[ARC5] ARC-5 Mods

[Dennis Monticelli]

I don't know if it's different back east, but the 80 and 40M CW bands
here are not crowded at all anymore unless there is a contest going
on.  It was a different story many years ago and I can easily see how
the broad IF's would prompt a few curses; the Q5'er being the
exception.  Anyway, my point is that you can enjoy an ARC-5 receiver
today, broad IF and all.

Dennis AE6C

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Bob Macklin <macklinbob at msn.com> wrote:
> Consider that these receivers were made for a few pilots to communicate with
> each other not for a million hams trying to operate in a 100KC segment!
>
> In 1958 I also had a BC-312 or BC-342 as my main receiver. Even it was
> difficult to use on the ham bands in those days.
>
> Bob Macklin
> K5MYJ
> Kent (Seattle), Wa,
> "Real Radios Glow in the Dark"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at verizon.net>
> To: "Kevin Berlen" <kberlen at verizon.net>; "ARC-5" <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 4:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] ARC-5 Mods
>
>
>> On 1 Jan 2009 at 8:38, Kevin Berlen wrote:
>>
>> > I once heard someone
>> > describe the receivers as having "no perceivable selectivity".
>>
>> Well...sorta. Although awfully broad (purposely), they were
>> adequate when the band was not too cluttered.
>>
>> > That
>> > may be true, but they still work remarkably well.
>>
>> I firmly believe that the "ARC-5" series of receivers were
>> simply the finest single-band receivers ever built.
>>
>> Ken W7EKB
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARC5 mailing list
>> ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>