« Dan Patrick Says ESPN Wishes He Were Dead | Main | Herculodge Reader Finds Subpar Performance on Newer Versions of the Sony SRF-84 Pocket Radio »
Since readers are telling us that Sony uses the same chips on their least expensive radios, does anyone see a reason to spend $57 on the Sony SRF-S84 analog pocket radio?
Wouldn't someone be better served spending that money on a Sangean digital, like the DT400?
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 |
I've had a couple SRF-84 radios, the earlier models are very quiet and seem to be aligned but the later versions (86?) had alot of background noise. The radio is stellar on battery life, 60+ hrs. and is very small.
I then tried, and immediately resold on Ebay for profit, an SRF-M97. It was terrible.
I finally ordered a Sangean DT-180, supposed to get in today. I'm certain, from reviews here, that it will be much better than either Sony.
Overall, a small radio with no speaker or clock is a different animal than one with those features plus digital tuning and presets. The DT200/400 is still a little bulky for me (walking, falling asleep). That is why I like my old ICF-SX3R, it's super thin.
The only other thin radio, besides newer Sony radios, is the Grundig M400...POS.
Posted by: J Maffuccio | March 28, 2012 at 08:24 AM