Comparison of SB303 vs. SB300/301??

[Dick Blaney]

Yes, I tried it on a '303, but used a capacitor instead of a wire.  With a
3395 kc IF, it's a very good way to listen to the entire 75/80 meter band at
the same instant.  Sort of an "Audio Spectrum Analyzer".
73 de
Dick, WB8MHE
wb8mhe at bright.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Swynar VE3 CUI <gswynar at DURHAM.NET>
To: HEATH at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV <HEATH at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV>
Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Comparison of SB303 vs. SB300/301??


>Steve...
>
>The SB-300 does, indeed, have provisions for a grand total of THREE
>filters, 2 of which were optional (AM & CW)...
>
>I was wondering: if you REALLY wanted a "...high fidelity" bandpass filter
>for AM, why not simply remove any existing AM filter, & replace it with a
>jumper wire---in other words, NO IF filter whatsoever...?
>
>Might be a tad TOO broad...still, I wonder if anyone has ever tried this on
>their own rig? Might be a cheap & easy alternative to trying to hunt down
>that ever-elusive 6-KHz wide AM filter (which I'm sure I, too, have read
>about / seen advertised SOMEWHERE!).
>
>~73~ Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
>
>
>
>----------
>> From: Steve Harrison <ko0u at OS.COM>
>> To: HEATH at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
>> Subject: Re: Comparison of SB303 vs. SB300/301??
>> Date: January 22, 1999 10:06 PM
>>
>> At 03:56 AM 1/22/99 +0000, I asked:
>> >...I'm not certain how the 301 was different [from the SB300]
>> >other than the solid-state LMO. And I'm particularly curious whether the
>> >SB303 performed as well as the 300/301. Any opinions/observations?
>>
>> Simply put, I was overwhelmed by the response, at least 15! The consensus
>> was that the SB303 was preferred by almost all but several guys due to
>> higher sensitivity and a general sense of it being a better receiver
>> overall. But there were several folks who warned that their examples
>> appeared extraordinarily prone to overload and crossmodulation. On the
>> other hand, there were two who specifically stated that they had not
>> experienced any such problems.
>>
>> And I was corrected in several of my beliefs, such as I thought that the
>AM
>> filter was 6 kHz; instead, it's 3.75 kHz. And I thought that the SB301
>had
>> a solid-state LMO: almost every respondent said their 301 LMO uses a
>tube.
>> Most folks also confirmed that all three receivers accept three IF
>filters;
>> I thought I remembered my SB300 having mounting places for only two: but
>> the last time I looked, that was over 20 years ago, so....
>>
>> Finally, almost everyone with a 303 cautioned me to make certain I got
>the
>> extender boards for it. A question: is there more than ONE extender board
>> for the 303? And, are any common to the SB104(A)??
>>
>> I'm *still* waiting to hear from the local who has the 303; I'm getting
>> more and more anxious every hour now! But at the same time, I wondering
>> what to do about the AM filter, because 3.75 kHz isn't going to make much
>> difference compared to the 2.7 kHz SSB filter in my application
>(high-speed
>> (>3,300 WPM) CW meteor scatter). But I'd *swear* that I have seen 6 kHz
>> filters advertised hereabouts for the SB receivers, most recently only a
>> few weeks ago. Would the former owners please tell me more about what
>they
>> were, please??
>>
>> One respondent recommended obtaining a R390 for better AM performance. I
>> don't have either the room, nor want the headaches associated with fixing
>> or maintaining one of those monsters, thanks anyway! Besides, I'm NOT
>going
>> to use it in AM mode; I just need wider IF bandwidth in SSB mode than the
>> standard 2.7 kHz.
>>
>> TNX to all for your insights and help! 73, Steve Ko0U/1
>> (this close || to asking around for another SB303... any for sale? I'd
>> rather do my own fixing-up than have someone else do it; that way, I
>become
>> more familiar with it more quickly since I'm going to do other mods
>anyway)
>>
>> P.S. I don't recall reading any insights as to the actual difference(s)
>> between the 300 and 301, though! If it's not the LMO, what is it??
>>
>> --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
>> To subscribe: listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
>> and in body: subscribe HEATH yourfirstname yourlastname
>> To unsubscribe:  listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
>> and in body: signoff HEATH
>> Archives for HEATH: http://www.tempe.gov/archives
>> --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
>
>--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
>To subscribe: listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
>and in body: subscribe HEATH yourfirstname yourlastname
>To unsubscribe:  listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
>and in body: signoff HEATH
>Archives for HEATH: http://www.tempe.gov/archives
>--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
>

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
To subscribe: listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
and in body: subscribe HEATH yourfirstname yourlastname
To unsubscribe:  listserv at listserv.tempe.gov
and in body: signoff HEATH
Archives for HEATH: http://www.tempe.gov/archives
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --