[ARC5] Hallicrafters receivers.

[Joe Connor]

I just wonder if Hallicrafters made a mistake after the War of trying to be too many things to too many people. Look at where they strayed beyond making solid communications/ham receivers (and transmitters):

1. Television sets;

2. Cheap receivers, such as the S-38;

3. Receivers for the wealthy but casual listener, such as the SX-62.

Perhaps this was the result of business necessity. I don't know.

                                Joe Connor



>________________________________
> From: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00 at uky.edu>
>To: "kgordon2006 at frontier.com" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com> 
>Cc: "Arc5 at mailman.qth.net" <Arc5 at mailman.qth.net> 
>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 1:02 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARC5] Hallicrafters receivers.
> 
>
>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
>______________________________________________________________
>ARC5 mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>