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

[Garey Barrell]

I don't think the 170 CW selectivity was any better than the 300.  The 
170A had a 60 kHz last IF, the 300 was 80 kHz.  Both "claimed" 0.5 kHz 
b/w at -6 dB and 3 kHz at -60.  The 300 also had a crystal filter that 
could be used either to peak or notch at the 2215 kHz first IF.  The 300 
also had separate control of RF and IF gains, which worked very well.  I 
did not own both at the same time, but I am about 95% CW and don't 
recall either being better or worse than the other as far as CW selectivity.

My biggest complaint was with the stability, (or lack thereof,) in the 
170.  The 300 was rock solid after about 10 minutes warm-up, and the 
170A never stopped drifting. 

I bought my 170A brand new in 1961.  AES ran a "closeout" ad in QST for 
the 170, and I had been off the air (with my HQ129X) for about a year.  
I sent them a check, and about a week later I got a letter saying they 
were out of the 170, but would sell me the brand new 170A for only $25 
more.  So I send another check and about a week later here comes this 
big box.  I open it up and sit it on the kitchen table. (One bedroom 
apartment syndrome.)  Attach a piece of wire and drape it across the 
room, turn on the receiver and tune to 20M.  Tune in a CW signal, and 
listen as it slowly drifts up the band!!  I opened up the manual, (last 
resort,) and note that the tube for the LO has it's own filament 
transformer that is ON all the time the receiver is plugged in.  OK, so 
I leave it on the table and go to work the next morning.  I get home 
from work, turn it on, tune to 20M and listen to the CW signals drifting 
up the band!   Next day, same problem.   It never did turn around, just 
kept drifting UP.  The D**n thing is probably on S-Band by now, wherever 
it is.  Anyway, put it in the box, took it down to Electronic 
Wholesaler's in Huntsville, AL, and swapped it even for a Drake 2-B and 
2-BQ.  Best deal I ever made........  :-)

73, Garey - K4OAH
Glen Allen, VA

Drake 2-B, 4-B, C-Line & TR-4/C Service Supplement CDs
<www.k4oah.com>



wf2u at ws19ops.com wrote:
> I have an NC-300 and until recently an HQ-170A.
> The audio in the NC-300 is definitely better than that of the HQ-170 
> on AM.
> However, I've been using the HQ-170 almost exclusively on CW and it is 
> far better on CW selectivity-wise than the NC-300. Of course, on CW I 
> don't give a rat's a** whether the audio is good, as long as it 
> passess 600 to 1000 Hz with no hum at a sufficient volume... BTW I got 
> the HQ-170 about 12 years ago, and still worked perfectly. I only had 
> to replace the 6C4 oscillator tube about 9 years ago, as it was 
> getting very weak and warbly.
> And no, I didn't sell the HQ-170 because I didn't like it, I'm just 
> downsizing the ham-band only gear so I have room for the military 
> surplus and professional/commercial tube era HF rigs, with heavy 
> emphasis on maritime equipment. The HQ-170's place was taken up by a 
> TMC GPR-90/GSB-1 combo.
> My HRO-50 is probably the next to go...
>
> 73, Meir WF2U
> Landrum, SC
>
>
>
> Quoting Carl <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>:
>
>> 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
>>>>