My pal, Jeff McMahon, over at the Herculodge, has just posted a video review of the Sangean PR-D4 portable radio. In summary, he writes:

“It’s a great radio with top FM, AM, and speaker sound. It blows away my C.Crane Radio-2E. Lack of illumination, however, makes it less than ideal as a bedside clock radio.”

Wow! I’m most impressed that Jeff places the PR-D4W (which retails for $69 on Amazon) above the venerable CCRadio-2E (which retails for $169 on Amazon) in terms of AM performance.

I just checked and it appears that Universal Radio also retails the PR-D4W for $69.95.

Follow Jeff at the Herculodge and on YouTube.

Many thanks to Jeff McMahon, from the Herculodge, who shares an update to his Sangean PR-D4W review.

The good news is that Jeff continues to be impressed with the PR-D4W and ranks it above the venerable C.Crane CCRadio-2E in almost every category. At $64.50 on Amazon, the PR-D4W is a much better value.

Follow this link to his review:

http://herculodge.typepad.com/herculodge/2015/10/sangean-pr-d4w-review-with-fm-wire-antenna-upgrade.html

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Jeff McMahon (at the Herculodge), who writes:

I upgraded my Sangean U3 with a male to female iMBAPrice 6 foot stereo audio extension cable 3.5mm, which I plugged into the U3’s auxiliary port.

The U3’s small stub of an FM antenna really needed some extra oomph. Now my U3 is picking up all my favorite stations, including the problematic KPCC 89.3 in Pasadena.

AM is as great as always. The sound is crystal clear on AM and FM. If this radio weren’t so big, I’d buy two more for the kitchen and my bedroom, but will have to be content to have one for my gym/office radio.

Thanks, Jeff! I might have to consider the Sangean U3–I hope a reader will let me know if one goes on sale.

Like Jeff, having a radio that not only performs admirably, but that can also withstand the attention of my kids, may be a great investment over the long-term! I’m glad such a simple addition to the U3 means that you can now hear your favorite Fm station, Jeff!

Now if Sangean only made a shortwave version of the U3–!

Many thanks to my pal, Jeff McMahon from The Herculodge, who has just apprised me of a new Sangean AM/FM/WX portable: the DT-500W. Jeff learned about the new pocket radio via a comment on his blog.

It appears the DT-500W is powered by a rechargeable Li-ion Polymer 3.7V (1850mAh) battery. I would expect good longevity from a full charge.

Based on the specifications, the receiver covers all NOAA weather radio frequencies, the FM broadcast band (87.5 – 108 MHz) and the full AM broadcast band (520 – 1710 kHz). I also noted on the spec sheet, however, that the AM broadcast (mediumwave) band is limited to 10 kHz tuning steps. Not a great contender for the ultralight DXer or someone who travels outside North America if so!

Click here to view the Sangean DT-500W on Sangean’s website.

As of posting, I can’t find the DT-500W listed with any online retailers.

Thanks again for the tip, Jeff!

After publishing a post referencing the new Sangean DT-160 AM/FM radio, a number of readers noticed that Sangean has also produced a clear-cased version of the DT-160: model number DT-160CL.

This version, no doubt, was designed for sale in prison commissaries and is probably seen as a replacement for the venerable Sony SRF-39FP (which has been discontinued). The SRF-39FP is widely regarded as a superb mediumwave (AM) DXing ultralight.

In reference to the Sangean DT-160CL, SWLing Post contributor, Dan Hawkins recently commented:

Which begs the question: is this prison-quality radio really that good? I ask the question only because a good AM-FM prison radio must perform exceptionally well behind formidable prison walls. After all, nearly one percent of the US population is currently behind bars (down slightly from 2008) which is a substantial pocket radio market. Prison radios are typical sold in prison commissaries and prisons are big business nowadays. How does this radio compare to the famous Sony SRF-39FP? Inquiring minds want to know. Sangean is legendary for build quality. Does it beat the Sony?

After reading Dan’s comment, I couldn’t help but order the DT-160CL from Amazon.

The Sony SRF-39FP

I, too, am very curious how it will compare with the SRF-39FP in terms of battery longevity, audio fidelity, and overall performance.

I suspect the SRF-39FP will remain dominant on the AM broadcast band and possibly have better battery life (keep in mind, the SRF-39FP only uses one AA battery–the DT-160CL requires two).

As soon as I receive the DT-160CL (Amazon notes delivery will be Wednesday, August 3), I’ll pop fresh batteries in the DT-160CL and the Sony SRF-39FP, set them to the same volume level and frequency, then allow them to run continuously until the batteries are depleted. Of course, I’ll use the opportunity to compare performance on both AM and FM.

I’ll post comparison updates with the tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP.

My buddy, Jeff McMahon, has just published a review of the Sangean DT-160 on his blog, the Herculodge. It’s well-worth reading if you’re considering a DT-160.

Overall, Jeff believes the DT-160 is a keeper and he’s very pleased with FM performance. He notes one major annoyance:

“The toggle tuning wheel on the radio’s right side. You hold it to set the time. You wait for the hour number to flash, then set with preset 1. You do the same for the minute. You have to click downwards to scroll through the numbers. The toggle feel is awkward.

You use the same toggle for tuning, and here I really dislike the tune/set jog wheel because it’s impossible to scroll through the stations without prompting the set button to flash. It’s like my wife doesn’t like me brushing my teeth in the shower. Don’t mix the tuning with the time set. They belong in separate chambers, so to speak.”

Wow–what a poor design decision on the part of Sangean. I suppose they did this to eliminate the need for extra clock set buttons?  Still.

But as Jeff says, once presets are assigned, no more tuning woes.

Click here to read Jeff’s DT-160 review.

On a side note, I’m looking forward to receiving my DT-160CL later this week. Since I think the “CL” version lack a clock, I’m curious if tuning will be more pleasant.

Yesterday, I received my Sangean DT-160CL–the correctional version of the DT-160–from Amazon. 

Even though the Amazon product page showed 5 units in stock on July 29, and though I get free two day shipping via Amazon Prime, my  DT-160CL took four business days to arrive. Out of curiosity more than anything else, I asked Amazon why the delivery would take four business days instead of two my Prime membership promises.

Amazon replied that stock levels weren’t correctly displayed on the product page at time of ordering since the DT-160CL was selling so quickly.

Amazon apologized for the confusion and–though I wasn’t seeking one at all–they issued a $10 credit!  Wow–thanks, Amazon!

The DT-160CL is supplied with a set of clear earbuds, an owner’s manual and a warranty card.

The Sangean DT-160CL is very close in size to the venerable Sony SRF-39FP–the SRF-39FP has slightly more depth and a little less height.

The DT-160CL’s clear case, while sturdy, feels marginally more supple than that of the Sony SRF-39FP.  Though I haven’t been able to confirm, the DT-160CL chassis feels like a polypropylene product while the SRD-39FP feels like polycarbonate. From the photos above, one can see that the DT-160CL’s case is a touch more opaque/cloudy than that of the SRF-39FP.

Endurance test

Other than overall receiver performance, I’m very interested in battery performance since Sangean touts a 100 hour run time on two AA batteries (for the DT-160 series).

Having used the Sony SRF-39FP for a few years, I can attest to an incredibly long battery life as well. No doubt, those purchasing the DT-160CL for use in a correctional facility place a lot of value on battery performance.

I stopped by our local CVS pharmacy to purchase fresh alkaline batteries for both radios. CVS had a sale on their own (generic) version of the Duracell Quantum alkaline batteries.  I purchased a set and popped them in both radios.

The DT-160CL has a hinged battery cover and holds two AA cells.

The SRF-39FP only needs one AA battery.

After plugging in the supplied clear ear buds, I turned both radios on and adjusted the volume to a comfortable, moderate listening level.

I matched the audio levels for both units and tuned to my favorite classic rock FM station: WXRC 95.7 MHz.

WXRC is a fantastic benchmark FM station as it’s about 130 miles away (as the crow flies), but has an exceptional propagation footprint. My best FM receivers, when ideally-placed in my home, and telescoping antenna fully-extended, can receive WXRC in stereo lock with no interference.

I’m happy to report that both the DT-160CL and the SRF-39FP can receive WXRC quite easily when I’m holding the unit in my hand and standing in a part of my house where the signal is strongest.

In truth, I didn’t have time to evaluate receiver performance last night–I was more eager to begin the endurance test which, by the way, officially started yesterday (August 3, 2016) at 22:30 UTC.

I can’t wait to discover which radio will win!

Follow this review thread by bookmarking the following tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Dan Hawkins, who comments in reply to our post about the Sangean HDR-18:

Darn. Just when you thought you read a review of the latest Sangean radio another one comes out. I have yet to find a review of the Sangean HDR-16.

[The] HDR-16 is a portable AM-FM HD radio with stereo speakers. Runs on household AC power or four C cells. At 10? long this is not exactly pocket sized but small enough for beach or nightstand duty. I wonder how fast it eats up the C batteries?

I don’t think HDR-16 will hit the shelves until mid-September.

Dan then followed up with pre-order prices:

• Sangean HDR-16 on Amazon. Pre-order price is $159.99.
• Sangean HDR-16 on Adorama. This looks like another pre-order offer for the HDR-16 but the price is only $99.99!

That Adorama price is correct! I just noticed that Universal Radio also has a pre-order price of $99.99.

$100 US is not a terrible price for a quality portable AM/FM stereo analog/digital radio. Indeed, that may be the best price I’ve seen for that particular feature set. I bet four C cells will power it for quite a long time, too.

At second glance, the HDR-16 has an impressive feature list (via Sangean):

• HD Radio digital and analog AM / FM-Stereo reception
• 10 Memory Presets (5 FM, 5 AM)
• PAD (Program Associated Data) Service
• Support for Emergency Alerts Function
• Automatic Multicast Re-Configuration
• Automatic Simulcast Re-Configuration
• Auto Ensemble Seek
• Real Time Clock and Date with Alarm and Sleep Function
• 2 Alarm Timer by Radio, Buzzer
• HWS (Humane Wake System) Buzzer and Radio
• Snooze Function
• Tone & Bass Control
• Information Display for Channel Frequency, Call Sign, Radio Text, Audio Mode, Service
• Mode, Signal Quality and Clock Time
• Easy to Read LCD Display with Backlight
• Battery Low LED Indication
• Auxiliary Input for Additional Audio Sources
• Record Output for Connecting to Hi-Fi System or Recording from Audio Program
• I/O Jacks: DC In, Line-Out (Rec-Out), Aux-In, Headphone and HD / FM Rod Antenna

The feature set sounds like something that would appeal to my buddy Jeff McMahon. He’s been looking for a bedside radio for quite a while. This one has a “Human Wake System”–perhaps meaning the alarm gradually increases the volume? Of course, I question if the HDR-16 will perform well on the AM broadcast band–I suppose it depends on how well the receiver is shielded from CPU noises, etc.

I might be tempted to grab one of these and test it. I like the price tag much better than that of the HDR-18, though I’m not sure its audio fidelity will be comparable. While I doubt I can receive an HD broadcast from my home, it might be fun trying.

Have any SWLing Post readers pre-ordered the HDR-16? Care to do a review?

It’s been thirty seven hours since I started the Sangean DT-160CL versus Sony SRF-39FP endurance test and both radio are still going strong.

So far, the DT-160CL’s battery indicator still shows full voltage. The SRF-39FP has no battery indicator, but through experience I know it’s nowhere close to quitting.

I’ve spent some time tuning both radios and comparing them on mediumwave/AM and FM.

The DT-160CL does an amazing job on the FM band and has a definite edge on the SRF-39FP.

On AM, however, the SRF-39FP seems to wipe the floor with the DT-160CL.

In truth, though, it’s tough to evaluate performance and audio while the endurance test is ongoing, so I should reserve judgement. During the battery endurance test, I’m using the supplied earbuds from both radios. The Sangean’s earbuds a fairly large and uncomfortable in the ear–they make the audio sound hollow and too focused on mid-range tones. In truth it’s pretty much the same thing for the 39FP’s buds.

I can’t wait to use some of my proper in-ear buds on the DT-160CL and evaluate its audio characteristics on AM and FM.

Follow this review thread by bookmarking the following tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP

It’s been eighty seven (!!!) hours since I started the Sangean DT-160CL versus Sony SRF-39FP endurance test and both radio are still going strong.

My iPhone stopwatch has been tracking the test.

I’ve tuned both radios to my SSTran AMT3000 AM transmitter which is currently re-broadcasting the UK 1940s Radio Station on 1570 kHz.

The Sangean DT-160CL still shows two of three segments on the battery indicator (see above).

The Sony SRF-39FP seems to have no indication of quitting anytime soon–it’s still sensitive and audio sounds great.

I believe the Sony SRF-39FP is rated for 80 hours of playtime, and I’m sure if I had turned it on and off numerous times during the test, it might have had an impact on battery performance. It’s still going strong, though.

I am using advanced alkaline (CVS Brand) batteries in both radios. These should give each radio better battery life than standard alkaline or rechargeables.

Regardless which radio wins this test: both have already proved themselves “Holy Grail” battery misers!

I’ll be monitoring the radios very closely today as we pass the 90 and 100 hour mark!

UPDATE: Shortly after making this post–at almost exactly 88 hours and 30 minutes into the test–the Sangean DT160CL’s battery indicator lost a battery indicator segment. It’s now only showing one of three battery segments. Could the end be near for our DT-160CL? Stay tuned!

Follow this review thread by bookmarking the following tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP.

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Tom Servo, for sharing the following review of the Sangean DT-160. His review was originally posted on the radio discussions forum:

Got my Sangean DT-160 today. Thanks, Santa Claus!

Initial impressions are positive, both in the build quality and performance.

It’s a lot bigger than I thought it’d be, though.

I was picturing in my mind something closer to the SRF-M37 but it’s bigger than a pack of cigarettes — taller and wider.

Some of the performance issues others have noted, I’ve noticed as well. The FM reception is superb and outperforms the Insignia HD portable that’s my benchmark FM radio. It can hold its own with the Grundig G8 in that regard.

The sound quality is weird, though. It sounds “crunchy” or watery. Like everything is being played via a low bit rate mp3. Granted, most my local stations ARE playing low bit rate mp3s and sound terrible (which is why I don’t listen to local radio much anymore) but the few stations that aren’t still sound “weird”. Crispy. It could be the DSP or just some odd EQ’ing on Sangean’s part. It’s not a deal-breaker by any stretch but when side-by-side with a different radio the audio differences were stark. The Insignia sounds truly “flat” while the Sangean sounds treble boosted. And crispy. Did I mention that?

[At first] the wide-narrow setting [seemed to make little] difference on FM. The only station that narrow mode improved was while listening to WTGF out of Milton, FL. It’s a mono station and I’m on the fringe, and the narrow cleared up a bit of static. It makes a much more noticeable different on AM, though. Not as much as a well calibrated “wide/narrow” filter might but enough to help some talk radio stand out from the noise.

[I did eventually] figured out where the wide-narrow setting makes the most difference on FM. It’s when you have two signals on adjacent channels, the narrow really does help cut out adjacent channel splatter. Not that there’s much of a problem to begin with, but it is a little extra added oomph.

With the narrow activated, I was able to pull in 93.1 WGDQ and 94.3 WKZW from the Hattiesburg, MS market. Two stations I haven’t heard in probably a year or better, and both are first-adjacent to local 100 kW sticks that are less than 15 miles from me.

Selectivity even in wide mode is fine. Definitely better than the Insignia and on par with the Grundig. We have a crowded dial here on the Gulf coast and sometimes you need a selective radio to pull out all the stations side by side. Here’s an example of what is possible to hear on a decent night:

98.1 – WHWY – Fort Walton Beach
98.3 – WLVM – Mobile
98.5 – WYLD – New Orleans
98.7 – WYCT – Pensacola

I was surprised to hear WYLD coming in this afternoon. In fact, at first I thought it was an image of local 99.9 WMXC, because it was the same song/DJ. But the IDs were different. That’s a good pull and something neither the Grundig nor Insignia could pull off.

The dynamic bass boost is a horrible sounding gimmick, though. It makes everything sound muddy on my “real” headphones. I didn’t try the ones that came with it. I hate it that it lacks RDS, since so many Sangean radios have that and it makes DXing more interesting. The AM has a weird squelch like damping when it’s on an empty channel. If there’s a weak signal there (like my semi-local but hard to hear WABF out of Fairhope) it just sits there, perfectly quiet. It’s not until I used the Tecsun loop with it that reasonably clear audio came out of nowhere. I strongly suspect it’s “muting” weak signals on purpose on AM.

WWL is a moderate but noisy target here; the signal strength is usually good enough for even basic radios to pick it up… Not this Sangean. It took careful alignment before I heard anything. The slightest bit of movement and it went almost completely deaf again. Very odd.

It’s a shame that conditions for FM DX have been so poor on the coast this year, I think this would be a killer DX machine on FM. My friend in Florence has heard Mexico and Wyoming this year. I’ve barely made anything further west than New Orleans, which is pitiful.

Another plus is it drives my large Sennheiser headphones louder than any other “pocket” radio in my collection.

Thanks for sharing your review, Tom! 

I sounds like the DT-160’s AGC or soft mute on the AM broadcast band is causing otherwise intelligible signals to drop out.

At time of posting, I’m still running the battery endurance test of the Sangean DT-160CL vs. Sony SRF-39FP, so I haven’t really given the DT-160CL (the correctional version of the DT-160) a proper receiver performance test. I will soon enough, though!

My iPhone’s stopwatch has been tracking the endurance test.

It’s been one hundred nine hours since I started the Sangean DT-160CL versus Sony SRF-39FP battery endurance test and both radio are still hanging in there!

Not knowing which radio will check out first, I’ve been taking them with me everywhere and have been careful to keep their settings identical the whole time.

Last night, I even prepared my Zoom H2N digital recorder to monitor both radios simultaneously. Having passed 100 hours of operating on the same set of batteries, I was certain one would call it quits last night.

Not so.

There was one noticeable change this morning: the Sangean DT-160CL’s battery indicator now shows a depleted cell.

It’s still operating, though–no noticeable difference in volume and reception.

The end must certainly be near! Indeed, it’s hard to believe I started this endurance test last Wednesday!

I’m very interested to see which pocket radio will go first.

Field time

Yesterday, I spent the better part of the afternoon at Mt. Mitchell State Park. Of course, I brought the DT-160CL and SRF-39FP along.

Mt. Mitchell is the highest point east of the Mississippi river. It’s a great place to play radio.

At one point, I tuned both radios to WAIZ 630 kHz: a 1,000 watt AM station about 95 miles east of the park. It’s one of my benchmark daytime stations from Mt. Mitchell.

Though most DT-160 reviewers have given the receiver low marks for AM performance, I found that the DT-160CL did a better job locking onto WAIZ than the venerable SRF-39FP.

Perhaps this is due to the fact that both radios, at that point, were operating on low voltage? Or perhaps the CL version of the DT-160 series has better AGC characteristics and sensitivity?

I doubt the latter assumption, but once the endurance test is complete, I’ll put the 160CL through the paces.

Follow this review thread by bookmarking the following tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP.

If you’ve been following the Sangean DT-160CL versus Sony SRF-39FP battery endurance test, I have some news to report: one of our competitors has finally thrown in the towel…!

Yesterday, while I was on the road for about 1.5 hours, the Sangean DT-160CL at last gave up the contest.

Since I was traveling at the time, I can’t say with absolute certainty what o’clock the DT-160 cried uncle––but roughly, we’re looking at 116 hours, 30 minutes of run time, give or take 30 minutes.

Sangean claims the DT-160 series will operate for 100 hours with two AA batteries. That claim is obviously pretty conservative.

Though I used CVS Max Alkaline batteries (a generic version of Duracell’s Quantum batteries)–an improvement on the standard alkaline battery–I set the volume higher than I believe Sangean or Sony would have set it for testing purposes. This should have drained the batteries faster. The radios were also tuned to a variety of stations: weak AM, strong AM, weak FM and strong FM.

In short: I’m very impressed with the DT-160.

A 116 hour play time from two AA cells on a digitally-tuned receiver is, well, pretty incredible.

Now that the endurance test is over for the DT-160CL, I’ll replace the batteries with a fresh set of CVS Max Alkaline cells and start testing the AM/FM receiver performance.

…And how about the Sony SRF-39FP?

My iPhone’s stopwatch has been tracking progress since last Wednesday.

Even more amazingly, the Sony SRF-39FP is still going strong––!

I actually fell asleep last night listening to the SRF-39FP and woke up this morning with music still in my ears. What a champ!

So, how long has the Sony SRF-39FP now been operating on one AA battery?

At time of posting, this little Sony’s clocked one hundred thirty nine hours.

Though I’ve always known that the  SRF-39FP was a true battery miser–one of the reasons it’s been a choice radio in the prison system–I had no idea it could operate this long on one battery.

Of course, I’ll continue tracking the Sony SRF-39FP.

How much longer will the SRF-39FP last? Stay tuned to find out!

Follow this review thread by bookmarking the following tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP.

On August 4, 2016, the same day I received my new Sangean DT-160CL, I popped a fresh set of CVS Max Alkaline batteries into the DT-160CL as well as into my trusted Sony SRF-39FP. The mission? To see which radio could perform longest on a set of batteries.

I set my stopwatch as I turned on both radios, tuned to the same frequency, set the volume to the same levels…and waited.

And waited.  And waited.  And as I waited, I posted updates.

But at last, the waiting is at an end:  here are the contest’s final results.

Sangean DT-160CL: Impressive Performance

On August 9, I reported that the Sangean DT-160CL finally threw in the towel, logging an impressive 116 hours 30 minutes of operating time–!

Without a doubt, this is one of the longest run times I’ve ever experienced from an AM/FM radio with digital display.

Interestingly, the day after the DT-160CL shut down, I turned it back on, and it operated for an additional 45 minutes or so, obviously absorbing a little more voltage from rested cells. During that 45 minutes period of time, the audio and overall performance was respectable. No doubt the DT-160 shuts down before audio is terribly compromised.

Sony SRF-39FP: The Endurance King!

Amazingly, the Sony SRF-39FP kept running well beyond 116 hours. Well beyond…

By Wednesday morning–one full week from the time I began the endurance contest–the Sony SRF-39FP finally began showing signs of low-voltage: the audio had a small amount of splatter and sensitivity began to be compromised.

Unlike the Sangean DT-160CL, which clearly has a cut-off voltage, the SRF-39FP kept milking the battery for its last vestiges of power.

I decided that I would call a “time of death” for this AA battery when the Sony struggled to receive local AM stations, as well as transmission from my in-house SStran AM transmitter.

This happened approximately 163 hours and 54 minutes into its marathon run.

This stopwatch app tracked the full endurance test. I pressed “stop” when the Sony SRF-39FP finally gave up.

Wow, wow, wow.  I simply had no idea any portable could operate almost one full week on one AA cell–! 

In truth, I’m sort of relieved the ’39FP finally gave up the ghost. I was beginning to think the thing was powered by some supernatural force…

When I started this test, I thought the Sony SRF-39FP was rated for about 40-80 hours of run time on a single battery.  I couldn’t remember where I got that number until I recently re-read this article from The New Yorker, which highlighted the 39FP’s role in correctional facilities:

“The SRF-39FP is the gold standard among prison radios in part because it runs on a single AA battery, and offers forty hours of listening time…”

Wait, just forty hours? Perhaps from the cheapest AA battery made…

With an advanced chemistry cell like the Duracell Quantum or Energizer Advanced Lithium series, you’ll clearly get three to four times that performance.

DX mode

And here’s the thing: I’m convinced I could’ve gotten much more time out of the SRF-39FP.

Like similar Sony portables, the SRF-39FP has a “DX/Local” switch. When set to DX, the receiver is made to deliver maximum performance.

If you’re listening to a local station, however, “Local” mode is a better choice. You’ll still be able to receive your target station, yet draw much less from the battery.

I left the Sony SRF-39FP in “DX” mode for the entire battery endurance test. Had it been in “Local” mode, I believe I’d be reporting an even longer run time. How much longer, I don’t know, but you can bet that my curiosity will soon get the best of me…I plan to do a separate endurance test to find out.

Clear choices for battery longevity

No doubt, our little test has proven that radios marketed to the prison system do offer excellent battery performance.

Now I’m very curious whether the standard Sangean DT-160 will offer the same battery performance as its clear-cased counterpart, the DT-160CL. The only difference in the two appears to be that one offers a clock, while the other doesn’t. I wonder if that would have any significant difference on battery life.

Additionally, the Sony SRF-39FP has shown us that analog receivers can be much more efficient than their digital counterparts. We’ve known this a long time at Ears To Our World, and which is why almost all of the radios we supply to schools in remote, rural locations are analog.

Sadly, analog radios are getting much more difficult to find these days as DSP-based receivers have become more affordable to produce.

The Sangean DT-160 is available at Amazon.com and Universal Radio. The Sangean DT-160CL (the version tested) is available through Amazon.

Click here to search eBay for the Sony SRF-39FP.

Readers: Know of any other battery-miser radios? Please comment!

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Ron, who notes that Jay Allen has just published a review of the Sangean PR-D6.

Jay gives the PR-D6 high marks on AM performance–especially for a $30 radio.  I also love the simple analog design!  Thanks for the tip, Ron!

I have been procrastinating over investing in another portable shortwave radio to replace my ageing (but still going strong) Sangean ATS909. Also known in the U.S. as the rebadged Radio Shack DX–398, the Sangean has been a most reliable rig for in-the-field DXpeditions. My unit is one of the early first generation versions that I purchased on the second-hand market, so I’m guessing it has to be at least 16 years old now. It continues to provide a full rich tone quality on AM/FM and is very sensitive on shortwave providing you use an external antenna of 5 metres (16 feet) or more. The radio received some bad press because of its poor SW reception using just the telescopic rod antenna, which frankly was justified. The in-built whip is useless! But all of my work has been with an external antenna, and the results have been most successful over the years.

But the old ATS909 has lived a hard life, having been bounced around in the car on rough dirt tracks, dropped a few times, and thanks to a recent home renovation project it now has paint splattered all over it. On one occasion, I’d even left it outside on the ground after a spot of gardening, subjecting it to half an hour of heavy rain, before realising my forgetfulness. The radio was soaked but still going strong when I picked it up. However, the digital readout was all messed up. After 24 hours of drying, and it fired up beautifully again, and has been fine ever since! That’s some impressive build quality there! Thanks Sangean!

Anyway, a few months ago I decided to “pull the trigger” and purchased a new Tecsun PL-680 AM/FM/SSB/Air Band radio. This rig has been on the market since around February 2015. So far, it has performed very well for me.

Interestingly, on the built-in telescopic antenna reception is only marginally better than the Sangean, but the Tecsun is really quite sensitive with an external long wire antenna. In fact, I’ve had it hooked up to my three double bazooka (coax) dipoles for 80, 40 and 20 meters, and the performance has been excellent. The tone quality is not quite a good as the Sangean, lacking richness and depth on MW, FM and SW. But for DXing, the audio appears just right for digging out clear audio from the noisy shortwave bands.

Recently, I hooked up both portables for a side-by-side comparison using four different external antennas outside the shack with switches between the two radios. I was eager to check how they measured up in terms of sensitivity and selectivity. The results for the Tecsun were impressive, picking up all of the weaker signals that the Sangean could hear.

Indeed, on several shortwave broadcast bands, the Tecsun appeared to be just a touch more sensitive at digging out some of the weakest signals. The audio also appeared a little clearer for those weak signals, perhaps because it has a narrower audio response than the Sangean. And selectivity for the PL-680 was about the same as the ATS909, generally very good.

On the ham bands, however, the SSB audio quality of the ATS909 sounds more pleasant to my ears than the PL680. But the Sangean’s tuning process in SSB is somewhat more cumbersome than for the Tecsun.

The PL-680’s synchronous detector effectively reduces adjacent signal interference. It’s easy to use and is a strong feature in its favor. However, occasionally it can fail to lock on to a weaker signal or when the signal is subject to deep fading. One other characteristic of the Tecsun is that it has a rather overly generous S-meter, hitting S4 or 5 for all but the weakest signals. This is a meter not to be taken too seriously!

But the PL-680 is not without its faults!

Click here to continue reading the full story.

Rob Wagner, VK3BVW, is the author of this post and a regular contributor to the SWLing Post. He also blogs at the Mount Evelyn DX Report.

Yesterday, I received my Sangean DT-160CL–the correctional version of the DT-160–from Amazon. 

Even though the Amazon product page showed 5 units in stock on July 29, and though I get free two day shipping via Amazon Prime, my  DT-160CL took four business days to arrive. Out of curiosity more than anything else, I asked Amazon why the delivery would take four business days instead of two my Prime membership promises.

Amazon replied that stock levels weren’t correctly displayed on the product page at time of ordering since the DT-160CL was selling so quickly.

Amazon apologized for the confusion and–though I wasn’t seeking one at all–they issued a $10 credit!  Wow–thanks, Amazon!

The DT-160CL is supplied with a set of clear earbuds, an owner’s manual and a warranty card.

The Sangean DT-160CL is very close in size to the venerable Sony SRF-39FP–the SRF-39FP has slightly more depth and a little less height.

The DT-160CL’s clear case, while sturdy, feels marginally more supple than that of the Sony SRF-39FP.  Though I haven’t been able to confirm, the DT-160CL chassis feels like a polypropylene product while the SRD-39FP feels like polycarbonate. From the photos above, one can see that the DT-160CL’s case is a touch more opaque/cloudy than that of the SRF-39FP.

Endurance test

Other than overall receiver performance, I’m very interested in battery performance since Sangean touts a 100 hour run time on two AA batteries (for the DT-160 series).

Having used the Sony SRF-39FP for a few years, I can attest to an incredibly long battery life as well. No doubt, those purchasing the DT-160CL for use in a correctional facility place a lot of value on battery performance.

I stopped by our local CVS pharmacy to purchase fresh alkaline batteries for both radios. CVS had a sale on their own (generic) version of the Duracell Quantum alkaline batteries.  I purchased a set and popped them in both radios.

The DT-160CL has a hinged battery cover and holds two AA cells.

The SRF-39FP only needs one AA battery.

After plugging in the supplied clear ear buds, I turned both radios on and adjusted the volume to a comfortable, moderate listening level.

I matched the audio levels for both units and tuned to my favorite classic rock FM station: WXRC 95.7 MHz.

WXRC is a fantastic benchmark FM station as it’s about 130 miles away (as the crow flies), but has an exceptional propagation footprint. My best FM receivers, when ideally-placed in my home, and telescoping antenna fully-extended, can receive WXRC in stereo lock with no interference.

I’m happy to report that both the DT-160CL and the SRF-39FP can receive WXRC quite easily when I’m holding the unit in my hand and standing in a part of my house where the signal is strongest.

In truth, I didn’t have time to evaluate receiver performance last night–I was more eager to begin the endurance test which, by the way, officially started yesterday (August 3, 2016) at 22:30 UTC.

I can’t wait to discover which radio will win!

Follow this review thread by bookmarking the following tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Dan Hawkins, who comments in reply to our post about the Sangean HDR-18:

Darn. Just when you thought you read a review of the latest Sangean radio another one comes out. I have yet to find a review of the Sangean HDR-16.

[The] HDR-16 is a portable AM-FM HD radio with stereo speakers. Runs on household AC power or four C cells. At 10? long this is not exactly pocket sized but small enough for beach or nightstand duty. I wonder how fast it eats up the C batteries?

I don’t think HDR-16 will hit the shelves until mid-September.

Dan then followed up with pre-order prices:

• Sangean HDR-16 on Amazon. Pre-order price is $159.99.
• Sangean HDR-16 on Adorama. This looks like another pre-order offer for the HDR-16 but the price is only $99.99!

That Adorama price is correct! I just noticed that Universal Radio also has a pre-order price of $99.99.

$100 US is not a terrible price for a quality portable AM/FM stereo analog/digital radio. Indeed, that may be the best price I’ve seen for that particular feature set. I bet four C cells will power it for quite a long time, too.

At second glance, the HDR-16 has an impressive feature list (via Sangean):

• HD Radio digital and analog AM / FM-Stereo reception
• 10 Memory Presets (5 FM, 5 AM)
• PAD (Program Associated Data) Service
• Support for Emergency Alerts Function
• Automatic Multicast Re-Configuration
• Automatic Simulcast Re-Configuration
• Auto Ensemble Seek
• Real Time Clock and Date with Alarm and Sleep Function
• 2 Alarm Timer by Radio, Buzzer
• HWS (Humane Wake System) Buzzer and Radio
• Snooze Function
• Tone & Bass Control
• Information Display for Channel Frequency, Call Sign, Radio Text, Audio Mode, Service
• Mode, Signal Quality and Clock Time
• Easy to Read LCD Display with Backlight
• Battery Low LED Indication
• Auxiliary Input for Additional Audio Sources
• Record Output for Connecting to Hi-Fi System or Recording from Audio Program
• I/O Jacks: DC In, Line-Out (Rec-Out), Aux-In, Headphone and HD / FM Rod Antenna

The feature set sounds like something that would appeal to my buddy Jeff McMahon. He’s been looking for a bedside radio for quite a while. This one has a “Human Wake System”–perhaps meaning the alarm gradually increases the volume? Of course, I question if the HDR-16 will perform well on the AM broadcast band–I suppose it depends on how well the receiver is shielded from CPU noises, etc.

I might be tempted to grab one of these and test it. I like the price tag much better than that of the HDR-18, though I’m not sure its audio fidelity will be comparable. While I doubt I can receive an HD broadcast from my home, it might be fun trying.

Have any SWLing Post readers pre-ordered the HDR-16? Care to do a review?

It’s been thirty seven hours since I started the Sangean DT-160CL versus Sony SRF-39FP endurance test and both radio are still going strong.

So far, the DT-160CL’s battery indicator still shows full voltage. The SRF-39FP has no battery indicator, but through experience I know it’s nowhere close to quitting.

I’ve spent some time tuning both radios and comparing them on mediumwave/AM and FM.

The DT-160CL does an amazing job on the FM band and has a definite edge on the SRF-39FP.

On AM, however, the SRF-39FP seems to wipe the floor with the DT-160CL.

In truth, though, it’s tough to evaluate performance and audio while the endurance test is ongoing, so I should reserve judgement. During the battery endurance test, I’m using the supplied earbuds from both radios. The Sangean’s earbuds a fairly large and uncomfortable in the ear–they make the audio sound hollow and too focused on mid-range tones. In truth it’s pretty much the same thing for the 39FP’s buds.

I can’t wait to use some of my proper in-ear buds on the DT-160CL and evaluate its audio characteristics on AM and FM.

Follow this review thread by bookmarking the following tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP

It’s been eighty seven (!!!) hours since I started the Sangean DT-160CL versus Sony SRF-39FP endurance test and both radio are still going strong.

My iPhone stopwatch has been tracking the test.

I’ve tuned both radios to my SSTran AMT3000 AM transmitter which is currently re-broadcasting the UK 1940s Radio Station on 1570 kHz.

The Sangean DT-160CL still shows two of three segments on the battery indicator (see above).

The Sony SRF-39FP seems to have no indication of quitting anytime soon–it’s still sensitive and audio sounds great.

I believe the Sony SRF-39FP is rated for 80 hours of playtime, and I’m sure if I had turned it on and off numerous times during the test, it might have had an impact on battery performance. It’s still going strong, though.

I am using advanced alkaline (CVS Brand) batteries in both radios. These should give each radio better battery life than standard alkaline or rechargeables.

Regardless which radio wins this test: both have already proved themselves “Holy Grail” battery misers!

I’ll be monitoring the radios very closely today as we pass the 90 and 100 hour mark!

UPDATE: Shortly after making this post–at almost exactly 88 hours and 30 minutes into the test–the Sangean DT160CL’s battery indicator lost a battery indicator segment. It’s now only showing one of three battery segments. Could the end be near for our DT-160CL? Stay tuned!

Follow this review thread by bookmarking the following tag: Sangean DT-160CL v Sony SRF-39FP.