[Hallicrafters] SX-100 and the SX-101CMKIIIA

[wb8jkr at juno.com]

 Well again, the SX-110 general coverage receiver
didn't have variable selectivity capability. It looks
to me that it wound up being if the RX had a crystal
anywhere in it, it was an "SX" be it in the I.F. as a filter,
or as a crystal in a calibrator, or if the BFO was crystal
controlled.

Mark  WB8JKR


On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:23:56 -0500 George KB2Z
<Thermionic_Emission at earthlink.net> writes:
> It began as a designator for the xtal filter. I would venture to say 
> it 
> became a marketing scheme to represent higher quality, our best, 
> expect to 
> pay more, etc. Name and series recognition. All manufacturers do it. 
> Cars, 
> boats, appliances. and electronics.
> 
> The following was lifted from LA5KI
> "The first "SX" series radio, the SX-4, was built in 1934 as an 
> option to 
> the S-4 "Super Skyrider" . The difference between the two was the 
> addition 
> of the crystal filter in the "SX" prefix. The "SX" prefix from that 
> point 
> on meant that the radio had switchable selectivity position(s)."
> 
> It looks like in later years it was  switchable selectivity 
> position(s) 
> that made it an SX.
> 
> Happy Hammin, George KB2Z
 
> 
> At 06:59 AM 11/21/04 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >The "X" designation in all early Hallicrafters receivers always 
> denoted a
> >model with a crystal filter to differentiate it from that same 
> model 
> >without the
> >crystal filter. Later Hallicrafters receivers featured dual 
> conversion,
> >passband narrowing and or filters that did not have a crystal as 
> engineering
> >refinements were adopted and circuits were better designed. Is it 
> possible
> >Hallicrafters included the "X" in the model prefix of later models 
> without 
> >a crystal
> >filter to denote receivers having crystal controlled 2nd conversion 
> >oscillators?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Greg Gore; WA1KBQ
> >Charlotte, NC
>