[Boatanchors] Please Respond For Historical Data

[Dave Aabye]

Here's my two cents based on experience with the following receivers:

NC-2-40-D, HRO-5TA1, HRO-50-1, HRO-60, NC-173, NC-183, SX-16, S-19, SX-25, SX-28,
SX-42, SX-73, SX-99, SX-100, SX-115, Super Pro-100, Super Pro-600, HQ-120, HQ-129,
HQ-140, HQ-170/180, 75A-1, 75A-2, 51J-4, R-390A, RME-45, RME-4350A, GPR-90/GSB-1.
That's a fair sampling, but there are a lot more I know nothing about.

"Duane Fischer, W8DBF" wrote:

>
> I would greatly appreciate each one of you taking the time to answer the
> following questions. You may answer any or all of them. Please post your reply
> to the list so that all subscribers may have the opportunity to benefit from
> your collective experience.
>
> When completed, I will put the edited replies into a document that will be
> posted on the HCI web site for anyone interested to read now or any time in the
> future. Credit will be given to each who respond. Thank you in advance for your
> cooperation and participation.
>
> All answers are based on 'your personal opinion', they do not necessarily have
> to agree with manufacturer specifications. Which means, you may like a receiver
> with modest specifications better than one with superior specifications. The
> bottom line here is, listener preferences based on actual use.
>
> 1. What do you consider to be the best vacuum tube general coverage receiver?
> Hands down the R-390A.  Why?  The radio is a masterpiece of mechanical and
> electrical engineering  with a teriffic combination of sensitivity, selectivity,
> stability, read-out accuracy, robust construction, maintainability, and audio
> quality.
>
> 2. What do you consider to be the vacuum tube receiver with the best audio
> reproduction?   This is tough, so I will cop-out.  I rate as a virtual tie the
> SX-73, SP-600, NC-183, SX-28, SX-42, and the R-390A.  Why?  Rich, full sound with
> minimal distortion.
>
> 3. What do you consider to be the best vacuum tube receiver for both AM and FM
> listening? Why?  Pass.
>
> 4. Which vacuum tube receiver have you enjoyed listening to the most since first
> becoming interested in radio? The last one I coaxed back to life.  Why?   Simple
> bonding.

> 5. What is the best vacuum tube receiver built for Ham band only coverage? In my
> limited experience, the 75A-4. Why?  Like the R-390A, the best combination of
> sensitivity, selectivity, stability, read-out accuracy,
>
> 6. What is the best sounding Ham band only vacuum tube receiver? Why?  I'll pass
> on this one.  None that I can think of sounds teriffic.
>
> 7. What company bilt the greatest number of good performing vacuum tube general
> coverage receivers?  Probably National.  Heaven knows they produced a bewildering
> array of models and variations.
>
> 8. Defining the term 'vintage' to be a receiver that is at least twenty-five
> years old, or built prior to 1978, which one is the best overall performing
> general coverage receiver? Why?  Pass, no opinion and no interest.

> 9. Using the same criteria as in the previous question, which receiver had the
> best audio quality? Why?  Pass, except to wonder if anything in recent menory
> equals the audio quality of the hollow state receivers.
>
> 10. If you could have any receiver ever manufactured, which one would you choose
> and why?  SX-88.  It's the one everyone wants!
>
> Duane Fischer, W8DBF
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Boatanchors@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html---