[Boatanchors] Making a SX-110 Better?

[Carl]

The SX-99/110 can trace its lineage all the way back to the 1935 SX-9 as can 
the S-85 and all non xtal filter models just by pulling out the 
crystal....then it was sold as the S-9

I paid either $45 or 50 for my NC-109 at Nearfest a couple of years ago. 
Grimy that cleaned up well and otherwise excellent cosmetics. There were a 
few there last spring at $75 and $90 if I remember.

For an old design the NC-173 will still blow away any comparable Halli, RME 
or even a Hammarlund for sensitivity and stability. The HQ-120X to 140X has 
the edge on selectivity and bandspread dial calibration.Those are also 
superb BCB DXing radios.

One that I thought would be a real slug is the AC/DC NC-46 but its pretty 
decent up to 20M and the PP 25L6's do the matching speaker real justice. I 
bought it for its funky looks but it is now a daily beater to listen to the 
AMers or BCB while Im in the kitchen. Non ham visitors love its looks.

Carl
KM1H




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The Pollacks" <rinkies at att.net>
To: "'Carl'" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>; "'Todd, KA1KAQ'" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>; 
<anchor at ec.rr.com>
Cc: "'Boatanchors list'" <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 5:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Boatanchors] Making a SX-110 Better?


> My couple of cents worth....on the original topic.
>
> I'm more of an "historian" than technician, and some might be interested 
> in
> why the NC109 might be a better receiver.
>
> In the beginning, shortly after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the 
> garden,
> was the S20 and S20R.  This was in the late 30s.  After the war, the S20R
> begat the S40, then the A, and then the B. In about 1954, the S85 was
> introduced, followed in the late 50s by the S108.  These were all 
> virtually
> the same receiver.  The SX99 came to pass in the mid 50s, followed around
> 1959 by the SX110, the subject of this thread.  These last 2 were also the
> same receiver, with the addition of a limited crystal filter, which I
> believe had only a "broad" and "narrow" position.
>
> So, we're dealing with 20 year old technology and design when these were
> built.  Even into the 60s, the S108 and SX 110 used octal tubes!  I 
> believe
> it was basically the same tube lineup as the S40.  Starting with the S85,
> the bandspread was calibrated for the ham bands, but performance was the
> same.
>
> I have or have had in the past, all of the earlier receivers, not 
> including
> the 110 and 108, but I have no reason to believe that the performance was
> much different than the earlier ones.  With all of them, the performance 
> was
> less than stellar, but probably better than the original poster is
> experiencing.  I agree that a good alignment, and probably a good tube
> tester, would improve the performance into the "usable" category.
>
> The NC109, which I believe was introduced in 1957, was a new design,
> incorporating a separate product detector, miniature tubes, and a voltage
> regulator.  It was advertised, at around $200, as the least expensive
> sideband receiver. In addition to the product detector it had a 5 position
> (plus "off") crystal filter that was quite effective. It also had a big
> bandspread dial that was easy to read.
>
> I have one of these, and used it in the last Classic Exchange contest for 
> a
> few contacts on SSB as well as CW with no problem.  I agree with an 
> earlier
> poster who thought the 109 was a sleeper in the marketplace.  If someone
> comes across a clean one for the $100 or so mentioned, I would not 
> hesitate
> to recommend it.
>
> Maybe I've rambled a bit, but comparing the SX99/SX110 to the NC109 is
> really an "apples and oranges" kind of thing, other than perhaps in terms 
> of
> current value.
>
> Ron K2RP
>