Comparison of SB303 vs. SB300/301??

[wa1vwl]

I tried bypassing the switch position without the AM filter and indeed
got hi-fi audio. Unfortunately I also got the whole band as well :-( The
front end is pretty broad and that's what you get without the filter.
You figure bandwidth would be about 6 KHz with 455 KHz which is about 13
to 14 per-cent. That comes around 50 HKz at 3.395 MHz without any
bandpass filtering. Too bad.

73/Gerry/W1ID

Edward Swynar VE3 CUI wrote:
>
> 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
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --