How Does the Qodosen DX 286 compare to the Belka DX

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 10

  • @samkam4984
    @samkam4984 23 дня назад +3

    Belka ...the winner for sure 👍

  • @Homer19521
    @Homer19521 3 месяца назад +7

    The Anker Soundcore Mini is a great add-on speaker for the Belka. The significant Sound Quality difference makes the comparison less useful compared to your other posts. One more thing, the Belka depends on a audio or USB cable for the ground plane. Alex EU1ME the Belka designer, have traded emails about this. The Belka is the best.

    • @skinnyblinddude
      @skinnyblinddude 3 месяца назад

      I find that that powered speakers emit RFI. Are there portable passive speakers available nowadays?

  • @nine7295
    @nine7295 3 месяца назад +4

    I have the same Belka DX and am thinking about getting the DX 286, haven't decided as it doesn't have SSB and CW modes.

  • @tinus.8764
    @tinus.8764 3 месяца назад +3

    Hi Kevin. I always enjoy watching your videos. Especially when it comes to the Belka. You know the Belka very well and you certainly know a few tricks and hints. Maybe you could make a video about it....

  • @PavelYonchev
    @PavelYonchev 16 дней назад +1

    In general, Belka DX lags behind a bit. It should be noted that this is not the strongest wave range of Qodosen DX 286.

  • @barmaley-division
    @barmaley-division 3 месяца назад +3

    Interestingly, in my opinion, the main difference here is the sound, and it's not merely due to the difference in speaker size. While the DX-286 sounds like it has a 4k bandwidth maximum, the Belka-DX sounds more like it has an 8k bandwidth. Thanks for the comparison.👍🏻

    • @gerdpfeil
      @gerdpfeil 3 месяца назад +1

      That's true, the Belka's little speaker has very little response in the fundamental voice range and tilts the balance to the top end with its inherently worse SNR. It's really only some fallback option if you forgot to bring your headphones and does not reflect the excellent signal quality of the Belka. Also both radios should've been set to a comparable bandwidth in first place, the Belka's filter settings are "per sideband" = audio bandwidth in AM, so the 4kHz setting (the recording sounds like that) would be equivalent to an 8kHz conventional IF filter, which can be a bit much for a 5kHz SW broadcast band channel. For assessment of actual sensitivity, weak stations are more meaningful too.

    • @barmaley-division
      @barmaley-division 3 месяца назад

      @@gerdpfeil That's interesting info I wasn't aware of; thanks for that. I could only add that both AM and SW should have variable BW because many stations don't adhere to that 9k/AM (5k/SW) channel width. Say CRI on SW would blast in full 15 kHz BW providing richer sound, one wouldn't be able to enjoy with a SI4732x-based DSP radio allowing for 6k BW max. on AM. Similarly, there are 20k BW stations on AM. For me it's quite obvious if a receiver has narrow BW, no speaker specs would change that impression much. The worst case is when a capacitor is added to sound apm. in parallel to "filter" hissing - the result is muffed sound.

  • @DmytroTertyshnyi
    @DmytroTertyshnyi 2 месяца назад +2

    Qodosen super👍