-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
-
A Winner has been selected for the 2025 Radioddity Cyber Monday giveaway! Click Here to see who won!
Which newer radios have the best receive?
- Thread starter Lkaskel
- Start date
It is hands down one of the ugliest radios ever made!
I don't mind chrome, but all those blue LEDs are hell on my old eyes. Yuck!
I'll take the Anytone or Radioddity version any day.....it's cheaper, electrically identical to the Stryker, and much more pleasant to look at.
Hi Guys, I thought about more this thread and considered that most operators would in fact consider "sensitivity" as the key to the "best receiver" not necessary sound quality/ lowest THD.
Having said this, I have an old President radio which would only receive -110 dBm signal with 12 dB of SINAD (not stellar).
Can anyone else share their sensitivity measurements from 10/11m radios?
Just a side note, and if you want to have your head spin a little, look at this table of tested HAM/SW HF receivers. Definitions of terms is at the bottom of the table
Enjoy!
Having said this, I have an old President radio which would only receive -110 dBm signal with 12 dB of SINAD (not stellar).
Can anyone else share their sensitivity measurements from 10/11m radios?
Just a side note, and if you want to have your head spin a little, look at this table of tested HAM/SW HF receivers. Definitions of terms is at the bottom of the table
Enjoy!
It has been done and will be done again soon. I need to get my tech lab review done of the QT-60 Pro. I am also going to do the QT-80. I will try to get this done soon....I hope.
"Best" receiver is a big topic. Sensitivity is only one metric of a good receiver of course. However, the sensitivity of the QX radios AT-5555Nii (QT-60) / AT-6666PRO (QT-80) / ARES 2 (QT-40) measure @12dB SINAD as follows (typically +/- a dBm):
FM: -123dBm (@ 3KHz deviation)
AM: -114dBm (@ 30% modulation)
SSB: -128dBm
That is very sensitive. In practice and in my experience with them, sitting these radios next to a mix of radios from a Grant XL, to a Washington base, to a number of Ranger/Galaxy chassis, to Cybernet chassis rigs, a few Yaesu's and a heap of other rigs you can poke a stick at, these QX built radio's perform well on RX for me. In my experience they don't overload easily, and they still have enough selectivity to use them on a busy band without big issues. And they have an RF Gain control that works very well that nobody seems to use!
I have a Grant XL black face that I love, I got it brand new in the 90's. But the new QX radios hear more (sensitivity is much higher), and the RX sounds better to my ears on the air. I have done side-by-side comparisons, just to get an idea of the "real-world performance". Even if the Grant XL is slightly more selective, in practice I find the QX radios RX is my preference overall.
This can be a hightly debated topic and there are plenty of opinions, and that's fine. It is a lot about personal preference. I'm not interested in starting any wars about what is "best"! To each thier own.
FYI, the SINAD values are measured here using a HP8921A, a Marconi 2965, and a Sinadder 3. I see the same results on all 3 devices (+/- a dBm).
73
FM: -123dBm (@ 3KHz deviation)
AM: -114dBm (@ 30% modulation)
SSB: -128dBm
That is very sensitive. In practice and in my experience with them, sitting these radios next to a mix of radios from a Grant XL, to a Washington base, to a number of Ranger/Galaxy chassis, to Cybernet chassis rigs, a few Yaesu's and a heap of other rigs you can poke a stick at, these QX built radio's perform well on RX for me. In my experience they don't overload easily, and they still have enough selectivity to use them on a busy band without big issues. And they have an RF Gain control that works very well that nobody seems to use!
I have a Grant XL black face that I love, I got it brand new in the 90's. But the new QX radios hear more (sensitivity is much higher), and the RX sounds better to my ears on the air. I have done side-by-side comparisons, just to get an idea of the "real-world performance". Even if the Grant XL is slightly more selective, in practice I find the QX radios RX is my preference overall.
This can be a hightly debated topic and there are plenty of opinions, and that's fine. It is a lot about personal preference. I'm not interested in starting any wars about what is "best"! To each thier own.
FYI, the SINAD values are measured here using a HP8921A, a Marconi 2965, and a Sinadder 3. I see the same results on all 3 devices (+/- a dBm).
73
"Best receiver", isn't so highly debated amongst purists. Going by the Sherwood numbers, there is a point, where the numbers don't matter anymore. This is seen with the Yaesu radios that are high on the list. Are they really better in the real world? In respect to these numbers, the ones that matter most to *me* are, IP3, close in dynamic range and inherent noise floor."Best" receiver is a big topic. Sensitivity is only one metric of a good receiver of course. However, the sensitivity of the QX radios AT-5555Nii (QT-60) / AT-6666PRO (QT-80) / ARES 2 (QT-40) measure @12dB SINAD as follows (typically +/- a dBm):
FM: -123dBm (@ 3KHz deviation)
AM: -114dBm (@ 30% modulation)
SSB: -128dBm
That is very sensitive. In practice and in my experience with them, sitting these radios next to a mix of radios from a Grant XL, to a Washington base, to a number of Ranger/Galaxy chassis, to Cybernet chassis rigs, a few Yaesu's and a heap of other rigs you can poke a stick at, these QX built radio's perform well on RX for me. In my experience they don't overload easily, and they still have enough selectivity to use them on a busy band without big issues. And they have an RF Gain control that works very well that nobody seems to use!
I have a Grant XL black face that I love, I got it brand new in the 90's. But the new QX radios hear more (sensitivity is much higher), and the RX sounds better to my ears on the air. I have done side-by-side comparisons, just to get an idea of the "real-world performance". Even if the Grant XL is slightly more selective, in practice I find the QX radios RX is my preference overall.
This can be a hightly debated topic and there are plenty of opinions, and that's fine. It is a lot about personal preference. I'm not interested in starting any wars about what is "best"! To each thier own.
FYI, the SINAD values are measured here using a HP8921A, a Marconi 2965, and a Sinadder 3. I see the same results on all 3 devices (+/- a dBm).
73
In respect to the points in this post here, I can't agree more on some of them. My old radios that have been brought back from the dead, that may not achieve the SINAD numbers, that some new radios do, but I can listen to them all day, all night everyday (if I could stay awake). They are quiet (Ranger not included) and sound good to my ears, with no listener fatigue. There is something to be said about old analog designs, being more organic. Ranger's tend to be noisy and not easy on my ears. They also suffer from other issues, due to bad design.
In respect to the radios on the store shelves today, there are not too many options. QX, Uniden, Ranger and a few other oddballs thrown in. I can't speak for the oddballs, as I have none of them. But, I just can't listen to the Ranger's for too long. As I mentioned in osme other posts, a great deal of attention has been paid to the RX in the new QX offerings. Uniden has not done anything exciting in a long time, so I can;t even consider them a major player anymore. President has been releasing stuff that is made by QX lately.
So, all that aside, the bottom line is, that sensitivity or MDS, is not the determining factor, when considering the "best receiver: I don't pay too much attention to these numbers anymore, apart from a RX that is just plain deaf.
73,
SL