Old portable SW receivers
Lennart Benschop
remarkable shortwave receivers in the 70s, before the Sony ICF2001 changed
the world.
First there was the Grundig Statellit 3400, which was extremely expensive. I
know it only from the magazines, so I cannot tell how good it was. It had
three linear tuning dials, each with its own tuning knob. One was for FM,
one was for LW, MW and the lower shortwave bands and one was for the higher
sohortwave bands (5.5-30MHz). This part of the band was divided into 8 parts
The bands were selected by a large knob on the side of the receiver, which
rotated a large drum. The coils were inside the drum and the dials were on
the outside surface of it. Only the dial for one shortwave band was visible.
Each of the eight shortwave dials showed two bands, one general coverage
band (e.g 8 to 10 MHz) and one broadcast band. (e.g. 31 meters, 9.5-9.9 MHz)
The eight shortwave bands each thus covered one of the 49, 41, 31, 25, 19,
16, 13 and 11 meter bands. The 3400 was the latest and greatest of a series.
As such it had many knobs, buttons and switches. It had digital readout as
well, which made the band spreading for the broadcast bands a bit
superfluous. And there was a digital clock inside. And that in a time when
digital watches were not $2 apiece. It had SSB reception as well. One of its
predecessors, the Satellit 2000, had exactly the same bands, but no digital
readout and SSB was a $$$ option. Don't know how good and how practical the
recevier really was, but it looked IMPRESSIVE!!!
Then there was the Barlow Wadley receiver which was made in South Africa. It
was a compact and heavy radio (I've seen but not really used it) with a
metal case. It was reported to run forever on one set of batteries. (kind of
like the GE Superradio). I think it has only four knobs, MHz tuning, KHz
tuning, volume and AM/LSB/USB. It covers 0.5 to 30 MHz in bands of 1MHz
each. It uses the same conversion principle as the old RACAL receivers (I've
used one of those!). This is triple conversion with a high (about 40MHz)
first IF. The MHz tuning knob controls the oscillator for it. The same
oscillator is also used in the second conversion stage (mixed with a
harmonic of the 1MHz chrystal oscillator) whereby the error from a whole
megahertz is compensated. Therefore the MHz tuning capacitor acts like a
30-step switch. The KHz tuning knob works at a much lower frequency
(2-3MHz). The stability and dial accuracy of the Barlow Wadley was
excellent for its time, when PLL synthesizers and digital counters could not
be used in radios of that price class. I'd like to try this old beast and
compare it to modern Japanese stuff. BTW: did the Barlow Wadley have a
preselector? I don't remember seeing one on the radio, but _something_ must
have been there, be it just a band switch. The RACAL has a separate band
switch plus tuning capacitor for preselection. More modern receivers (R1000)
have a set of fixed preselection filters that are controlled by the same
logic that controls the synthesizer. If I remember right, an old Yesasu
(FRG7) has the same conversion principle. I think the Kenwood R1000 and the
Yeasu FRG7700 have PLL synthesizers with 1MHz resolution for band selection
and a conventional tuning capacitor for kHz tuning. Still more modern stuff
(Kenwood R2000, Yeasu FRG8800) has PLL synthesizers throughout.
Does anyone have hands-on experience with either the old Grundig Sattelit
receivers or the Barlow Wadley? How do they compare to modern stuff, such as
the digital Sony and Panasonic portables (all having roughly the same design
as the early ICF2001)? Of course they are all portable and they will all
perform badly when connected to a serious outdoor antenna. Even 'good'
communications receivers badly need their aantenna attenuators occasionally.
But how do they perform as portables, i.e. connected to a short (5m) wire
antenna or without an external antenna?
BTW: I haven't seen much (if anything) about the old RACAL RA17 series in
the international press or this news group. About five years ago, it was *the*
most popular receiver to buy from the surplus stores ion Holland. Didn't
it reach the surplus stores in other countries? It was sold for around $350,
whereeas $1000 is the price for a new R2000. The Racal is reported to be the
better communications receiver of the two. The drawbacks: 1) it is HEAVY
with all those tubes and metal boxes around everything 2) it needs some
maintenance to bring and keep it in in good condition 3) it is complicated
to operate with its separate preselector controls and you need
to tweak IFgain/AFgain/BFO for SSB operation (there was a separate true SSB
unit available)
--
Lennart Benschop --- len...@stack.urc.tue.nl
"Real programmers do it in hacks."
52 65 61 6C 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 65 72 73 20 64 6F 20 69 74 20
69 6E 20 68 61 63 6B 73 2E Forth/C/6809/Linux/ZX-Spectrum/Z80/80x86
Don Moore
> was a compact and heavy radio (I've seen but not really used it) with a
Actually, I don't remember it being that heavy. Although I guess it
was heavier than, for example, the ICF-2010 although about the same
size. I owned one from Christmas, 1973 until Fall of 1981 when I sold
it before going into the Peace Corps. It was my main receiver until
early 1980 when I bought an FRG-7000, which except for the digital
readout wasn't much better but cost twice as much. Except for the
FRG-7, I don't think Yaesu has ever produced a receiver up to snuff
in its price range.
> metal case. It was reported to run forever on one set of batteries. (kind of
I used to use my several hours a day every day and only had to change
batteries every couple months. Battery consumption was amazingly
low. It used either three or four D cells.
> like the GE Superradio). I think it has only four knobs, MHz
Quite a contrast to present day receivers! This is one receiver that
no one needed to read the manual to learn how to use.
> be used in radios of that price class. I'd like to try this old beast and
> compare it to modern Japanese stuff.
It would not do as well as the ICF-2010, but it would certainly
compete with most of the other better portables on the market. Of
course, no conveniences of digital readout and memories.
>BTW: did the Barlow Wadley have a
> preselector? I don't remember seeing one on the radio, but _something_ must
> have been there, be it just a band switch. The RACAL has a separate band
Yes, there was a preselector. If my memory is good, the top left
knob was the BFO adjustment knob, the bottom left knob was some kind
of mode switch, the upper right the preselector, and the lower right
the on/off and volume. The MHz and kHz frequency tuning knobs were
sort of on opposite edges of the front.
> Does anyone have hands-on experience with either the old Grundig Sattelit
> receivers or the Barlow Wadley? How do they compare to modern stuff, such as
> the digital Sony and Panasonic portables (all having roughly the same design
I really wish I had kept my XCR-30. As I said, I think it could
compete with most of the portables on the market today. It might even
come close to the ICF-2010. In fact, what I consider my best catch
ever in 20+ years of SW DXing was on the XCR-30. That was a 1979 or
1980 logging of ten watt CKFX out of Vancouver, BC, Canada. What
really made this exceptional was I was in college at Penn State at
the time living in an apartment building just a block and a half from
downtown State College, PA. Fortunately, it was a reasonably quiet
location, but I had no outside aerial. Yet, with just the whip on
the XCR-30 I logged (and later QSLed) CKFX one morning around 3 a.m.
when I couldn't sleep.
> as the early ICF2001)? Of course they are all portable and they will all
> perform badly when connected to a serious outdoor antenna. Even 'good'
Most of the time I used mine I had it connected to good outside areas
and never had any trouble. However, I lived in rural central
Pennsylvania and had no high-power local stations. Also, that was
back in the 1970s before we had so many high power SW stations in the
US!
Don Moore
MO...@ACC.MCREST.EDU
Davenport, Iowa, USA
David M Weeks
>Last week I had a posting about the good old Panasonic DR22. There were more
>remarkable shortwave receivers in the 70s, before the Sony ICF2001 changed
>the world.
. . .
>Then there was the Barlow Wadley receiver which was made in South Africa. It
>was a compact and heavy radio (I've seen but not really used it) with a
>metal case. It was reported to run forever on one set of batteries. (kind of
>like the GE Superradio). I think it has only four knobs, MHz tuning, KHz
>tuning, volume and AM/LSB/USB. It covers 0.5 to 30 MHz in bands of 1MHz
>each. It uses the same conversion principle as the old RACAL receivers (I've
>used one of those!).
[description of Wadley loop principle elided]
> The stability and dial accuracy of the Barlow Wadley was
>excellent for its time, when PLL synthesizers and digital counters could not
>be used in radios of that price class. I'd like to try this old beast and
>compare it to modern Japanese stuff. BTW: did the Barlow Wadley have a
>preselector?
Front-panel controls on the XCR-30 were: MHz set, kHz set, ant.
trim, on/off, volume, USB/AM/LSB, fine tune/clarifier, S-meter
and zero adjust.
>. . .If I remember right, an old Yesasu
>(FRG7) has the same conversion principle.
Yup, and continued in the FRG-7000. I have one of these (with
a Collins mechanical filter in it) and also a Racal RA 17, and
the Wadley loop does indeed make them quite stable. Once it's
warmed up, the Yaesu can keep a full-carrier signal tuned in in
SSB (or is it ECSS?) mode for hours. The Racal takes longer to
heat up (it weighs about 80 pounds), but it was designed to
monitor fixed-frequency RTTY and CW signals all day without
retuning (it has 300 and 100 Hz filters!).
>BTW: I haven't seen much (if anything) about the old RACAL RA17 series in
>the international press or this news group. About five years ago, it was *the*
>most popular receiver to buy from the surplus stores ion Holland. Didn't
>it reach the surplus stores in other countries?
I got mine when a heap of 'em (a hundred or two) got dumped on
a distributor in Montreal by the Canadian govt. They sold them
cheap, but were completely swamped by the demand. Sheldon Harvey
of CIDX got caught in the middle of the fiasco; I'm sure he'd
rather forget the whole thing. But I still love this radio--
I've dragged it from California to Massachusetts and it's sitting
within arm's reach right now. (I think you can see a whole room
full of them in the opening scene of the first James Bond movie.)
>. . . The drawbacks: 1) it is HEAVY
>with all those tubes and metal boxes around everything 2) it needs some
>maintenance to bring and keep it in in good condition 3) it is complicated
>to operate with its separate preselector controls and you need
>to tweak IFgain/AFgain/BFO for SSB operation (there was a separate true SSB
>unit available)
True, but it lets you set the signal anywhere up to 6 kHz or so
from the center of the passband. It's cumbersome, but it works
just as well as the "passband tuning" on more modern sets. I
haven't seen a separate SSB unit for this radio, though--maybe
you're thinking of the one for the R390? There is an outboard
adapter to let the RA 17 tune down to 10 Hz, with a separate
antenna input (for a loop) and set of controls for attenuation
(5 steps), preselector range and tuning--awesome!
I just dug out the review section from the 1976 WRTH, back when
the reviews were done by Rafael Calabuig (remember him?--he was
before Larry Magne!). It listed "The 20 most popular shortwave
receivers" that year:
Portables: Sony CRF-230B, CRF-160, CRF-5080,
Nordmende Galaxy Mesa 9000 ST,
Grundig Satellit 2000,
Barlow-Wadley XCR-30,
Panasonic RF-8000
Communications receivers:
Lafayette HA 600A, Heathkit GR-78,
SW-717, SB-313, Kenwood QR-666,
Drake SPR-4, R-4C, DSR-2, Galaxy R-1530,
Eddystone 1830 (the Watkins-Johnson of
its day), Collins 51S-1, 651S-1, and
National HRO-500/600/601.
In 1978, Lawrence Magne came on board (heh heh, Larry, WHERE did
you get that TIE?) to review a new crop of receivers, including
the RF-2800, RF-2200, RF-4800, SSR-1, FRG-7, and the
unforgettable (oh, yeah) ITT Schlaub-Lorenze (sic) Touring CD-108.
The two portables I've never seen but would really love to are
both Sonys, the ICF-6800W and the almost-mythical CRF-1.
(Then there was the Panasonic RF-9000, which was called a portable
in one of the all-time great flights of advertising bravura--it
weighed 50 pounds!)
Ah, nostalgia!
--
David Weeks WA1VGA
Quincy, Mass.
Christian P. Hansen
In article <33ffs5$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>, Lennart Benschop (len...@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl) writes:
>Last week I had a posting about the good old Panasonic DR22. There were more
>remarkable shortwave receivers in the 70s, before the Sony ICF2001 changed
>the world.
>
think that was the designation). It was kind of clunky (looked like
a cereal box with knobs stuck on it), but was one of the first
affordable accurately tunable receivers I ever saw. The
Barlow-Wadley was a ten-day wonder at the ANARC 1972 convention in
Boston. Perry Ferrell brought one (he was the only source at the
time) and we all stood around and oo-ed and ahh-ed about it. My
understanding is that the technology of the B-W was copied in the
Sony and Panasonic radios (yes, Panasonic brought out a copy whose
name/model # I can't remember right now--could IT have been the
DR22??).
I was told by Perry that I could buy the show model he'd brought
for some ridiculously small price. I couldn't afford it (I was a
starving college student [well, at least a college student!] at
the time).
These receivers were trend-setters of their time. Without digital
readout they were accurately tunable, so reports to shortwave club
columns became more accurate (I was a club editor at the time,
ASWLC Europe/Africa, I believe). They were good for newbies too.
As for comparison to modern stuff, well, it just doesn't compare.
The prices have remained about the same in exact terms (between
$200 and $300 I'm gathering), but of course, the dollar is now
just a shadow of its self 22 years ago.
In the late 70's digital readouts (with LEDs!!) began to come out,
and the receivers got bigger. Then, when the 2001 came out
everything changed--direct entry of frequencies! That's the real
revolution.
I also had a Satellit 1000 and, briefly (I lived in da Bronx, you
see) a Satellit 2000 (before the burglary). They were known for
having great FM reception and, of course, since the cases were so
big and the speaker big too, the sound was great.
In the US their main drawbacks were (1) difficulty of repair, and
(2) nonstandard plugs & stuff.
Chris Hansen ch...@abbot.win-uk.net |"Reality is that which,|
Expatriate U.S. |when you stop believing|
Programmer in London |in it, doesn't go away"|
|Philip K. Dick |