a
hidden switch. There is no input for an external 9V DC source, so you
are limited to either AC or internal battery operation. The radio is
totally analog, so it should have very good battery life. I put
batteries in it at Christmas, and with occasional use (about 45 minutes
per day 3 or 4 days per week) the radio is still doing well on that
original set 8 months later.
PERFORMANCE: The Superradio III is a fairly sensitive relatively
inexpensive radio with excellent audio. It performs somewhat better
than many other table-top or portable AM radios, as well as out-doing my
old Kenwood stereo tuner. The SRIII, with its simple slide-rule tuning,
big speakers, and good AGC action seems to better fill the needs of
those who just like to listen to
distant AM Broadcast stations, rather than those of the serious DX-er.
Still, hearing some nighttime distant signals with almost the same
strength and fidelity as locals is one of the pleasures of using this
radio. Most of the big guns on the AM band were rock-solid and easy to
hear, remaining audible, even during deep fades. Most other areas of
the AM band were packed
with stations, and even a few DX catches were heard from time to time as
conditions permitted. I enjoyed listening to distant sporting events or
programs like, "When Radio Was", or "Imagination Theater", on the SRIII,
with the booming audio this radio is famous for.
However, for the more demanding requirements of the Medium Wave
DX-er, I find the SRIII's often-heard reputation as a "DX machine"
somewhat overblown. While the AM band is rich in activity with this
radio, its performance for digging out real DX is somewhat less than
outstanding, both in terms of selectivity, and (to a lesser extent),
sensitivity. The radio's somewhat inaccurate slide-rule tuning can make
it harder for a DXer to re-aquire a previously heard weak station in the
"graveyard" portions of the AM band, or to determine the exact frequency
of a station without having to wait to catch the I.D. at the top or
bottom of the hour. Even the readability of the dial markings is less
than on many other portable radios, as they are smaller and darker than
they really should be. One problem which detracts from the otherwise
fine audio quality is the somewhat high noise floor. With the radio's
bandwidth control in the "narrow" position, the receiver exhibits a
significant level of residual noise, appearing as a raspy hissing sound
when the radio is tuned to a blank area on the dial. This noise is most
noticable in the daytime, or in areas where there are few strong
stations. There are also one or two nasty broad birdies, with the
strongest around 920 kHz. They acted as if the receiver was about to
break into oscillation.
With the bandwidth switch set to "wide", the audio on local or
stronger stations was very good to excellent, rivaling some Hi-Fi
receivers, but the selectivity in the wide position was extremely poor,
and many of the weaker stations vanished. For decent distant listening,
the bandwidth switch had to be left on "narrow", as the "wide" position
was nearly useless. In addition, when running off of AC and in the
narrow bandwidth mode, touching the receiver or draping the power cord
near the radio caused a weak AC-hum modulation in the audio output on
some stations. Another problem with the radio was the lack of alignment
and quality control. Out of the box, the dial was over 200 kHz off, and
was not very linear. I consulted my local GE service man, and found out
that the main GE office wouldn't give out ANY servicing details, even to
my local GE repair shop! After some study of all the SRIII information
on Werner Funkenhauser's website, I carefully opened the radio up to
have a look inside (BE CAREFUL!, the Power switch is VERY fragile, and
is easily broken unless carefully depressed). I did some adjustments on
the two trim pots R1 and R3 to both contract the AM band, and position
the stations so that their frequencies would more closely match the
markings on the dial. I didn't have the SRIII alignment manual, so all
I could do was try and peak the RF stages and test the IF alignment a
bit. I
was able to improve the slide-rule tuning dial location somewhat, and to
reduce a strong birdie-like image next to my local 1kW KWBE with some
tweaking of the capacitor C8, but otherwise, I was unable to improve the
unit's AM performance significantly.
Comparing the SuperRadio III to my little $170 Sony ICF-SW7600G
might at first seem a bit unfair, but much of the extra cost for the
Sony goes into features like multiband coverage (100 kHz to 30 Mhz and
FM broadcast), a small size, digital readout, memories, FM stereo,
timers, ect., rather than directly into a raw reception performance
improvement. The 7600G is the
radio which I get the most portable use out of, and on AM broadcast, I
considered it to be acceptable for DX-ing, although perhaps not
outstanding. As such, I decided that a comparison would be useful.
Side-by side using just the two radios' internal loopstick antennas, the
SRIII was not quite as sensitive as the Sony, although again, the SRIII
had much better audio, mostly due to the SRIII's much larger speakers.
Using a signal generator to supply a weak signal for comparison, at 860
kHz, the Sony SW7600G was about 2.2 dB more sensitive than the SRIII,
which is a noticable but not tremendous difference. I also compared the
SRIII to my little 15 year-old "Sound Design" Model 4633 AM/FM boombox.
The two radios performed almost identically, although the SRIII seemed
to have a *very* slight edge in audio "punch" over the boombox overall.
Thus, the SRIII's sensitivity isn't exactly "head and shoulders" above
all other common AM portables. Still, its more than enough to bring in
a variety of distant stations, although some weaker DX catches might
escape detection.
I also put the Superradio III up against my Radio Shack "Superradio
clone", Tandy's Optimus 12-603A. The SRIII was the better radio here,
as the Optimus was about 1.1 dB less sensitive than the SRIII at 860
kHz, and considerably worse at the higher frequencies into the
"expanded" portion of the AM band beyond 1600 kHz. The Superradio
managed to pick up 7 or 8 stations in the expanded band verses the
Optimus's meager 3. However, the higher noise floor of the SRIII made
listening to marginal daytime signals a bit more difficult than with the
Optimus (it had a very quiet floor). The nulls in the SRIII's loopstick
were sharper and deeper than the broader ones
of the Optimus and my Sound Design Boombox. These narrow nulls might
make nailing a station direction or eliminating co-channel interferance
easier than with other portable radios.
I placed the Superradio III in my home-brew medium-wave passive
loop antenna, and the SRIII's performance did improve to a moderate
degree. However, the difference was not nearly as much as I found when
putting either my little Emerson hand-held 7-band radio or my Optimus in
the loop. Clearly, the SRIII didn't need as much help from the loop as
the other radios did. My Sony 7600G is only mildly improved by the
external loop, thus the only moderate improvment of the SRIII with the
loop indicates that it already has a lot of sensitivity, but perhaps not
quite as much as some other units might show. An external antenna or
consistent use of a passive loop antenna would probably make the radio
fairly suitable for some DX-ing (you *can* use the
radio alone for limited DX-ing), but the internal loopstick alone might
not be quite enough if you are going for the really weak ones (like
foreign MW stations).
In terms of the greater selectivity needed for more serious DXing,
the SuperRadio III's performance is somewhat less pleasing. Even in the
narrow bandwidth setting, the SRIII couldn't quite manage a clean 10 kHz
split between a weak station and my local 1kW KWBE on 1450 kHz, unless
the end of the SRIII's loopstick antenna was pointed towards KWBE's
tower. 20 kHz
separations from strong local stations were done somewhat better,
although weak splatter from very strong signals could sometimes still be
heard. This performance again was roughly comparable to my old Sound
Design Boombox. By comparison, the Optimus 12-603A was even less
selective, often having trouble with 20-30 kHz spits with strong
stations. Away from strong stations, the SRIII did 10 kHz splits with
little trouble, but it took a gentle tuning touch, and narrower splits
probably could not be easily done. My little Sony 7600G routinely was
able to get within 10 kHz of KWBE, and could do 5 kHz spits on weaker
stations, so the SRIII's selectivity might not meet the needs of the
more serious AM DXer, especially when there are strong local stations to
contend with.
On FM-broadcast, the Superradio was only an adequate performer.
The dial was misaligned again by about 1.5 Mhz, but this wasn't
surprising. Using just its whip antenna, the SRIII received about 30
stations, compared with 22 on my Optimus Superradio clone. Some
stations were fairly loud, and the audio was excellent, but none was
much over 100 miles distant. The sensitivity and selectivity of the
SRIII were somewhat inferior to my Sony 7600G, which
managed to pick up 49 stations in the FM band using just its whip (some
over 110 miles away). Even my old Sound Design Boombox was somewhat
better on FM broadcast reception than the SRIII. Selectivity was
mediocre, with strong stations frequently knocking out weaker adjacent
channels. With an external antenna, the SRIII's performance might allow
some limited FM DX-ing during
band openings, but for the more demanding FM DXer, the Sony ICF-SW7600G
(or even my old boombox) would probably be a better choice.
In summary, the G.E. SUPERRADIO III is a fairly good portable radio
with good sensitivity and outstanding audio at a fairly low price.
However, in my mind, it does not quite live up to the "myth", of the
Superradios. Those seeking somewhat better performance in a medium-wave
DX-ing receiver might be advised to look elsewhere (and be prepared to
pay just a little more than $40).
--
David Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. http://www.4w.com/pac
Hyde Memorial Observatory:
http://www.blackstarpress.com/arin/hyde
******************************************************
* Attend the 9th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* August 4-9, 2002 http://www.nebraskastarparty.org *
******************************************************
David Knisely
> Put it this way. If we had a MW DX contest I would take the GE Superradio over
> many more expensive radios like the ICF2010 for instance. :) Surely noone
> disputes that the superradio pulls in MW signals better than the ICF2010 ?
I don't know about the ICF-2001, but I have both the SRIII (properly
aligned) and the Sony ICF-SW7600G. The Sony 7600G is slightly more
sensitive and nearly twice as selective as the SuperRadio III (along
with having a decent digital readout to tell you what frequency you are
listening to without having to wait for a station ID). For sound
quality, the SuperRadio is better, but if I was participating in a MW DX
contest, the Sony would be my choice by far over the SRIII.
CW
stated that the audio quality was better on the version with out the
cassette due to the smaller speaker used to make room. I have had both of
them open and found no difference besides layout.news:20011209021954...@mb-cv.aol.com...
Your Friend Bill
From what I read, dial calibration seems to be a very weak point on this
radio and there's no good excuse for that. No doubt it could be cured
by proper alignment at the factory.
-Bill
Charles George
>stated that the audio quality was better on the version with out the
>cassette due to the smaller speaker used to make room. I have had both of
>them open and found no difference besides layout.
For me the audio makes the difference between hearing a catch and not hearing
it.
Probably that is why in some contests I have used cheaper equipment and still
got better results than those with more expensive gear.
I am as not technically inclined so I tend to take things as they come out of
the box and off the shelf. This same thinking is probably why I am a No-Code
Tech rather than a true Amateur Radio Operator with a higher grade of license.
I think my GE Superadio III is still able to compete at the price I paid for it
though it lacks the digital readout and a cassette deck. But then I grew up
with analog radios and know how to find my way around on the AM dial.
Unless I am operating a station, I am not concerned that much about dial
accuracy,
but hearing the station. The GE Superadio III and the ATS-818 have superb audio
compared to some radios that I have heard.
My DX-398 is fun to use because it is so small and easy to stowe away when
traveling, but I really use it less than my other radios when at home.
But I think the upgrades mentioned for the GE Superadio III would have put in
a different price bracket. I think for what it does it does it good and I am
not at all disappointed with it. It picks up stations that my other sets need
better antennas and/or other equipment to hear the signals.
But then I had fun with a Star Roamer II that I bought used at a pawn shop.
Charles George, KC5RAI
ManKind
Mom one for Xmas several years ago and hers is off by about 100khz on MW.
Another thing I like about the superradio is how long it runs off batteries.
Amazing !
Brenda Ann
Superadio back in 1983. This was known as the Superadio Plus. From what I
found, the sensitivity was nowhere near as good as the original Superadio,
which was on the market at the same time. Also, it seemed to be plagued with
birdies, presumably from the readout (don't think it was true digital
tuning, but it could have been).
"ManKind" <man...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91724D8Dma...@24.18.102.151...
ManKind
Brenda Ann
"ManKind" <man...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9173789Cma...@24.18.102.151...
ManKind
>http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan/faqs/superradio/gesr_plus.html
--
73 !
John :)
Fritz
You have to delete the ">>" from in front of the URL.
As in: http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan/faqs/superradio/gesr_plus.html
Fritz
"ManKind" <man...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91738A248ma...@24.18.102.151...
ManKind
Brenda Ann
there in info about all the Superadio line on that site.
In 1982 GE introduced a new model, the Superadio+ (model 7-2882_). This one
boasted many of the same performance features (RF stages, IF filters, 6"
speaker, 200 mm ferrite antenna). The difference was it was digital. Yes, A
PLL synthesized Superadio! This one was pricey. $139.95 retail. At first, I
passed. Apparently the Superadio+ didn't sell as well as the analog model
because after a mere year it was already available for the closeout price of
54.55. At this price my wife and I bought one at a Murphey Mart in West
Virginia.
Compared to the analog model, the performance is close but with some
sacrifices. There is a noticable increase of noise on AM when DXing requires
maximum sensitivity, most likely directly related to the synthesizer. FM
capture is good but sharply loses lock below a certain signal strength below
which the analog radio can still receive. There are eight presets on each
band, scanning features and a lighted display, but no direct frequency
access. There is a switch on the back to allow the radio to tune in 9 KHz
spacing for European use. The station memory requires 3 AAA batteries.
"ManKind" <man...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91738A248ma...@24.18.102.151...