[600MRG] The Dallas Files

[Warren K2ORS]

Steve,

      Read the whole article and look at the synchronous detectors he 
uses, Racal receivers, Kiwa MAP, AOR 7030 etc. He does document his 
claims with spectral displays.  Also he credits some detectors with 
reducing fading distortion, but at the price of losing lock and 
introducing hiss.

      For MW DXing, which is what Lankford does, one tunes the band 
rapidly searching for new stations, once a station is identified , you 
move onto the next. If the synch detector takes time to lock then it 
sort of nullifies the advantages of being able to copy through a fade.
However, this is a moot point as all serious MW DXers including Lankford 
now use SDR receivers (such as Perseus), and record the entire AM band 
onto a hard drive and are able to scan the band multiple times after the 
fact.  Analog synch detectors are obsolete given the prevalence of SDRs.

       I tend to agree with Lankford, I have virtually every synchronous 
detector ever made, AOR 7030, Lowe HF-150, Racal 6830, Icom R75, Sony 
2010, Eton E1, the Sherwood Engineering SE-3, and probably others that I 
am forgetting at the moment. I don't use them that much on the ham bands 
as most AMers can't maintain zero beat. (I've heard QSOs where the two 
stations were as much as 5kHz apart!) I find the exalted carrier 
reception provided by a synchronous detector does help quiet background 
static and line noise, so I use them once in a while. The Sherwood also 
has some built-in audio filters which can be switched on and can make 
listening more pleasant.

       Lankford is way ahead of the game when it comes to MW dx 
antennas, it would pay to study those articles even if you disagree with 
his article on synch detectors.

73 Warren





On 3/15/2015 10:46 PM, sbjohnston at aol.com wrote:
>
>   Warren wrote:
>
>
> Dallas Lankford has posted some of his articles on LW/MW
> reception on a new Yahoo Group.
>
>   If the rest of the articles are as muddled as the one I just read, "My Experiences With Some AM Synchronous Detectors", then I won't bother reading the rest.
>
> Mr Lankford opens and closes his article with the sentence, "The more I study and use AM synchronous detectors the more I am mystified as to why they are so highly acclaimed."  But when you actually read the text in between you find that it would make more sense to just say 'The more I study and use *badly-designed* AM synchronous detectors the more I wonder why these units don't work well.'
>
> Doesn't he suspect that there might be some good designs out there?  There must be a reason sync detectors have been "highly acclaimed".
>
> Why conclude that synchronous detectors for AM are no good just because one has found bad examples in various receivers!  That's like saying automobiles in general are no good because the cars I've owned haven't been fun to drive.
>
>
>
>
> Steve WD8DAS
>
> sbjohnston at aol.com
> http://www.wd8das.net/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Radio is your best entertainment value.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 600MRG mailing list
> 600MRG at w7ekb.com
> http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com
>


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com