A Herculodge Reader hailing from South Carolina has been collecting vintage radios since 1983. He bought the C.Crane CSW two weeks ago and has this to say about the way it stands up to his vintage favorites:
well if i may, after some reflection and further usage of my now almost 2 week old ccradiosw, i may have to retract or rather correct some of my initial observations. firstly, the radio does in fact come damn close to my best vintage am performer, which happens to be the panasonic rf-2200. on the fm it is a close third behind the 2200, sony 5900 and sanyo rp-8700. for those who are short wave enthusiasts, the csw flat out holds it own to all three vintage i tested it against. audio wise, it has also grown on me a bit. the audio doesn't quite have the depth and full feel of base that the others have and maybe just little more tinny, just missing the mark on clarity. in regard to overall quality, id have to say the vintage test radios were of decidedly better build. my initial statement that the vintage radios blows the newbie away was just a little exaggerated. i still am of the firm belief however, that the vintage are better radios.
So the Panasonic RF-220 beats the C.Crane CSW on AM, FM, and speaker sound? Wow. No wonder they go for $200-300 on eBay. I wish I had one. With the future of the Grundig Satellit 750 in question, maybe I should shell out the big coin for an RF-220.
From the looks of this YouTube video, the speaker on the RF-2200 is probably smaller than you are expecting :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqC4hn0lSN4
Posted by: Mike W | June 20, 2008 at 08:12 PM
Cognitive dissonance. I thought I was having a bad dream.
Well before I shell out the dough for a 2200, I'll see how my Panasonic 1080 sounds. Gerald swears it's fantastic for AM/FM.
Posted by: Jeff McMahon | June 20, 2008 at 08:40 PM
remember these radios (2200's) are 30 years old. i got one that was well cared for.but as you know, not everybody treats their radio the same. a lot of abuse can occur in that time! i would hate for you guys to shell out 250 and get a radio that has a tired speaker. its the chance you take when trying to find radio nirvana.
Posted by: gerald johnson | June 21, 2008 at 05:19 PM
That is quite a risk. I'll be happy if I get that 1080 for 25-30 dollars.
Posted by: Jeff McMahon | June 21, 2008 at 07:25 PM
30 bucks for the 1080 will be 30 well spent
Posted by: gerald johnson | June 21, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Gerald, I'm afraid you're exactly right. Buying an RF-2200 of eBay is a gamble, and a potentially expensive one. I'm jonesin' over the some of the RF-2200's I see listed, and would spend $250 for a good one, but I freeze up and don't bid. I just lost a bid on a GE SR One because I'll risk $100, but not $250. I've even been thinking of buying cheap busted-up RF-2200's for parts. It can get crazy.
Having the radio bug means you chase novelty, which is fleeting by definition, and you have to be realistic with yourself about that or you will be perpetually disappointed.
One observation I would make is that you don't want to be completely without analog tuning because it affects your listening habits. You bandscan more with analog and find pleasant surprises.
Posted by: Mike W | June 21, 2008 at 08:07 PM
mike thats why i really prefer analog. it has feel and touch that digital doesnt have. its nice to slide in and around frequencies and find a station youve been targeting.i dont have a ge super radio. i ve been wanting to try one out, but im swimming in radios now
Posted by: gerald johnson | June 21, 2008 at 09:22 PM