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

[Bob Macklin]

I can accept that.

Some time ago I was told the difference between a "S" and "SX" was the "SX"
had the crystal filter. And the SX-140 was the exception to the rule.

After reviewing several manuals I found the SX-96 and SX-100 use the
variable BW IF. The SX-101 has both the variable BW IF and the crystal
filter. The SX-140 uses the regenerative IF.

So to me the "SX" means the that unit has some kind of variable BW control.

Bob Macklin
K5MYJ
Seattle, Wa,
"Real Radios Glow in the Dark"
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
To: "Bob Macklin" <macklinbob at msn.com>; <radiocompass at yahoo.com>
Cc: <Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] SX-96? (SX-88)


> 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ______________________________________________________________
> >> >
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >>
> >
>
>