Thanks! I was confused at first, trying to figure out what kind of callsign "G54" was (duh). 😁 Several times I almost ordered a PL-330 but couldn't quite make up my mind. Then the DX-286 came out and, after a bit of study, I jumped on it. Very glad I did!
Hilarious. There were a number of affiliate stations that day with dead air. It took me a few to figure out they were calling some kind of bingo game. I have seen reviews of the PL-330 as the best small radio. The review was put out before the DX-286, but I wanted to see so I bought one. I'd have to check, but maybe the review were done before the SR-286 as well. I found that the PL-880 was surprisingly close to the 286 in FM reception - ua-cam.com/video/m95mJeOm5KU/v-deo.html. One day under better atmospheric conditions and antenna placement I didn't have the 880 with to compare the 286's best day on FM, which found 10+ more stations - ua-cam.com/video/zB0jFiFzFcQ/v-deo.html.
@@RSears One thing that kept giving me pause about the 330 was the battery. I prefer something that I can carry spares of and change out easily, so sticking with AAs and 18650s works well for me. Very happy with my DX-286 so far, as well as my PL-990X and CC Skywave SSB. And, I couldn't resist buying a D-219 for $8! The little 219 really performs well.
Yes, there are so many parameters to consider in the perfect radio. I have been prioritizing performance, reception and output. Many have low price and battery replacement/recharging as central. Makes sense, but reception and output sadly don't correlate well with low price. The PL-880 and the GE Superadio II are my top contenders for audio quality. I am warming up to re-capping the Superradio this summer. I don't want to wreck it, but the famous Superadio I and II rebuilder-dude in the US would cost $600 CAD with shipping. Too much. The 286 radios seem to have the portable radio MW and FM reception crown, by my lights. I want to do more testing, but I find my ICOM IC-705 seems to anihiliate all pocket radios on LW and SW - LW ua-cam.com/video/nECI1LAmIdM/v-deo.html I have also found the sensitivity on MW and FM to be as good as the 286s, but getting the right antenna for broadcast FM on the 705 still needs to be sorted. I ran the 705 in this comparison, but I couldn't narrow the bandwidth enough to isolate the weak stations on WFM. It was picking up a number more stations than the 286, but the selectivity wasn't good enough. It has a totally different form-factor and price [ouch!!], but as far as performance goes, the full-on ham radio really impresses.
"I would like to share my thoughts on the video from Japan. Please excuse the length. After reading the reviews, I thought, 'What a highly sensitive radio!' However, upon closer inspection, I was surprised by the extremely high transmission power of the FM stations. Given the vastness of your country, there are many broadcasting stations that transmit at over 20 kW. With such high transmission power, I can understand why you would receive them with a SINPO of [55555]. In Japan, the FM broadcasting stations with the highest transmission power are seven stations located in Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka, each at 10 kW, while most others are generally below 5 kW. This is extremely weak compared to the U.S. Therefore, high-sensitivity radios are necessary in Japan, but I envy the situation in the U.S. where there are many high-power stations, allowing even low-cost radios to receive signals easily. In any case, regulatory authorities in Japan are strict and thoroughly limit high-power stations. Local FM stations transmit at just 20 W or less, which means their service areas can only cover a radius of about 15 km. Enjoying FM radio is not very feasible in Japan, as one can typically receive only about 5 to 7 stations. Even including local stations, it is common to have fewer than 20 stations available. This concludes my impressions from Japan. In Japan, there is a sadistic enjoyment in using creativity and ingenuity to receive radio stations that cannot normally be heard."
Thank you very much for your comment. It is great to hear from Japan. I love the bit about "sadistic enjoyment" and "ingenuity" trying to pull in more stations. Very interesting, and relatable. I wondered about the wattage and number of stations here and there. So I ferreted around for some respectable stats. Japan is around 378,000 km2 and as of 2021 had 958 broadcasters nationally. Canada is just under 10 million km2 and, as of 2021, has 961 broadcasters. Roughly same number of broadcasters, but Canada has x37 the area. www.statista.com/statistics/1198430/japan-number-nhk-radio-broadcasting-stations/ www.statista.com/topics/2978/radio-in-canada/ Alberta, where I live, is about the same size as Japan, 662,000 km2. The above stats deal with broadcasters not stations; broadcasters obviously have multiple stations. So when I say to you that we have 303 (AM and FM) stations in Alberta that doesn't mean we have 1/3 of all broadcasters in Canada. A bit like comparing apples and oranges, as we say. A unwarranted comparison of unlike items. As to the wattage: Some weak FM stations that I can pick up on occasion are around 40-135km away from me. The range of transmission power is from 800W to 23kW. We can get industry projections of station broadcast areas. I wonder how your (weak) stations compare. And how does the topography, population density, and the narrowness of Japan factor in? I have a video on the topography of the "weak stations" in my area, if you want to compare: ua-cam.com/video/br6_onGi6ao/v-deo.html Thank you again for you comment. I enjoyed it.
@@RSears Thank you very much for your reply. I watched the video you recommended. I feel ashamed of my ignorance for having simply judged that the power of your FM stations was “strong” without knowing the specific circumstances in your region. I have realized that each region has its own way of doing things, influenced by factors like the size of the country and population, and that there are distinct methods suited to Japan’s narrow land and high population density. I am once again impressed by the efforts of manufacturers who produce and sell receivers that must cater to these diverse conditions around the world. In the video you recommended, I was particularly interested in the details provided about the transmission power, the distance to the receiving location, and the topographical profiles of the stations. During my career, I worked on the construction of microwave wireless communication systems, and we used profiles to confirm that the transmission and reception sites were within "line-of-sight." Watching your video, I was reminded that there are cases where good reception can occur even without line-of-sight, while stations with a knife-edge in between often produce reception with noise. It felt like I was revisiting the principles of radio wave propagation. Thank you again for introducing me to such an interesting video. Although I am now 70 years old, I am still eager to keep learning and improving myself. I would like to conclude this comment by wishing you continued health and success. Thank you very much.
This radio is very good near "blowtorches" on FM, it can handle these signals and still pick out the weaker ones due to the multiple FM banwidths. Now take a radio such as the Xhdata D-808 which cannot handle strong signals as good as the 286 and has a very wide FM bandwidth setting that cannot be changed. BUT put the D-808 up against the 286 in an area that does not have blow torches nearby and the clear winner is the D-808 for picking up signals by some margin over the 286
LOL - I wouldn't say stations 75-100 miles away are "blowtorches." I don't know how rural one needs to be to rate in such a system, but I am intrigued. I have the XHDATA D109 and it is ... (I want not to exaggerate). Let's just say it hasn't been worth videoing. I know the D-808 has a better reputation, but you make such bold claims that I will see if I can find a cheap D-808 to test them.
I like the 286 better, though neither are listening radios by my lights. The 286 and the 330 have narrow frequency ranges. This helps cut through the noise when on SW. Although I haven't measured them, but the 286 seems to have a bit wider frequency range. The 286 appears also to have a mid to high boost; there can be harsh silibants. When the 286 and 330 are compared directly on FM this boost makes the 330 sound less than flat, even suppressed, hollow.This might all be down to the narrow frequency range of the 330, because it is tonally much closer to the 880, except for the unfortunate lack of bass to round out the sound.
@@RSears Thank you for the detailed comments. The DX286 I tried sounded digital like & muddy, the very second I turned it on for the first time. Immediate disappointment for me given all the praise I read. Based on your comments, maybe I got a less than perfect sample or I just hear differently.
Psycho-acoustics is an incredibly interesting field -- quantifying how we perceive what we hear and researching the whys and hows. First looking at your comment I wanted to do some direct comparisons of frequency ranges between the two radios to give you frequencies profiles to ground my perceptions and comments. I didn't get down to it. What I did instead is the common sense warm water test. Is the water warm? Compare some ice water directly with the sample. Then compare some near boiling water. The perceived differences will give you a sense of just where on the range of warm the test case is. The analogy is less precise. My Tecsun PL-880 is the best portable radio I own, and at the top of the market (by many evaluators). So, I compared the 286 with the 330 first, and then compared them each with the 880. That made the 330, by my lights, sound way better than it did up against the 286. It also high-lighted the accentuated sound profile of the 286. Now, you are right, there is a lot, especially in sound preferences, to our hearing. Not knowing your preference profile, I wouldn't be able to guess how these three radios would sound to you. And not knowing how much you evaluate sound and your own listening preferences, that makes it harder. I know some people (not saying you) simply cannot hear some of the artifacts and noise that are present on a UA-cam video. It is what it is; there are real and variable limits to our hearing. I would say that "muddy" is a good descriptor of a unnaturally boosted midrange. "Digital" could capture the blown out treble. In my opinion, anyone who makes a common sense review of their own preferences up against good "pools of temperature controlled water" (known quality standards) can dig into how radios (speakers, cans, mics, etc...) sound. It begins to give one a framework and lingo just to talk about it. For myself, portable radios do not sound as good as other sources and playback systems. BUT within that specific range of audio gear the PL-880 is top notch. All that to say, I don't think the 286 sounds bad, certainly not compared to other portable radios of the same size. I love it for the sensitivity. Maybe the 286 sounded way off to you compared to what you were recently listening to or to what you expected. Perhaps try a comparison test, with your bestest radio and some middling ultra-portable. Then if it still is not to your liking, just weigh the importance of sensitivity vs sound. To me the former would trump audio here, even if I hated it, which I don't. So that's my 2 cents, written in too many $2 bills. Thanks for your question and follow up comment.
@@RSears Well said. My daughter can hear 20k cycles on my stereo and could tell you what people are talking about at a table 5 spots away in a noisy restaurant, but she couldn't care less about SQ (sound quality) of reproduced sound. At 72 and having worked in a stamping plant for 16hrs a day before hearing protection was mandated, my hearing is compromised. But I still hear artifacts, distortion, Ham radio operators that are 5 cycles off from their radio's display, etc. Sound, as you pointed out, is very personal. There are very few absolutes in the world. Maybe I'll give another DX286 a try in the future. Thanx for the discussion.
Thanks! I was confused at first, trying to figure out what kind of callsign "G54" was (duh). 😁 Several times I almost ordered a PL-330 but couldn't quite make up my mind. Then the DX-286 came out and, after a bit of study, I jumped on it. Very glad I did!
Hilarious. There were a number of affiliate stations that day with dead air. It took me a few to figure out they were calling some kind of bingo game. I have seen reviews of the PL-330 as the best small radio. The review was put out before the DX-286, but I wanted to see so I bought one. I'd have to check, but maybe the review were done before the SR-286 as well. I found that the PL-880 was surprisingly close to the 286 in FM reception - ua-cam.com/video/m95mJeOm5KU/v-deo.html. One day under better atmospheric conditions and antenna placement I didn't have the 880 with to compare the 286's best day on FM, which found 10+ more stations - ua-cam.com/video/zB0jFiFzFcQ/v-deo.html.
@@RSears One thing that kept giving me pause about the 330 was the battery. I prefer something that I can carry spares of and change out easily, so sticking with AAs and 18650s works well for me. Very happy with my DX-286 so far, as well as my PL-990X and CC Skywave SSB. And, I couldn't resist buying a D-219 for $8! The little 219 really performs well.
Yes, there are so many parameters to consider in the perfect radio. I have been prioritizing performance, reception and output. Many have low price and battery replacement/recharging as central. Makes sense, but reception and output sadly don't correlate well with low price. The PL-880 and the GE Superadio II are my top contenders for audio quality. I am warming up to re-capping the Superradio this summer. I don't want to wreck it, but the famous Superadio I and II rebuilder-dude in the US would cost $600 CAD with shipping. Too much. The 286 radios seem to have the portable radio MW and FM reception crown, by my lights. I want to do more testing, but I find my ICOM IC-705 seems to anihiliate all pocket radios on LW and SW - LW ua-cam.com/video/nECI1LAmIdM/v-deo.html I have also found the sensitivity on MW and FM to be as good as the 286s, but getting the right antenna for broadcast FM on the 705 still needs to be sorted. I ran the 705 in this comparison, but I couldn't narrow the bandwidth enough to isolate the weak stations on WFM. It was picking up a number more stations than the 286, but the selectivity wasn't good enough. It has a totally different form-factor and price [ouch!!], but as far as performance goes, the full-on ham radio really impresses.
"I would like to share my thoughts on the video from Japan. Please excuse the length.
After reading the reviews, I thought, 'What a highly sensitive radio!' However, upon closer inspection, I was surprised by the extremely high transmission power of the FM stations. Given the vastness of your country, there are many broadcasting stations that transmit at over 20 kW. With such high transmission power, I can understand why you would receive them with a SINPO of [55555].
In Japan, the FM broadcasting stations with the highest transmission power are seven stations located in Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka, each at 10 kW, while most others are generally below 5 kW. This is extremely weak compared to the U.S. Therefore, high-sensitivity radios are necessary in Japan, but I envy the situation in the U.S. where there are many high-power stations, allowing even low-cost radios to receive signals easily.
In any case, regulatory authorities in Japan are strict and thoroughly limit high-power stations. Local FM stations transmit at just 20 W or less, which means their service areas can only cover a radius of about 15 km. Enjoying FM radio is not very feasible in Japan, as one can typically receive only about 5 to 7 stations. Even including local stations, it is common to have fewer than 20 stations available.
This concludes my impressions from Japan.
In Japan, there is a sadistic enjoyment in using creativity and ingenuity to receive radio stations that cannot normally be heard."
Thank you very much for your comment. It is great to hear from Japan. I love the bit about "sadistic enjoyment" and "ingenuity" trying to pull in more stations. Very interesting, and relatable.
I wondered about the wattage and number of stations here and there. So I ferreted around for some respectable stats. Japan is around 378,000 km2 and as of 2021 had 958 broadcasters nationally. Canada is just under 10 million km2 and, as of 2021, has 961 broadcasters. Roughly same number of broadcasters, but Canada has x37 the area.
www.statista.com/statistics/1198430/japan-number-nhk-radio-broadcasting-stations/
www.statista.com/topics/2978/radio-in-canada/
Alberta, where I live, is about the same size as Japan, 662,000 km2. The above stats deal with broadcasters not stations; broadcasters obviously have multiple stations. So when I say to you that we have 303 (AM and FM) stations in Alberta that doesn't mean we have 1/3 of all broadcasters in Canada. A bit like comparing apples and oranges, as we say. A unwarranted comparison of unlike items.
As to the wattage: Some weak FM stations that I can pick up on occasion are around 40-135km away from me. The range of transmission power is from 800W to 23kW. We can get industry projections of station broadcast areas. I wonder how your (weak) stations compare. And how does the topography, population density, and the narrowness of Japan factor in? I have a video on the topography of the "weak stations" in my area, if you want to compare: ua-cam.com/video/br6_onGi6ao/v-deo.html
Thank you again for you comment. I enjoyed it.
@@RSears Thank you very much for your reply.
I watched the video you recommended. I feel ashamed of my ignorance for having simply judged that the power of your FM stations was “strong” without knowing the specific circumstances in your region. I have realized that each region has its own way of doing things, influenced by factors like the size of the country and population, and that there are distinct methods suited to Japan’s narrow land and high population density. I am once again impressed by the efforts of manufacturers who produce and sell receivers that must cater to these diverse conditions around the world.
In the video you recommended, I was particularly interested in the details provided about the transmission power, the distance to the receiving location, and the topographical profiles of the stations. During my career, I worked on the construction of microwave wireless communication systems, and we used profiles to confirm that the transmission and reception sites were within "line-of-sight." Watching your video, I was reminded that there are cases where good reception can occur even without line-of-sight, while stations with a knife-edge in between often produce reception with noise. It felt like I was revisiting the principles of radio wave propagation.
Thank you again for introducing me to such an interesting video. Although I am now 70 years old, I am still eager to keep learning and improving myself.
I would like to conclude this comment by wishing you continued health and success. Thank you very much.
This radio is very good near "blowtorches" on FM, it can handle these signals and still pick out the weaker ones due to the multiple FM banwidths. Now take a radio such as the Xhdata D-808 which cannot handle strong signals as good as the 286 and has a very wide FM bandwidth setting that cannot be changed. BUT put the D-808 up against the 286 in an area that does not have blow torches nearby and the clear winner is the D-808 for picking up signals by some margin over the 286
LOL - I wouldn't say stations 75-100 miles away are "blowtorches." I don't know how rural one needs to be to rate in such a system, but I am intrigued. I have the XHDATA D109 and it is ... (I want not to exaggerate). Let's just say it hasn't been worth videoing. I know the D-808 has a better reputation, but you make such bold claims that I will see if I can find a cheap D-808 to test them.
How would you rate the sound quality between the two?
I like the 286 better, though neither are listening radios by my lights. The 286 and the 330 have narrow frequency ranges. This helps cut through the noise when on SW. Although I haven't measured them, but the 286 seems to have a bit wider frequency range. The 286 appears also to have a mid to high boost; there can be harsh silibants. When the 286 and 330 are compared directly on FM this boost makes the 330 sound less than flat, even suppressed, hollow.This might all be down to the narrow frequency range of the 330, because it is tonally much closer to the 880, except for the unfortunate lack of bass to round out the sound.
@@RSears Thank you for the detailed comments. The DX286 I tried sounded digital like & muddy, the very second I turned it on for the first time. Immediate disappointment for me given all the praise I read. Based on your comments, maybe I got a less than perfect sample or I just hear differently.
Psycho-acoustics is an incredibly interesting field -- quantifying how we perceive what we hear and researching the whys and hows. First looking at your comment I wanted to do some direct comparisons of frequency ranges between the two radios to give you frequencies profiles to ground my perceptions and comments. I didn't get down to it. What I did instead is the common sense warm water test. Is the water warm? Compare some ice water directly with the sample. Then compare some near boiling water. The perceived differences will give you a sense of just where on the range of warm the test case is. The analogy is less precise.
My Tecsun PL-880 is the best portable radio I own, and at the top of the market (by many evaluators). So, I compared the 286 with the 330 first, and then compared them each with the 880. That made the 330, by my lights, sound way better than it did up against the 286. It also high-lighted the accentuated sound profile of the 286.
Now, you are right, there is a lot, especially in sound preferences, to our hearing. Not knowing your preference profile, I wouldn't be able to guess how these three radios would sound to you. And not knowing how much you evaluate sound and your own listening preferences, that makes it harder. I know some people (not saying you) simply cannot hear some of the artifacts and noise that are present on a UA-cam video. It is what it is; there are real and variable limits to our hearing. I would say that "muddy" is a good descriptor of a unnaturally boosted midrange. "Digital" could capture the blown out treble.
In my opinion, anyone who makes a common sense review of their own preferences up against good "pools of temperature controlled water" (known quality standards) can dig into how radios (speakers, cans, mics, etc...) sound. It begins to give one a framework and lingo just to talk about it. For myself, portable radios do not sound as good as other sources and playback systems. BUT within that specific range of audio gear the PL-880 is top notch. All that to say, I don't think the 286 sounds bad, certainly not compared to other portable radios of the same size. I love it for the sensitivity.
Maybe the 286 sounded way off to you compared to what you were recently listening to or to what you expected. Perhaps try a comparison test, with your bestest radio and some middling ultra-portable. Then if it still is not to your liking, just weigh the importance of sensitivity vs sound. To me the former would trump audio here, even if I hated it, which I don't. So that's my 2 cents, written in too many $2 bills. Thanks for your question and follow up comment.
@@RSears Well said. My daughter can hear 20k cycles on my stereo and could tell you what people are talking about at a table 5 spots away in a noisy restaurant, but she couldn't care less about SQ (sound quality) of reproduced sound. At 72 and having worked in a stamping plant for 16hrs a day before hearing protection was mandated, my hearing is compromised. But I still hear artifacts, distortion, Ham radio operators that are 5 cycles off from their radio's display, etc. Sound, as you pointed out, is very personal. There are very few absolutes in the world. Maybe I'll give another DX286 a try in the future. Thanx for the discussion.
On my iPad with earbuds the Tecsun sounds better in your video.