so i read the reviews . but curious which has best recieve selectivity/sensivity .
thats what matter to me .
thats what matter to me .
-
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.
president lincoln2 v3/cre8900/yetticomm mk3
- Thread starter hotrod
- Start date
You can view specs on all 3 rigs and compare yourself. However, I'd say the Optima will win.
Last edited:
For sensitivity probably the lincoln, thats why the receive so noisy!
For signal to noise the optima.
For signal to noise the optima.
I just keep my CRE-8900's rf gain turned down one quarter of a turn for normal daytime operations and in full receive mode at night or early morning.
If you run it mobile,the vehicle's noisy electrical systems impede it's receive capability potential especially if you have to run the NB/ANL which quiets the receive audio too if you want to hear distant stations.
In a parked vehicle engine off mode away from noise sources and the NB/ANL off,it receives fairly well providing you have a descent antenna.
If you run it mobile,the vehicle's noisy electrical systems impede it's receive capability potential especially if you have to run the NB/ANL which quiets the receive audio too if you want to hear distant stations.
In a parked vehicle engine off mode away from noise sources and the NB/ANL off,it receives fairly well providing you have a descent antenna.
thanks for replies guys. guess i should,ve said base set up. and i did look
at the specs but im not sure how the rating system works. is a lower number
better?or a higher number. how a - something number seen lots of those. i dont
undderstand how that works,and to me thats the most important part of
any radio\. im surprised someone claimed the new lincoln is noisy they
were the best back in the day imho
at the specs but im not sure how the rating system works. is a lower number
better?or a higher number. how a - something number seen lots of those. i dont
undderstand how that works,and to me thats the most important part of
any radio\. im surprised someone claimed the new lincoln is noisy they
were the best back in the day imho
not even close to the same radio platform as the old Lincoln / president radio's
thats sad to hear cause theres many oldtimers hear that say the lincolns [old ones]
and presidents 2510,2600 were great readios and the best without getting into a hf setup
guess if i truly want another lincoln better get a orignal
I've tested lots of CBs with proper radio test equipment to do this (HP RF signal generator, SINAD meter). Absolutely every single one of them including those that had a reputation for being deaf were able to have a 12dB SINAD (signal to noise and distortion ratio) down to -120dB or lower. The reason these two figures were chosen is as follows:
1) A tone at 12dB SINAD level is basically quite clear with a little white noise. If it were speech it would be perfectly understandable.
2) -120dB was chosen as it is below the NATURAL noise floor level of everywhere on planet earth on 10/11m because that is what the level of galactic noise is, the noise that in the absence of all earth made noise dominates on 10/11m.
http://g4fkh.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/August-2012-RadCom.pdf
So with that sorted what is the real problem? The antenna system. I'll explain.
So we're using a reference unity gain antenna system (0dB gain) to receive a -110dB signal which is a S3 going by IARU S meter calibration. As we know from the 12dB SINAD we get on every CB on the market, we're perfectly able to copy that as its both above the natural noise floor and well above the 12dB SINAD level of -120dB. So far so good. Now assume we're using a bit of a shitty antenna system, say a 3ft firestik, a crappy mobile installation etc and we have 20dB of loss in comparison to the reference unity gain install. That -110dB signal with an additional 20dB of loss is now an input signal of -130dB to the CB. That is below S0 on the IARU S meter scale and is going to be pretty impossible to hear on any CB. Even with amateur radio HF transceivers you're going to be struggling as its only 8-10dB above the noise floor of even the best HF transceivers so you won't be getting a 12dB SINAD or even close.
So thequestion about sensitivity isn't answered by "which CB has the best sensitivity" as none of them are bad enough for it to be an issue at all and the antenna system is the real limitation. The real question is "how do I do the best antenna system installation". I don't think people truly understand just how important the antenna is not only to be heard but to be able to hear yourself. Everyone just seems hell bent on concentrating on how strong a signal they can put out.
Selectivity is a different issue and there are variations there. However on a channelised system where the next channel is 10kHz away the issue isn't as bad as on the amateur HF bands where the next signal could be directly adjacent to yours. Yes some are worse than others but the main issue isn't the receiver selectivity but the asshole transmitting the wide splattering signal. I have a Flex 6000 series which with its absolute brick wall 108dB @ 2kHz filtering is the best there is out of both CB and amateur HF and it cannot do anything about that. I will give you one bit of advice though about selectivity. Turning the Noise Blanker on makes it worse and your CB/Ham radio more susceptible to suffering from "splattering" from nearby strong signals so just turn it off unless you need it.
1) A tone at 12dB SINAD level is basically quite clear with a little white noise. If it were speech it would be perfectly understandable.
2) -120dB was chosen as it is below the NATURAL noise floor level of everywhere on planet earth on 10/11m because that is what the level of galactic noise is, the noise that in the absence of all earth made noise dominates on 10/11m.
http://g4fkh.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/August-2012-RadCom.pdf
So with that sorted what is the real problem? The antenna system. I'll explain.
So we're using a reference unity gain antenna system (0dB gain) to receive a -110dB signal which is a S3 going by IARU S meter calibration. As we know from the 12dB SINAD we get on every CB on the market, we're perfectly able to copy that as its both above the natural noise floor and well above the 12dB SINAD level of -120dB. So far so good. Now assume we're using a bit of a shitty antenna system, say a 3ft firestik, a crappy mobile installation etc and we have 20dB of loss in comparison to the reference unity gain install. That -110dB signal with an additional 20dB of loss is now an input signal of -130dB to the CB. That is below S0 on the IARU S meter scale and is going to be pretty impossible to hear on any CB. Even with amateur radio HF transceivers you're going to be struggling as its only 8-10dB above the noise floor of even the best HF transceivers so you won't be getting a 12dB SINAD or even close.
So thequestion about sensitivity isn't answered by "which CB has the best sensitivity" as none of them are bad enough for it to be an issue at all and the antenna system is the real limitation. The real question is "how do I do the best antenna system installation". I don't think people truly understand just how important the antenna is not only to be heard but to be able to hear yourself. Everyone just seems hell bent on concentrating on how strong a signal they can put out.
Selectivity is a different issue and there are variations there. However on a channelised system where the next channel is 10kHz away the issue isn't as bad as on the amateur HF bands where the next signal could be directly adjacent to yours. Yes some are worse than others but the main issue isn't the receiver selectivity but the asshole transmitting the wide splattering signal. I have a Flex 6000 series which with its absolute brick wall 108dB @ 2kHz filtering is the best there is out of both CB and amateur HF and it cannot do anything about that. I will give you one bit of advice though about selectivity. Turning the Noise Blanker on makes it worse and your CB/Ham radio more susceptible to suffering from "splattering" from nearby strong signals so just turn it off unless you need it.
Last edited:
The Flex radio's are becoming very popular and many people speak well of them. I'm hearing more of them on the air daily. Even though I prefer a desktop radio with knobs, It's funny because I have my radio interfaced with my computer and use the HRD logging program and rig control. I also use the Kenwood radio control software for radio setups and for some rig control functions when I'm not using HRD. I mainly use the the VFO on the radio which I prefer to the control software. So you can say I'm using my rig just like I would if I had a SDR radio. Kind of a oxymoron?
The new Icom IC-7850 employs a new "1.2kHz "Optimum" roofing filter" which might set the new bench mark. At 1.2kHz , that should virtually eliminate all interference.
It will be interesting when this radio is available to see how well it really performs! If I only had about about $12,000 or so burning a whole in my pocket I would put my name on the reserve list.
Your correct on the antenna system. People should buy the best possible antenna and use good quality feedlines. Great radio's and amps only go so far to being an excellent "alligator" station.
Unfortunately, some of us have to take in to consideration finance and what our neighborhoods will allow, etc. so the best compromise should be considered.
Last edited:
No disagreement there. However the trap that it is easy to fall into, and I know because I did it myself for 3 years before learning the lesson, is the belief that out there is a radio that'll magically hear more than any other and drag signals out of the noise into crystal clarity thus compensating for the antenna. You can waste a lot of money buying radios chasing that particular unattainable goal.
Absolutely! The antenna consideration should be first.
One way I heard it put as it pertains to big expensive radios is to spend as much or more on the antenna as you do on the radio.
There used to be a saying back in the film photography days, whatever you spend on the camera body double it on the lens. It really makes no sense to spend a lot on a rig and hook it to a piece of wet spaghetti.