[Hallicrafters] SX-96? (SX-88)

Sun Aug 17 21:15:48 EDT 2008

If you want to continue that heritage why not say it is just an updated 
SX-17?

IMO, the three receivers share only the dial shape with the SX-28. They 
ring in a new concept of image rejection with dual conversion ( along 
with the SX-71) and eliminate the need of two RF stages. The front end, 
selectivity filtering, noise limiter and AGC share almost nothing with 
the 28. Its stretching it but I'll allow the PP 6V6's in the 88 but 
several other post 28 receivers had them as well as National and most 
high end home radios.

IOW they were the first truly new design since the SX-9.

Carl
KM1H

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <WA1KBQ at aol.com>
To: <wq9e at dtnspeed.net>; <radiocompass at yahoo.com>
Cc: <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>; <macklinbob at msn.com>; 
<Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] SX-96? (SX-88)

>I see the SX-88 as having more of a family resemblance to the SX-28 
>than  the
> SX-96 or SX-100. The SX-88 was clearly a pinnacle of achievement for
> Hallicrafters in 1954 which gave the company another image enhancer 
> and a  product
> engineering benchmark same as SX-28 was the pinnacle of achievement to 
> the rest
> of the Hallicrafters line in its day. Actually if you examine and 
> compare
> features, component layout and mechanical construction of both SX-28 
> and  SX-88
> you may begin to see the close resemblance. I think the SX-88  was 
> originally
> intended to carry on the SX-28 tradition by  becoming an extension or
> continuation of Hallicrafters premium receiver  design which was 
> targeted to reach the
> same premium market met years  earlier by the SX-28. The SX-88 was 
> actually
> an extensively  revised modern refinement of the basic SX-28 design 
> and
> incorporated more recent engineering advances and added a few  more 
> modern features
> to better appeal to more current premium receiver  market demands. One
> particular noteworthy feature is model SX-88 was  the first commercial 
> communications
> receiver to have an SSB function marked on  its front panel. This was 
> very
> early SSB technology in its infancy and  SX-88 did not incorporate a 
> product
> detector with switch selectable side  bands and instead relied on 
> amplified BFO
> technology for enhanced SSB  reception. While SX-88 has an extremely 
> selective
> 50KC 2nd IF  amplifier it actually differs quite a bit from all other
> Hallicrafters  models with 50KC 2nd IF amplifiers and comparison to 
> them is not really
> possible. The SX-88 incorporates special Litz wound 50KC IF 
> transformers
> having an extremely  hiqh "Q"  of around 180  which no other 
> Hallicrafters model
> comes close. If you closely examine 2nd  IF transformers from any of 
> the
> SX-76, SX-96, SX-100, SX-101 and SX-122  receivers you won't find high 
> "Q" Litz
> wound coils and you will also  see the familiar threaded brass 
> adjustment screw.
> Single strand wound IF  coils and brass adjusters do nothing but spoil 
> "Q"
> but they are cheap.  SX-88 is the only Hallicrafters receiver to ever
> incorporate such high "Q" Litz  wound IF transformers with threaded 
> ferrite instead of
> brass adjustment  screws. There is nothing quite like cruising the 
> bands with a
> well aligned  and properly working SX-88 and you get no familiar 
> ringing from
> a crystal filter  either. Start out with a 10KC wide passband and when 
> you
> encounter a pileup  just start cutting bandwidth in steps; 5, 2.5, 
> 1.25, .5, or
> .25 until you  can copy the signal you want. When the passband can be 
> run wide
> open, the  10 watts audio available from those push-pull 6V6's sounds
> fabulous. There  is no one receiver ever conceived nor ever made that 
> was able  to
> finally sign off to be the end of all things in communications 
> receiver  design.
> They all have their good points or that one special feature and they 
> will no
> doubt have things about them you wish had been designed differently. I 
> think
> this was the original impetus for Raymond S Moore in  researching and
> authoring his four volumes of "Communications Receivers of  the Vacuum 
> Tube Era" when
> he decided to try to identify who produced the  best commercially 
> built
> superhet communications receiver between 1932 and  1981. After must 
> exhaustive
> study and research into the question of who  built the best he 
> summarized the
> results of his extensive research with this  answer: it all depends on 
> what you
> are looking for due to compromises  which must be met.
>
> 73, Greg
>
> In a message dated 8/16/2008 11:03:16 P.M. Atlantic  Standard Time,
> wq9e at dtnspeed.net writes:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your 
> budget?
> Read reviews on AOL Autos.
> (http://autos.aol.com/cars-Volkswagen-Jetta-2009/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00030000000007 
>  )
> 