From: none@domain.invalid   
      
   On 12/2/2022 11:53 PM, bob prohaska wrote:   
   > joe  wrote:   
   >> On 12/1/2022 7:35 PM, bob prohaska wrote:   
   >>> How do software defined radios perform compared to traditional   
   >>> analog superhets for casual listening?  I realize SDRs do things   
   >>> superhets can't do at all, but if one simply wants a sensitive,   
   >>> selective and quiet receiver for listening to audio broadcasts   
   >>> does an SDR offer benefits compared to a traditional superhet?   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm thinking mostly in terms of self-noise, is that misguided?   
   >>>   
   >>> Thanks for reading, and any insights!   
   >>>   
   >>> bob prohaska   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Your question is too vague. Quality of the radio's implementation is an   
   >> important factor.   
   >>   
   > Many years ago I used a Sony SW100S to listen to BBC World Service with   
   > the included long-wire powered antenna. Recently I became aware of SDR   
   > and wondered if a modern SDR in a similar configuration would work   
   > significantly better. I realize the shortwave world has changed a lot,   
   > so maybe the application doesn't make sense any more, but the question   
   > of old vs new radio performance is still interesting to me. The idea   
   > of digitizing everything from (IIRC) 100 kHz to 30 MHz and sorting it   
   > out in software is little short of amazing, if it's really better.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> High sensitivity is good, but if it comes at the expense of being easily   
   >> overloaded, is it worthwhile?   
   >>   
   >> Selectivity can be too narrow resulting in muffled audio, or it can be   
   >> too wide allowing for interference from nearby stations. Shape factor of   
   >> a filter can be significant to you.   
   >>   
   >> SDRs and/or DSP based radios also frequently include a spectrum display.   
   >> That can make finding stations easier.   
   >>   
   >> Listening to AM broadcast is different than shortwave broadcast   
   >> stations, AM can broadcast with much better fidelity during the day   
   >> allowing you to recover (perhaps) 10 kHz wide audio. SW stations would   
   >> generally be limited to 5 kHz audio.   
   >>   
   >> How much you are willing to spend is also important.   
   >>   
   >> New vs. used should be considered.   
   >>   
   >> Don't forget the antenna you use will also be a factor. An outdoor   
   >> antenna can avoid much of the electrical noise generated within a house.   
   >>   
   >> There is no simple answer for your question.   
   >>   
   >> For me, the radio that I have that has the best audio is a conventional   
   >> superhet with well chosen IF filters.   
   >>   
   >> For me, the radio that makes it easy to find new stations is a hybrid SDR.   
   >>   
   >> Both can be listened to for multiple hours, but they are different to   
   >> use and sound different.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I appreciate the convenience advantages of an SDR. I'm more curious   
   > about how SDR compares in absolute terms to analog under what might   
   > be considered poor conditions.   
   >   
   > Thanks for writing!   
   >   
   > bob prohaska   
   >   
   >   
      
   Again, you question is too vague.   
      
   For me, given the factors that define quality audio, to me, I prefer an   
   analog radio.   
      
   However, SDR implementations have improved over the past several years   
   and I expect that trend to continue. I'm not sure the continued   
   improvements will lead to a radio that I consider better compared to   
   what I currently have.   
      
   In part, this is due to the goals for the larger market which does not   
   match the niche that represents my needs.   
      
   Until you can articulate your needs it will not be possible to determine   
   how which radio architecture best meets your needs.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)