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

[Carl]

I find the HC-10 to make the R-390A and 51J4 a way better SSB and CW 
receiver than some of the magazine product detectors Ive tried and removed.

The CE Slicer audio phasing demodulator makes CW so much easier listening as 
compared to a diode detector. I have them hooked up to a SX-28, HQ-129X and 
NC-183D. SSB also is nice copy but I dont operate that mode with those 
receivers. I did use a 129X with one on SSB back in the late 50's to early 
60's along with a 20A. Ive always been partial to phasing rigs.

Carl
KM1H


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "rbethman" <rbethman at comcast.net>
To: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Cc: "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>; "Revcom" <revcom at wbsnet.org>; "rrkrr" 
<rrkrr at comcast.net>; "W8KZW" <w8kzw at arrl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Hammarlund HQ-170A vs. National NC-300


> It's a case of YMMV!
>
> I've used another's NC-300, wasn't enthused enough to pay for one.
>
> I have an HQ-170A with original clock.  Don't know if it is the luck of 
> the draw or what, but once turned on for around 30 min or so - I don't 
> have to chase ANYTHING!  The audio IS pinched a "tad" for AM.
>
> I agree with Carl on marrying an HQ-170 to either of the Collins animals, 
> 51J4 or R-390A would be an abomination.
>
> Wanting a receiver for AM, I either use an R-390A or my SP-600.  The 
> SP-600 does CW and SSB VERY well.  R-390As will do AM and CW well - really 
> aren't for SSB with HC-10 or CE Slicer.  Alex, AI2Q, has a great circuit 
> for the R-390As.
>
> You roll your own when it comes to picking receivers!  Each list seems to 
> go through THIS particular topic on an irregular but consistent cycle.
>
> Bob - N0DGN
>
> Carl wrote:
>> Yeah, and I didnt want to have to marry a HQ-170 to my R-390A or 51J4 
>> either; that would be like mating a Yugo to a Ferrari.
>>
>> HC-10's can still be found for $75-100 and even the CE Slicer does a very 
>> nice job on boatanchors.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Revcom" <revcom at wbsnet.org>
>>> Yea, but you don't have as many knobs and the cool pile of gray as with
>>> an HC-10 and HQ-145A tied together!
>>>
>>> Rod
>>> K0EQH
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> I've owned an HQ-170AC-VHF for over 30 years, and I've always been 
>>>> happy
>>>> with it.  It was designed as a CW/SSB receiver, with the audio passband
>>>> tapered for minimum bandwidth required for communication purposes, so
>>>> it's not likely to please the hi-fi AM aficionados.  The audio passband
>>>> is actually designed to change with the audio gain setting - as 
>>>> detailed
>>>> in the manual.  If aligned correctly the receiver is stable and
>>>> selective.  The VHF preamp uses low noise nuvistor triodes, and works
>>>> quite well on 2m - you can listen to FM repeaters satisfactorily using
>>>> "slope" detection with the AM detector.
>>>>
>>>> The IF circuitry in the HQ-170 and HQ-180 is essentially identical to
>>>> the HC10 IF converter that sells so dearly on the auction sites.  I've
>>>> always been amazed that you can generally get an entire HQ-170 receiver
>>>> a lot cheaper than an HC-10.
>>>>
>>>> I have had problems with the heterodyne oscillator drifting for a long
>>>> time after turn-on on 40 meters, but recently fixed this by replacing a
>>>> capacitor in the resonator.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
> -- 
> Bob - NØDGN
>
>