[Hallicrafters] SX-96?

[Carl]

My first commercial receiver was an SX-25 as I couldnt afford the SX-96 
which was a current model. The SX-25 turned me into a Hallicrafters 
hater for many decades thru ignorance of what we all consider normal 
maintenance now. A 16 year old didnt know from nothing about leaky caps 
and resistors changing value.

If you want to go thru the Model 15 days again you need a RBB and RBC. I 
worked on all of them in the Navy and those receivers would stay on 
frequency for days at a time. The 15's were fine at 60 wpm but did they 
ever self destruct when the Navy went to 100 wpm. We got 33's real fast 
after that fiasco.

Carl
KM1H


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Everette" <radiocompass at yahoo.com>
To: "Bob Macklin" <macklinbob at msn.com>; "Halicrafters" 
<Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net>; "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] SX-96?


>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
>