[Hallicrafters] SX-96?

[Rodger]

Another major SX-88 difference is it doesn't use the dual first IF 
frequency for sideband selection like the SX-96/100 and later 
101/115/117 series radios.  Although the SX-88 does have 2 different 
first IF frequencies for it they are used to provide continuous coverage 
without the issue of the receiver tuning through its own IF range. 

The SX-88 is an interesting receiver in its own right and the 
performance using its 250 cycle selectivity position is quite impressive 
for its vintage.

Rodger WQ9E

 Mike Everette wrote:
>   
>> The SX-88, 96 and 100 are all closely related. They also
>> share the 
>> distinction of being severely overpriced for what you get.
>>     
>
> A case could probably be made for the same being true of numerous so-called "modern" Ikensu etc radios.  (The big problem with ham radio today, is there's no real basic, inexpensive entry level gear.)
>
> The SX-100, and indeed the SX-96, does a lot of things well.  If I had to choose to have only one Halli receiver, it would probably be my SX-100.  Though I must say, I have a 96 sitting right next to the 100 and sometimes I actually think the 96 does a tad better... hmm, may be nostalgia; see below.
>
> The SX-88 is something I have never seen, much less operated; but I have studied upon it (via the online manual) and strictly as a radio, I don't think it's actually worth near the price it brings.  But "it's gotta AURA."
>
> An SX-96 was my first receiver, back in the late medieval and early Renaissance period.  It was a good one.  If it'd had a calibrator it would have been much better, but a Navy LM freq meter sort of made up for that.  The only thing the SX-96 didn't do so well was RTTY.  The rumble of the old Model 15 was transmitted through the floor, and the table, to the receiver.  Constant application of "manual AFC" was essential to keep the scope centered.
>
> 73
>
> Mike
> WA4DLF
>
>
>       
> ______________________________________________________________
>
>
>