[Boatanchors] Please Respond For Historical Data

[Todd Bigelow - PS]

Well, silly me - I responded only to Duane and didn't share with the list (usually I
make the opposite mistake). Here are my thoughts:

"Duane Fischer, W8DBF" wrote:


> 1. What do you consider to be the best vacuum tube general coverage receiver?

R-390

> Why?

General coverage, extremely sensitive when properly aligned, rock-solid stable,
decent audio compared to the economized 'A' model, built like the proverbial brick
shithouse

> 2. What do you consider to be the vacuum tube receiver with the best audio
> reproduction?

SX-28(*) (Mine's an A)

> Why?

Push/Pull 6V6 audio can't be beat, broad bandpass position for excellent fidelity

> 3. What do you consider to be the best vacuum tube receiver for both AM and FM
> listening?

SX-62(*) (Mine's a B)

> Why?

Same audio chain as SX-28(*) plus low and hi VHF FM bands, also has the *best* dial
face and illumination

> 4. Which vacuum tube receiver have you enjoyed listening to the most since first
> becoming interested in radio?

All three above plus SP-600 since they all fill different needs, probably the
SX-28(*) the most overall but it's difficult to say.

> Why?

SX-28(*) has great audio, excellent feel to the flywheel tuning, great appearance
and shape, just looks and feels like a real radio despite not being as 'hot' as some

other models. RA-17 is also an enjoyable experience once you get the hang of tuning
it.

> 5. What is the best vacuum tube receiver built for Ham band only coverage?

75A-4

> Why?

Extremely stable, removable/changable mechanical filters for eliminating noise and
interference, built to the highest standards, vernier tuning option (standard on
later models), accurate calibration when aligned, relatively good physical
appearance.
*note SX-115 is a very close second but lacks 160 mtrs otherwise it would be top
dog.

> 6. What is the best sounding Ham band only vacuum tube receiver?

SX-115!

> Why?

Lacks 160 but makes SSB sound almost as good as AM, an important consideration since

SSB makes up a good portion of signals on the ham bands. Sounds decent on AM as
well.

> 7. What company bilt the greatest number of good performing vacuum tube general
> coverage receivers?

Collins, hands down. Hallicrafters and National made many more, but of varying
levels of quality and performance. Their high ends sets were great, but many others
were marginal to poor. Collins made fewer receivers, but all were built to the same
standard where excellent performance was the norm, not an option.

> 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?

R-390/R-390A

> Why?

All reasons mentioned above plus low noise floor. Not as easy or pleasing to use as
some, but gives you the ability to do far more than with any other comparable
receiver of the period with far better results. More usable features and better
performance than any other.

> 9. Using the same criteria as in the previous question, which receiver had the
> best audio quality?

Any of the Hallicrafters mentioned: SX-28(*), SX-62(*), probably SX-42 and others
with the same audio chain. The RCA AR-88-inspired line has decent single ended audio

as well, but not quite as nice.

> Why?

Those push/pull 6V6s are just the best sound into a decent speaker. Plenty of wide,
high fidelity audio.

> 10. If you could have any receiver ever manufactured, which one would you choose
> and why?

Would depend on the use and need: for overall enjoyment and sound, the SX-28(*). For

more serious listening and reasonably good audio an R-390.

Boomer,  KA1KAQ