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

[Carl]

I stand corrected, its simply "filter"

Carl


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Macklin" <macklinbob at msn.com>
To: "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>; <radiocompass at yahoo.com>
Cc: <Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] SX-96? (SX-88)


> It seems to me that the SX-96 was the first SX without a crystal 
> filter.
>
> Bob Macklin
> K5MYJ
> Seattle, Wa,
> "Real Radios Glow in the Dark"
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
> To: <radiocompass at yahoo.com>
> Cc: <Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] SX-96? (SX-88)
>
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mike Everette" <radiocompass at yahoo.com>
>> To: <WA1KBQ at aol.com>; <wq9e at dtnspeed.net>; "Carl" 
>> <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
>> Cc: <macklinbob at msn.com>; <Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] SX-96? (SX-88)
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> IOW they were the first truly new design since the SX-9.
>> >>
>> >> Carl
>> >> KM1H
>> >>
>> >
>> > You're real close to right.
>> >
>> > Probably the SX-71 was the first "truly new design" as it predates 
>> > the
>> > SX-88 by four or five years (1949? 1950?).
>>
>> 1949. And I included it earlier, just didnt give it the proper 
>> respect
>> as the innovator.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The "lineage" of Halli designs is interesting, to say the least. 
>> > The
>> > SX-16 begat the SX-24 which begat the SX-99 which begat the SX-110.
>> > It may go further forward and backward.
>>
>> There isnt much difference between the SX-9 and the rest of the 
>> silver
>> dial line. An extra tube or three and a few minor additions. The SX-9 
>> is
>> a S-20R/S40 without the xtal filter. Performance didnt improve over 
>> the
>> years either, mine all sit on shelves.
>>
>>
>>   The S-20R begat the S-40 which begat the S-85 which begat the 
>> S-108,
>> etc.  The S-19 did not beget the S-38; rather, it begat the S-53A 
>> which
>> begat the S-107.  Very clever.  (The original S-53 was an exception,
>> because it had the high frequency IF.)
>>
>>
>> The Echophone EC-1 begat the S-38.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > If you look closely at the ad copy for the spreads on the S-40, 
>> > from
>> > 1946, you'll notice how all the emphasis is on the styling.  Not a
>> > word about the circuitry being the same as the S-20R, except for a
>> > couple of tube updates (nothing substantive; sub a 6J5 for a 76 
>> > etc).
>> > Makes one wonder how many bought a "brand new post-war" S-40 to
>> > replace an S-20R... hmm.
>>
>>
>> Every kid whose parents thought he needed the latest and greatest 
>> within
>> their budget. I still pity the kids who got stuck with S-38xxx's. 
>> Many
>> of my HS friends never got past their Novice due to them and the 
>> S-53A.
>> After the SX-25 disaster I got a used HQ-129X and found the world of
>> chasing DX. I was 16 at the time.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > If you take a Sams for the SX-99 and compare it to the SX-110, 
>> > there
>> > is NO difference in the circuitry or in the underchassis component
>> > layout.  The only differences are purely mechanical, to allow for 
>> > the
>> > differences in the dial mechanisms.
>> >
>> > Probably the main reason Hallicrafters went belly-up was because no
>> > one could figure out how to successfully solid-state the old 
>> > designs!
>>
>>
>> Good point. The FPM-300 certainly was no gem but neither was anyone
>> elses SS attempts back then. Even the HRO-500 is a dog on a good
>> antenna.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The SX-96's main circuit difference from the S-76 is, of course,
>> > "selectable sideband."  All that is, is a crystal controlled second
>> > conversion oscillator which can be selected to run on the high side 
>> > or
>> > low side of the 1650 KHz first IF.  The S-76 uses a free running
>> > oscillator.  And, the SX-96 has a stronger BFO plus improved 
>> > detector
>> > and AVC to allow AVC and S-meter function on CW and SSB modes.
>> >
>>
>> One that intrigues me is the SX-140 given to me which is the only SX
>> without a xtal filter. Ive added a second conversion down to 262 Kc 
>> and
>> use 2 stages of IF with old auto radio transformers. Got rid of that
>> pathetic regen IF entirely and the BFO is free running at 262Kc
>> Its now very nice on AM, passable on CW, quite stable due to the very
>> low B+ they used and acceptably sensitive thru 10M. The noise limiter 
>> is
>> very good.
>>
>> It came with a Knight T-150A which just needed a cleaning, some tubes
>> and audio mods.
>>
>> They both now live at our cottage in Maine and its a lot easier than
>> lugging the real boatanchors back and forth.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
>>
>>
>> > 73
>> >
>> > Mike
>> > WA4DLF
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> >
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>