[Hallicrafters] What was the summit of Hallicrafters , performance wise?

[Jim Brannigan]

Is a receiver is a receiver is a receiver?
Well, yes and no.....
For casual operating, rag chewing, SWL'ing, with strong signals and low
QRM/QRN levels, then yes.....any receiver will do.

It is under adverse conditions that better receivers shine.  Serious DX'ing,
contesting, traffic handling, emergency communications, etc. require a
receiver that won't wilt in the presence of  adjacent channel interference
and weak signals.

Jim

> In my opinion, a receiver is a receiver is a receiver.  I have compared
> a state of the art (mine) ICOM 756pro next to an SX-111 receiver
> switching
> rapidly between both.  Anything the pro could here, the 111 heard just
> as
> well.  Collins?  Yes, the KWM-2, 2a R-390 etc. I have used them also and
> they never outperformed a good Hallicrafters receiver.  They all heard
> the same thing.  Stability, and construction, the Collins won/wins
> easily.
>
> Now if we are talking about bells and whistles, then of course current
> transceivers win with DSP, notching, band pass tuning etc.  As to the
> pinnacle of Hallicrafters receives, not sure.  Of course the low value
> or mass produced receivers such as the S-38 were poor receivers.  But,
> move on up to the SX-111 and beyond, as I said, just as good a receiver
> as today's receivers IMHO.
>
>    73 from K2WH
> Hallicrafters, The Radio Mans Radio


> I don't think that any American made receiver of the 50's , 60's 70's
> came
> close to Collins receivers.
> The stability, mixing scheme and mechanical filters, just blew the
> competition away.......
> Of course, Art Collins had Curtis Lemay and the US Treasury to support
> his
> R&D.  Hams were a secondary market for Collins products.
>
> Jim
>
> > My question really is: Among general coverage tube receivers what was
> the
> > pinnacle of performance reached by Hallicrafters? Collins had the
> R-390A
> > and the 51J-4. National had HRO-60, Hammarlund had SP-600,  Racal had
> the
> > RA-17, Siemens the EK-07, Eddystone the 880/2, and so on . If it was
> the
> > SX-88 why was it not produced in greater numbers? Too expensive, too
> > difficult to maintain? Is the SX-73 in the running? Did Hallicrafters
> not
> > really go for government contracts? Which receiver would the
> Hallicrafters
> > list decide to put in the field against the above?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> > Clemens S.Ostergaard
> > Denmark