[Update: Please note that this survey has been closed, but the audio samples–labeled Radio A and Radio B–will remain to allow others the opportunity to make an evaluation prior to reading the PL-680 review.]
I’ve been spending a little time with my new Tecsun PL-680 today, and it’s been most interesting. Of course, I’ve already begun to form a few opinions about the radio and am taking notes. Yet I never believe a shortwave radio can be judged in one sitting; there are simply too many variables to account for, such as minute changes in propagation, fading, local radio interference, all of which can have a temporary effect on performance. It’s better to judge a radio after having used it over the course of at least a week or so, in diverse reception conditions.
Still, as I tuned the PL-680, I was already wondering how it compared with its predecessor, the PL-660–? And since I’ve received at least ten emails from readers curious about the same thing, I thought I might start a series of blind audio tests in order to let our readers decide for themselves.
So…ready for some fun?
Below, I’ve embedded eight recordings comparing the PL-660 and PL-680 on shortwave. All of these are recordings of broadcast stations, no SSB yet (I simply didn’t have the time today).
To participate, just listen, then fill out the form that follows with your choice of “Best Radio” for each broadcast. But do note the following:
I’ve attempted to set the audio levels equally on both radios. Iused the broadcast in the first recording to set the audio levels; they remain at this level for the remainder of the recordings. Nonetheless, you’ll note that one of the radios seems to have lower audio on a couple of the higher-band recordings; this is not due to any change in the incoming volume nor adjustments to the audio levels.
As seen in the photo above, I used a Zoom H2N digital recorder to make these recordings on the tailgate of my truck. Any time you hook a digital recorder up to a radio on the medium wave or shortwave bands, you most likely will inject a little noise. When I listened to each radio without the recorder in-line, I determined that the Zoom injected very little audible noise.
The assignment of “Radio A” and “Radio B” was chosen by a coin toss–so pretty much at random!
I included two recordings of WWV on 25 MHz. This is because the reception conditions from WWV change in a a matter of minutes, which would provide recording variation. I thought it would be best to include two such recordings.
Both radios have the gain set to “DX” and bandwidth set to wide. None of these recordings employ synchronous detection. The telescopic antenna was fully extended on both units. Additionally, both radios had the tone control set to “bass.”
No less relevant: it was 32F/OC with strong wind gusts and blowing snow in my face when I made these recordings. But I knew our readers would understand (and likely appreciate) this dedication to the absorbing art of SWLing…just as I appreciate your participation in judging this head-to-head radio showdown!
Audio Samples
9,395 kHz – Radio Prague via Global 24 (strong signal example)
I just got a Tecsun PL-660 after reading many good reviews on the radio, but I have a problem in that there are two 100,000 W FM stations within a few miles of my house and the reception of these stations isn’t as good as some more distant stations.
The signal strength is great but the audio is a bit distorted like it has too much gain or something. If I manually tune the frequency a few hundreths off the “actual” frequency it seems to help. Moving the antenna switch to “normal” or “local” from “DX” doesn’t make much difference nor does using the external antenna. Any ideas what’s going on?
I’m about ready to return it and get a Sony ICF-SW7600GR instead.
This sounds, to me, like the front end is overloading on the PL-660. I don’t live near a blow torch FM station like Brad.
Have any other PL-660 owners had this problem? Any suggestions for Brad? Please comment!
[Update: Please note that this survey has been closed, but the audio samples–labeled Radio A and Radio B–will remain to allow others the opportunity to make an evaluation prior to reading the PL-680 review.]
The results from the PL-680/PL-660 reader survey have been pouring in! As of this posting, over 160 readers have participated by listening to and evaluating the AM shortwave audio samples. Thank you!
This morning, I spent time comparing the Tecsun PL-660 and PL-680 with synchronous detection in mind. Time permitting, I hope to publish at least a medium wave audio survey, too, before I post the PL-680 review later this week. I doubt I will post an SSB reception survey since my digital recorder injects a bit of noise into those recordings.
To participate in this survey, start by simply listening, then fill out the form that follows with your choice of “Best Radio” for each broadcast. Please note that I include two recordings per broadcast, but ask that you choose the best radio overall for each broadcast.
For example: if you feel that Radio A is better in the first recording of Radio Australia, but Radio B is slightly better in the second recording (again, of Radio Australia), you still need to chose which radio is best overall in the Radio Australia recordings set.
You’ll note that signal stability varies between the two recordings; this is simply the nature of shortwave radio. Also note that each recording was made within one minute of the other in each set.
Audio Samples
Radio Australia 9,580 kHz
Below I’ve provided two recordings of Radio Australia on 9,580 kHz. In both recordings, I have the PL-660 and PL-680 in normal AM mode for the first half of the recording–you will hear a het (hetrodyne–which sounds like a high-pitch tone) in the upper sideband. About halfway through the recording, I switch each radio into lower sideband sync, which effectively removes the het sound.
I have provided two recordings for each radio since QSB (fading) was fast and deep. Indeed, you’ll note in the second set of recordings that the radios had more difficulty maintaining the sync lock.
[Update: Please note that this survey has been closed, but the audio samples–labeled Radio A and Radio B–will remain to allow others the opportunity to make an evaluation prior to reading the PL-680 review.]
The results from the PL-680/PL-660 reader surveys (here and here) have been pouring in! As of this posting, well over 200 readers have participated by listening to and evaluating the two receiver comparison surveys. Thank you!
Yesterday evening, I spent time comparing the Tecsun PL-660 and PL-680 with medium wave reception in mind. I recorded dozens of samples and picked four broadcast recordings I felt best represented receiver performance. Note that this will be my final survey before I post the PL-680 review later this week.
To participate in this survey, start by simply listening, then fill out the form that follows with your choice of “Best Radio” for each broadcast. All of these medium wave samples were recorded in the evening hours, which I believe is more indicative of receiver sensitivity, selectivity and AGC. Notice that I indicate distance to target station (as the crow flies).
Audio Samples
750 AM – WSB Atlanta, Georgia, USA (171 mi/275 km)
Responses for these surveys has been, quite frankly, amazing! At time of publishing this post, we’ve received 367 individual survey responses!Thank you!
When I heard early reports about the new Tecsun PL-680, I was already wondering how it would stack up alongside other Tecsun portables. An early photo of the Tecsun PL-680 revealed how very similar it is, indeed, to the Tecsun PL-600, which has been on the market for many years. Moreover, the features of PL-680, which I heard about only a few weeks ago, sounded to me like a carbon copy of the venerable PL-660. I investigated further, and spoke with Anna at Anon-Co; she was given to understand that the Tecsun PL-680 was essentially a re-packaged PL-660 with improved sensitivity. I was curious enough about the PL-680 that I ordered one from Anna as soon as they were available, even paying for expedited shipping in order to have it in hand a bit sooner.
The Tecsun PL-660 has been on the market for several years now; it’s one of the most popular shortwave portables on the market. And for good reason: the PL-660 is relatively inexpensive, simple to use, packs all of the most vital and desirable functions/modes, and is available from a variety of retailers that ship worldwide. I have reviewed it numerous times and often used it as the basis for comparison with other shortwave portables. It’s China-based manufacturer, Tecsun, has emerged over the past few years as the dominant manufacturer of shortwave radios.
The Tecsun PL-680 looks like the Tecsun PL-600 body, with the Tecsun PL-660 features and layout. Indeed, the full complement of buttons, switches and dials are identically positioned to those of the PL-660.
Let’s cut to the chase…
Question: So, does the PL-680 have more functions than the PL-660?
Answer:No.It appears to be, and likely is, identical in every (functional) respect to the Tecsun PL-660. No surprises here, unless there are hidden features I haven’t discovered…!
Check out the following comparison photos–the PL-600 on the right, PL-660 in the middle, PL-680 on the right (click to enlarge):
The similarity is so striking, in fact, that I believe the PL-680 is the first radio I’ve ever turned on for the first time, only to find I immediately knew every function. I’m so familiar with the PL-660 that I could even use the PL-680 in the dark the first night I used it.
It also helps, of course, that the PL-680 is nearly identical to the PL-600, too, which I’ve owned for many years.
Here’s how I see the PL-680 product development equation:
In truth, I was quite disappointed that Tecsun did not add a line-out jack to the PL-680.
The PL-660, alas, lacks line-out, and though my Tecsun PL-880 has a line-out, its default shortwave volume is simply too high to be used by most digital recorders. I had hoped that the PL-680 might have a proper line-out jack, potentially making it a replacement for my trusty Sony ICF-SW7600GR. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
But other than missing a line-out jack, I really have few complaints. I’ve always been a fan of simple radio design and I believe Tecsun has done a good thing by keeping the user experience so similar in their PL-6XX line of portable shortwave radios. Apparently, a good thing is a good thing.
But here’s what everyone wants to know…
Question: Does the PL-680 have any performance advantages over the PL-660?
Short Answer: Yes! (But keep your PL-660.)
I should add here that I’m about to get rather technical and radio-geeky, so if you’re only interested in a summary, please skip to the bottom of the page.
Otherwise, help yourself to a cup of coffee, and let’s talk radio…
Shortwave performance
Since I spend 95% of my listening time on shortwave, I’ll begin with shortwave performance. Again, we’ll compare the PL-680’s performance with that of the PL-660.
In most circumstances, you’ll find that the PL-680 has better sensitivity than the PL-660. It’s a marginal improvement, but one I certainly notice on the shortwave bands–and so did the majority of readers who participated in the shortwave AM reception survey.
The survey had recordings from a total of three broadcasters: Radio Prague, WWV, and Radio France International.
The PL-680 was “Radio A,” and the PL-660 was “Radio B.”
The Radio Prague recording was quite strong and was the only broadcast in our survey in which the PL-660 and PL-680 ran neck-and-neck.
In truth, I believe strong signal reception on both these radios is excellent and nearly indistinguishable from each other.
Survey results from the WWV and Radio France International recordings showed a strong preference for the Tecsun PL-680. Again, here are the original recordings:
Based on comments from those who participated, the PL-680 came out ahead of the PL-660 in two respects: better sensitivity, and more stable AGC. In both sets of recordings, the signal was weaker than the Radio Prague recording, and QSB (fading) more pronounced. Herein lies a well-known weakness of the PL-660: soft muting and a sometimes over-active AGC equates to more listening fatigue.
Here is a chart with the full survey results based on 194 listener reports. The number of responses are represented on the vertical axis.
Obviously, the engineers at Tecun addressed the soft muting/AGC problem of the PL-660. In all of my time with the PL-680 on the air, I haven’t noticed any soft muting; the audio has been smooth and the AGC copes with fading much better than the PL-660. No doubt, these two improvements alone make the PL-680 a worthy portable for shortwave radio listening.
There is a downside to the improved sensitivity, however: the PL-680 has a slightly higher noise floor than the PL-660. This is mostly noticeable during weak-signal listening. Though I haven’t compared it yet, I’m willing to bet that the noise floor is comparable to that of the Sony ICF-SW7600GR. Personally, if increased sensitivity and stability means a slightly higher noise floor, I’m okay with that. I find that I listen better when the signal is stable and not fluttering/muting with every QSB trough.
Synchronous detection
The second survey focused on synchronous detection, which is a very useful receiver tool that mitigates adjacent signal interference and improves a signal’s stability. Perhaps it was my good fortune that the same day I tested synchronous detection, fading on even strong stations was pronounced at times. Perfect!
The first recording set was from Radio Australia, a relatively strong signal here in North America. Still, QSB was pronounced–making for an unstable signal–and there was hetrodyne interference in the upper sideband of the broadcast. When I switched the radios into lower sideband sync, halfway through, it effectively mitigated the hetrodyne in all of the recordings.
While I have always considered the PL-660 to sport one of the stronger sync locks in current production portables, it did truly struggle to maintain a lock in both the Radio Australia and Radio Riyadh recordings. Indeed, I was so surprised by how comparatively feeble the sync lock was on Radio Australia, that I disconnected the PL-660 from the recorder and moved to a different location to verify that something nearby wasn’t causing the sync lock instability. It was not; it was solely due to unstable band conditions.
It came as no surprise that survey respondents took note of the PL-680’s stronger sync lock: the PL-680 beat the PL-660 by a wide margin in both sample recordings. I chart the results, below, from a total of 85 responses:
Very good, PL-680! Someday I’d like to compare the PL-680 with the Sony ICF-SW7600GR, which I’ve always considered to have, among current portables, the strongest sync lock.
Single Sideband
I wasn’t able to provide an audio survey of SSB performance since the PL-680 picked up too much noise from my digital recorder to make for a fair contest.
Meanwhile, I’ve spent time listening to both radios in SSB mode and comparing the models. To my ear, both are very close in SSB performance, but again the PL-680 does have a slight edge on the PL-660 in terms of sensitivity and AGC performance.
SSB audio fidelity is very similar in both radios.
FM Performance
While I haven’t spent more than, let’s say, an hour with the PL-680 on the FM band, I have concluded that it is very sensitive–able to receive all of my benchmark local and regional FM stations.
An informal comparison between thePL-680 and the PL-660 also leads me to believe that they are both excellent FM performers and seemed to compare favorably. I would certainly welcome FM DXers to comment with their own evaluations of the PL-680.
Medium Wave Performance
I’ve also posted a medium-wave listener survey since many of you asked that I provide an evaluation of the medium-wave band.
In short, here is where the PL-680 loses to the PL-660: whereas, on the shortwave bands, the PL-680 is more sensitive, it lacks the same sensitivity on the medium-wave bands.
Though I believe the PL-680 does a marginally better job than the PL-660 of handling the choppy conditions of nighttime MW DX, the PL-660 still pulled voices and music out of the static and made them noticeably more intelligible.
The survey result swung very hard in favor of the PL-660, which has long been one of the more notable medium-wave performers among shortwave portables.
I provided a total of four sample broadcast recordings for comparison. Below, I have embedded one of them–a recording of 940 AM in Macon, Georgia, for your reference.
Survey results were definitive, with a total of 116 responses:
In all but the strong station sample (750 AM – WBS Atlanta), the PL-660 was preferred by a wide margin.
Summary
Invariably, all radios have strengths and weaknesses; here is a list of my notes from the moment I put the Tecsun PL-680 on the air:
Pros:
Excellent sensitivity and selectivity on the shortwave bands
Improved weak signal stability over the PL-660
Stable sync lock
Proven PL-600 form factor with good overall ergonomics
Great internal speaker–an improvement over the PL-660 (but not as good as the PL-880 or Sangean ATS-909X)
Other than medium-wave performance (see con), a worthy replacement for the PL-660
Excellent audio from the PL-680 internal speaker (improved over the PL-660, but not matching the fidelity of the PL-880)
Cons:
Medium-wave performance for is a step backwards from the PL-680’s predecessor, the PL-660. Okay on strong and moderate-signal reception, somewhat poor for weak signals
Marginal noise floor increase on the shortwave bands
Like the PL-660, lacks a line-out jack (Please note this, Tecsun!)
Conclusion
If you’re a shortwave radio listener, you’ll be pleased with the Tecsun PL-680. In all of my comparison tests between the Tecun PL-660 and Tecsun PL-680, the PL-680 tends to edge out the PL-660, performance-wise. This coincides with the user surveys, too.
If you’re a medium-wave DXer, you might skip over the PL-680. That is, unless Tecsun makes a good iterative design improvement. If you’re a casual medium-wave listener, on the other hand, you’ll probably be pleased with the PL-680.
All in all, I like the Tecsun PL-680 and I see myself using it more than the PL-660 when I’m on the go. If you’re primarily a shortwave radio listener, the PL-680 may very well be worth the upgrade. At $95 US plus shipping, it is certainly a good value. Note that Anon-Co plans to post the Tecsun PL-680 for sale on eBay in March 2015.
SWLing Post reader, Pete Jernakoff (K3KMS), writes:
“I purchased two PL-880 radios from Amazon about a year ago and before the soft muting issue became a hot topic. Both of my radios (8819 firmware version) suffered from this most annoying problem but it wasn’t until I started reading your excellent blog that I learned of the cause.
About two weeks ago, I called Kaito Electronics USA and asked if they could upgrade the firmware on my two radios to the 8820 version. The person I spoke to said (paraphrasing) “Sure! Send them to us any we’ll perform the upgrade for free. All you do is pay for the return shipping.”
So off the radios went to Kaito. About 10 days later I had them back with the new firmware installed. The return shipping was $10. Weak MW and SW signals are now easy to listen to: no soft muting issues at all. Kudos to Kaito for agreeing to perform the upgrade for me. My dealings with them were thoroughly pleasurable.”
Thanks for sharing that great experience, Pete! You’re right–the 8820 upgrade is certainly worth the shipping costs and I’m happy to hear Kaito makes the process so easy.
I thought you would like to know this. I bought PL-680 few days ago and I noticed that mine has the display about 1 khz off. I contact Anna on Anon-Co and got a quick reply:
“I have received a response from the supplier regarding the 1 kHz deviation issue of the PL-680 radio. Unfortunately they consider this to be within their tolerance standards for SW reception. Overall, their standard is set to be +/- 0.5 kHz, which translates to 1 kHz on the LCD display. They understand the effect it may especially have for SSB listening, which is why fine tuning has been added as a feature.
For MW/AM the situation is a bit different. According to the supplier this is an issue that both the PL-680 and PL-660 radios have and cannot be avoided. As they indicate, unfortunately only the PL-880 has a special function for MW frequency calibration.”
I just checked my PL-680 and did a zero-beat in SSB against WWV on 10 MHz. If the BFO adjustment is correct when in the middle position, I can confirm that mine is almost 1 kHz too high as well.
For AM listening, a 1 kHz deviation isn’t noticeable. If you’re using ECSS, though, you’ll certainly have to fine tune the BFO accordingly. If locating a CW or SSB signal (in the ham bands, for example), you’ll also need to adjust the BFO fine tune control in advance.
Most importantly–and fortunately–when you turn on the PL-680’s synchronous detection, the receiver is exactly on frequency (at least on my early model PL-680).
Many thanks, Olli, for sharing this information! I’ll note this negative in the PL-680 review.
Jay has also reviewed the Sangean ATS-405 on his website and Keith Perron tells me he will include a review of the ATS-405 on today’s episode of Media Network Plus. Keith has informed me he was very disappointed with the ATS-405, but Jay’s review is mostly positive, focusing on its great AM (medium wave) performance and new tuning/muting functions.
SWLing Post reader, Tom Ally, writes to say that the Tecsun PL-600 is currently on sale at Amazon.com for $74.99, shipping included. While this is not a deep discount, he notes that it is a lot of radio for the price. I still have a PL-600 and tend to agree with Tom. In fact, I was using my PL-600 this morning, comparing it to the new Sangean ATS-405. In many respects, the PL-600 reminds me of the Grundig G5.
Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Richard Langley, for the following guest post:
Frequency Stability of My Tecsun PL-880
Recently, while recording the audio on a particular SW frequency unattended over night, I decided to set my Tecsun PL-880 in USB mode with the 3.5 kHz RF bandwidth setting as I had previously noticed splatter QRM from a station 10 kHz below my frequency of interest. I adjusted the frequency to the nearest 10 Hz for natural-sounding voice. On playing the recording, I was disappointed to find that the signal had drifted in frequency and although speech was still recognizable, music was distorted.
I decided to try to measure the stability of the receiver by recording the Canadian time signal station CHU on 7850.00 kHz in USB mode (CHU has no LSB component) over night for over nine hours. The receiver was operated with just its telescopic whip antenna indoors and the audio was recorded with a Tecsun ICR-100 radio recorder / digital audio player. I wrote a Python script to compute the audio spectrum of each one-minute segment of the recorded files using a fast Fourier transform (after removing a DC component). The script then looks for the largest peaks in the spectra centred on a specified frequency and prints out the frequency (to the nearest Hz) and amplitude of the peak. In case the signal has dropped below audibility, a threshold is set and if the detected peak is below the threshold (likely just detecting the random noise background), it is skipped. The specific centre frequency I was looking for was 1000 Hz, the frequency of the tone used to mark each second of the CHU broadcast except when the voice announcement and digital signal are transmitted. In AM mode, the spectrum would consistently show a peak at 1000 Hz but in SSB mode, the peak will vary depending on the receiver frequency setting and the actual frequency of the receiver’s oscillator.
The first plot below shows the received CHU one-second tone frequency as a function of time (UTC) from when the receiver was first switched on.
It shows the tone frequency started out at about 1046 Hz slowly dropping in the first half hour to about 1012 Hz and after about an hour stabilized to 1011 Hz ± 1 Hz for the better part of an hour. (This shows that you may have to allow a receiver to “warm up” for perhaps up to an hour before attempting anything close to accurate frequency reading at the order of 10 Hz.) But then, over the course of the next seven hours when the signal was audible, the frequency slowly rose ending up at about 1034 Hz. The variation might be affected by the ambient air temperature (but this should have been nearly constant), air flow around the receiver, and perhaps the charge level of the receiver’s battery. On several occasions, I have turned the receiver on (after being off for many hours) and seen a CHU frequency offset of only 10 or 20 Hz. So, I intend to repeat this experiment sometime to check on the day-to-day frequency stability. This frequency stability measurement technique could also be used with WWV/WWVH by recording the 440, 500, or 600 Hz tones broadcast at different times during the broadcast hour.
Of course, it’s also possible to check the receiver’s frequency offset in real time byswitching between AM and SSB modes while adjusting the receiver frequency in 10 Hz steps until the signal sounds the same in both modes. There is also freely available computer software for various operating systems that can display a real-time spectrum of audio passed to it through a microphone or line input. So, a CHU or WWV/WWVH test using such software could also be performed in real time. And alternatively, by tuning say exactly 1 kHz away from the transmitted carrier frequency in SSB mode, the software can be used to measure the audible heterodyne frequency to better than 10 Hz — even 1 Hz. This frequency can then be added or subtracted as appropriate to the dial reading (assumed accurate or with a noted offset) to get the exact transmitted carrier frequency.
By the way, it is possible to calibrate and reset the PL-880 using the procedure documented on the SWLing Post(click here to view).
As a side benefit of the analysis I carried out, we can also look at the quality of the received signal over the recoded interval. In this case, it is a measure of the level of a particular audio frequency rather than the RF signal+noise level we usually get from the receiver S-meter or other signal strength display. This is illustrated in the second plot below for the CHU recording. As you can see, reception was mostly quite good between about 02:00 and 04:00 UTC and then became fair but above threshold level until about 05:30 UTC.
The signal was then essentially inaudible up to about 08:00 UTC when with bouts of fading it became audible again for an hour or two with sunrise approaching.
SWling Post reader, Philip Dickinson, recently contacted me with the following question:
“I have just bought a Tecsun 606 which takes two AA batteries which I think are normally rated at 1.2 volts. I have just ordered some lithium ion AA and notice that they are 3.7 volts. Can I use them?”
I replied to Philip that I’m pretty sure I’ve used lithiums in my PL-380 and/or PL-310ET without experiencing any problems. I know I’ve certainly used lithiums in several other receivers. [Update: I’ve always used Energizer and Duracell 1.5 V Lithium AA batteries–not 3.6V AA batteries.]
As I was about to post his question here on the Post, Philip sent another message:
“I found Tecsun’s email address and they rule out the 3.7 volt lithiums. Good job I checked.”
Wow–indeed, I’m glad you checked as well!
I had searched the PL-606 owner’s manual (PDF), but found no reference for voltage tolerances. Now I’m curious if other Tecsun receivers would have difficulty handling the higher lithium voltage.
I would like your opinion regarding two strange points we noticed in two different Tecsun PL-880 models, which a friend and I have recently purchased. In particular:
The signal meter is supposed to measure up to 99dBu (my Tecsun PL-390 s-meter goes indeed up to 95-97dBu for very strong amateur signals in my area included mine in mw zone). The point is that for both devices (both of which have 8820 firmware) the signal meter does not exceed 85 dBu and in particular my Tecsun PL-880 signal meter does not goes over 70dBu (ie. even lower measurement). Why this behaviour?
Another strange point is that my friend’s Tecsun receiver displays for a “quiet” frequency (mw) a noise level of about 10-12dBu, while my Tecsun device shows only 2-3dBu noise (same frequency in the same spot!). We both tried the threshold muting adjustment (key 9) and this worked a bit but with minor results in sensitivity, especially for my Tecsun PL-880 receiver. Is it possible to adjust the noise level so that it can be 10-12dBu instead of being only 2-3dBu and hence better sensitivity? And is it possible to adjust the maximum signal level (99dBu instead of 85dBu or even worse 70dBu for my device)?
I have noticed that the hidden feature regarding the external mw antenna didn’t work in my case, even though I did resets an tried many times. I pressume, hence, that maybe Tecsun disabled this hidden feature. Is there any modification available to “add something” into the radio hardware in order to be able to listen mw/lw frequences with external antenna and thus, increase sensitivity?
Many thanks for your questions, Evans. Since my PL-880 is a first production run unit, I’m hoping readers who’ve recently purchased the Tecsun PL-880 might comment.
I suspect Tecsun engineers give little thought to calibrating the S meters. I’m very curious if there is a hidden feature to do this, but I’m guessing this is limited only to those who can program the DSP functionality of the chip inside.
While browsing Amazon, I discovered a hot deal: a new Tecsun PL-380 for $24.99 including shipping. I was very tempted to snatch this one up, but since I already have both a PL-380 and PL-310ET, I’d rather give the opportunity to someone else.
This is not being sold by Amazon directly, rather through one of their sellers. Simply follow this link, then search for for the “1 new from $24.99” to grab the bargain.
There may only be one of these available, so if you’re interested…go, go, go!
I just noticed that Universal Radio is featuring the following used Tecsun PL-680 in their used receiver collection. Here’s the description:
The Tecsun PL-680 receives longwave, AM, FM and SW bands plus VHF Airband. It features a backlit digital display, stereo FM (to ear jack), SSB, clock timer, 2000 Memories, Sync. Detection, ATS and keypad entry. The left side features earphone, external antenna and input voltage jacks. The right side features a variable BFO and tuning knob. The rear panel has a battery compartment for 4 AA cells (not supplied). This PL-680 system includes: box, nice carry case, printed manual and earphone.
The price is $69.95 plus shipping–very reasonable, in my opinion. The best part is Universal Radio offers a reputable 60 day warranty with all of their used items.
I regularly check Universal’s used and demo list. Occasionally, great bargains pop up and I feel I can always buy from them with confidence as they check over each item before posting.
Many thanks to SWLing Post reader “RCXB” who comments:
“Another radio deal, if you don’t mind the writing in Chinese, you can get a Tecsun R-911 for just $15.80… A couple dollars cheaper than its already-cheap re-branded Kaito WRX911 namesake that everyone raves about.”
While the “911” series of analog shortwave receivers (i.e. Tecsun R-911, Kaito WRX911) isn’t going to win any awards for outstanding performance, they are capable little radios for the price.
I have a Kaito WRX911 (above) and often use it as a low-end benchmark for inexpensive portables like the DE321. The WRX911 is a decent little mediumwave receiver as well; I especially love the fact that it does a decent job nulling unwanted signals as you turn the radio body.
Perhaps the best thing about the ‘911 series is that they’re dead simple to use. No manual needed. Just turn it on and tune around!
If you’re looking for a great shortwave receiver, skip this deal. If you’re looking for an inexpensive radio to keep in your car’s glove compartment, home emergency kit, or camping pack, click here to check out the Tecsun R-911 on Amazon.
It seems that Tecsun has a new large portable in line.
Someone posted a photo of a new Tecsun product catalogue which shows a new model S8800.
The Tecsun BCL-3000 for comparison.
Apparently it uses the housing of BCL3000 [see above] and is multiple conversion (so a PL880 inside?), DSP based with separate LSB/USB and 10Hz minimum tuning step, and comes with a remote control (for direct frequency input?). Two 18650 batteries are used.
Photo source: http://bbs.tecsun.com.cn/ via OWL. Click to enlarge.
Photo source: http://bbs.tecsun.com.cn/ via OWL. Click to enlarge.
[Here’s a] link to the post in Tecsun’s web forum:
Many thanks for sharing this find, OWL! This is a very curious development from Tecsun.
I can imagine why Tecsun is re-using the BCL-3000 (a.k.a. Grundig S350DL) body–not only is it roomy inside, but it’s proven to be a popular large portable form factor over the years. Of course, since this is an existing chassis design, design/development costs will be minimal. If Tecsun is including a remote, I’m sure OWL is correct: it’ll aid with direct frequency entry. The S-8800 will be the first portable shortwave radio with remote control I’ve seen in many years.
If audio is anything like its predecessors, I would expect rich fidelity from the built-in speaker. In terms of performance, though? This is a completely different receiver than the single-conversion BCL-3000, so only time will tell.
After learning about the new Tecsun S-8800, yesterday, I contacted Anna at Anon-Co and asked for any information regarding specs and availability. Anna replied:
“Regarding the S-8800, there is no information available of when this will be actually launched. I think that the absolute earliest could be some time in January, but I expect that it will be after Chinese New Year. To be honest, it is very difficult to say at this moment. There isn’t much information available about it yet.
Supposedly it is pretty much the same [chassis design] as the existing BCL-3000, but it will be a PLL radio with DSP IC. It should have SSB features, but other details (like SYNC) I’m not aware of at this moment. I’m hoping to hear more about this soon.
Anna will contact me as soon as she has more info about the S-8800 features and availability.
Fantastic review and whilst I know the article is an older one people will still read it when looking at a portable SW radio.
With this in mind I would like to make the following comment about the PL660. You say it is bulletproof and boy is it! Mine has been dropped, kicked and overwise abused and it’s still going strong.
Most remarkably it was knocked into a bucket of water, plugged in and powered up and was there for a good couple of hours fully submerged before I realised.
It wasn’t long good for a week or two but after 3 or 4 weeks I have it one last try before binning it and hey presto it came back to life! Ok the volume pot is now a bit scratchy but other than that it’s working just fine.
Want a radio that will take the general abuse of travelling – this is it…
Wow! Thanks for your comment, Danny! Most impressive that your PL-660 went diving that long and lived to tell the tale. Thanks for sharing!
This morning, I received a question I’m often asked. It usually goes something like this:
“Should I purchase the Tecsun PL-600, or invest a little more and purchase the Tecsun PL-660? Is it worth the price difference?”
I decided it best to post this question, along with my response, below.
SWLing Post reader, Warren, writes:
“I have been on your web site for a couple of hours now. I especially appreciated your super review. From that I decided I liked the Tecsun PL-660 best. As I was looking for one on ebay, I saw an ad for a Tecsun PL-600. Although I did find specs on your web site, I did not find a review by you. I did find links to other reviews.
One person said a PL-600 was a PL-660 minus the AIR band.
Another said the SSB didn’t work until he took it apart and replaced a capacitor.
Another said the filters didn’t work as well on the 600, or didn’t exist.
Many said the quality was excellent – buy it! Many said it was terrible.
Can you tell me, in your opinion, which, if any, of the above you agree with? And give me your own rating of the 600?
The 600 is much less expensive than the 660. If it is missing filters and sound quality I’m not interested. If it is only missing the airline band I am very interested.”
Here’s my reply to Warren:
“It is confusing and, you’re right, for some reason I don’t think I’ve ever done my own review of the PL-600–though it’s been included in comparisons.
Here’s my answer to your question:
If you want the best overall performance, go for the Tecsun PL-660. I think it’s well worth the price.
The Tecsun PL-660.
The PL-660 has a great synchronous detector–something the PL-600 lacks–which helps with selective fading and pulling weak signals out of the murk. Since you can select the sideband for the sync lock, you can also use this function to help mitigate adjacent signal interference.
The ‘600 is one of the few portables on the market in this price range that has a BFO for single sideband listening (along with the CountyComm GP5/SSB and the Degen DE1103 DSP). When newcomers to the hobby want a full-featured sub-$100 radio that’s simple to operate, I often suggest the PL-600. I’ve never had any issues with my PL-600, by the way–it performed as specified right out of the box and continues to do so today.
