[ARC5] Hallicrafters receivers.

[Fuqua, Bill L]

They were probably exceptions. Naturally you would not expect much from
a S38 or cheap Hallicrafters. Actually, I recall now I did not upgrade directly from the
HQ129x but it went something like this.
Before getting license I had a S38e then when I got my license I went to 
a HQ129x, next was a HQ110A, then a SX101A and last in the way of
tube receivers a SB301. Which was the best of them all.
  Naturally after Hallicrafters went to using band crystals they became much more
stable. To avoid conflict with Collins patents they used pre-mixers, which, in my opinion,
actually made for a cleaner sounding receiver since there were fewer mixers in the 
signal path. Or would have if they had not used so many IF frequencies. 
  73
Bill wa4lav
 
________________________________________
From: Kenneth G. Gordon [kgordon2006 at frontier.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:23 PM
To: Fuqua, Bill L
Cc: Arc5 at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [ARC5] Hallicrafters receivers.

On 13 May 2013 at 15:06, Fuqua, Bill L wrote:

>   They really packed as much as possible into the SX-100 cabinet. The
> microphonics were really bad.

Yes. One of my Elmers, Don R. Anderson, had one. I was very disappointed
in it at the time. It was brand new then.

> I upgraded from my HQ-129X to a SX-101A,
> in the 60's. Now, that was  a sturdy, heavy and stable receiver.
> Product detector as well. 73 Bill wa4lav

Although I have never used one of those, I have heard that they were pretty
good.

The SX-117 and SX-115 was also, apparently, very stable.

But as far as I am concerned, those were exceptions to the generality of Halli
receivers.

The HQ-129X would have been my choice even over the SX-101 I think.

At least one can hang a BC-453 on one. ;-)

Ken W7EKB