[Boatanchors] Hammarlund HQ-170A vs. National NC-300

[Carl]

I agree with Garey.

The NC-300 failed at its intended SSB goal but it was great on AM

The HQ-170 failed at all goals, especially the audio. And now you have the 
potential mess of silver mica disease in the IF cans.

I have a HQ-120X, two 129X and three 140X and got rid of a 170 and 170A 
years ago.

My primary AM receivers (not just ham bands) are SX-28, HQ-129X/140X, 
NC-240D, HRO-50T, NC-183, and R-390A with external audio.  The NC-183D, 
HRO-50T1, and HRO-60 are close but the 3 IF's limit the bandwidth. National 
had the most consistent audio quality over several decades

Carl
KM1H

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garey Barrell" <k4oah at mindspring.com>
To: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Hammarlund HQ-170A vs. National NC-300


> Jeff -
>
> This oughta be good!  :-)
>
> I don't think there is any comparison between the two.  The NC-300 is a 
> solid, stable receiver with good AVC and great audio.  The HQ-170A has 
> none of the above.
>
> I loved my HQ-129X, and still have it and an HQ-140X.  But by the 170A, it 
> was all over for Hammarlund.
>
> 73, Garey - K4OAH
> Glen Allen, VA
>
> Drake 2-B, 4-B, C-Line & TR-4/C Service Supplement CDs
> <www.k4oah.com>
>
>
>
> W8KZW wrote:
>> I have the Hammarlund and an opportunity to acquire the National.  Will 
>> be
>> used with my Ranger, primarily for AM.
>>
>> Which is the preferred radio and why?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> jeff
>> W8KZW
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>