[Boatanchors] Please Respond For Historical Data

[Barry Hauser]

> "Duane Fischer, W8DBF" wrote:
> 
> 
> > 1. What do you consider to be the best vacuum tube general 
> coverage receiver?
> 
 R-390/R-391
> 
> > Why?
> 
All the reasons previously given and then some -- sensitivity, tuning
accuracy, noise floor, feature-set (controls), design layout, quality of
construction, durability, modular service-ability, and eight handy memory
setting on the R-391 model.  
> 
> > 2. What do you consider to be the vacuum tube receiver with the best
audio reproduction?
> 
SX-42/62, SX-28, SP-600, AR88 & E.H. Scott
> 
> > Why?
> 
Push/Pull 6V6's for the Halli's -- good range of bandwidth selections to
optimize the signal.
> 
> > 3. What do you consider to be the best vacuum tube receiver for  both
AM and FM
> > listening?
> 
> SX-42/SX-62  
> 
> > Why?
> 
6V6 pair -- only FM BC I have in the category.
 
> > 4. Which vacuum tube receiver have you enjoyed listening to the 
> most since first becoming interested in radio?

Tough one -- it's a toss-up between a bunch.  Probably the SP-600. 
Actually, one of the most listenable radios is the tube type
Trans-oceanic
> 
> > Why?
> 
SP-600 performance is fine and a pleasure to tune.  As for the TO's,
while not in a league with the others, there is good matching of
components -- speaker/cabinet.  Easy to listen to a reasonably good
signal for extended periods.


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

> > 6. What is the best sounding Ham band only vacuum tube receiver?
> > Why?
> 
> 
> > 7. What company bilt the greatest number of good performing vacuum 
> tube general coverage receivers?
 
The greatest number in terms of both SKU's and sheer volume produced
would probably be Hallicrafters.  They may also have produced the
greatest number of mediocre receivers.  Again, the keywords being
"greatest number" and "good performing" -- as opposed to great
performing.  Probably also true in terms of number of models.

> > 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-391/R-390A/R-392 -- and the SP-600
> 
> > Why?
 
Practically all performance parameters -- controls, accuracy, etc.  And
quality of construction, with the exception of the black beauties in the
"A" model.  Still hard to beat when set up right.  Fact is, a lot of much
newer solid state radios are now gray around the gills with bad plastic
trimmer caps (ICOM), bad tantulum caps, etc. or very new radios with
design flaws.
 
> > 9. Using the same criteria as in the previous question, which
receiver had the
> > best audio quality?
> 
SX-42/62, SX-28, AR88 -- also E. H. Scott RCH & similar.

> 
> > Why?
> 
Already mentioned 


> 
> > 10. If you could have any receiver ever manufactured, which one 
> would you choose and why?
 
Another tough one, but probably the R-390, if I could just have one -- or
maybe one of those HF-1000's.  Also pays to have a radio that runs on
batteries and plenty of batteries - just in case.  So the safest choice,
all things considered (including big bad things) might be the
Transoceanic, the R-392 or one of those solar/dynamo jobbies. 

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com