[Hallicrafters] Best rx controversy

[Mike Everette]

I wonder if there is any such thing as a "best receiver."

Those of us who have been around the block with numerous vintage receivers know 
that they are like people.  They have different personalities.  And there is no 
more a perfect receiver, than there is a perfect person.  ALL have good and bad 
characteristics.

I'll warn you, my comments are not based upon lab measurements but upon hours of 
cockpit time with all the radios mentioned.  You are free to disagree with me.

As for Halli receivers:  I'll vote for the SX-100 as the best all-around GENERAL 
COVERAGE receiver in terms of affordability, size/weight, sensitivity, and would 
include selectivity of it weren't just a little too tight to prevent annoying 
sideband-cutting on AM signals. I'd never state that the SX-100 is overly 
stable; though I've owned two, plus a couple of its predecessor the SX-96.  It 
depends on the individual receiver.  One SX-100 was rock-stable even on 20 
meters, after a half hour warm-up; the other drifted continuously.  One of my 
SX-96s was so sensitive you could hear a gnat fart in Outer Mongolia, but so 
microphonic you would hear the footsteps of a fly rumble in the speaker.  The 
other was decently stable, but more prone to overload than the other, or either 
SX-100.

The predecessor of both the SX-96 and SX-100 is the S-76.  The 76 would be a 
very nice radio, had it not been ruined by omission of proper flywheel tuning in 
favor of a dial-cord mess twangy-er than Duane Eddy's guitar strings.  (The 
SX-99, also dial-cord, actually feels better than a 76.)  Simple addition of a 
larger, weighted bandspread tuning knob does wonders for the 76.  Upgrading the 
detector and AVC to match the circuit of the SX-100 (not hard, but not Heathkit 
either) would make it truly outstanding; but as-is out of the box, it's not 
super-good.

As for Halli ham-band receivers, I've done time in front of an SX-101 Mark III 
and an SX-111 Mark I.  I choose the SX-111.  When paired with a nice 10 inch 
speaker -- I use a musical instrument speaker in a big, deep R-46 speaker box -- 
the audio on SSB sounds like high fidelity.  I find the SX-111 easier to operate 
than the 101s, but in battle conditions the extra bells and whistles on the 101 
are nice to have in the tool box.  True, the 101's flywheel tuning feels a 
little better; but the 111 is not at all "twangy" like the SX-99/SX-110.   Plus 
the SX-111 is about half the weight of the 101.... UNGAWAAAAAA!

Other receivers:  I like the Hammarlund HQ-170, which has lots of selectivity 
options... but it's a wanderer.  Even after having warmed up all night, you can 
expect about 250 Hz or maybe more per hour of drift.  I've seen one HQ-170 that 
drifted even worse.  If you can cope with the drift. the 170 is quite nice.  
Curiously, the HQ-180 general coverage version seems to be a little less 
drifty.  My observations on both the 170 and 180 are based on two examples 
each.  But the Hammarlund I found most fun to use was the HQ-150.  It didn't 
seem to drift badly, was plenty hot, had a decent crystal filter plus a 
Q-multiplier (but that was tricky), and had pretty good audio when used with a 
decent speaker.

The National HRO series, however, have absolutely the best frequency readout and 
resettability of any vintage receiver with a more-or-less conventional dial... 
yeah, I know, the HRO's like no other, but so is the R-390 series.  The HRO has 
a very excellent crystal filter, if the IF is properly aligned.  (I'm talking 
about the HRO Senior-/HRO-M series, not the postwar receivers.)  The HRO is 
extremely sensitive, even with the original "bulb" tubes; and rock-stable after 
about 15 minutes warm-up.  Its chief failing is frequency stability with varying 
line voltage; I have two circa-WW2 HROs and they both "yoop" whenever the 
heating system. hot water heater, washing machine, dryer etc kick in; and on 
Field Day, taking power from a generator feeding several rigs, they are 
unusable. 


Yes... I take BAs on Field Day, to show the hy-tech crowd a thing or two.  My 
favorite vintage Field Day CW receiver is the HQ-170, closely followed by -- yes 
it's real, people -- the BC-348, absolutely bone-stock with no outboard stunt 
boxes.  Good old fashioned skill is needed.  


Lots of people don't like the Mosler-Safe-style dial, and tuning graphs, of the 
HRO and its plug-in coils; but when taken in stride by a little time spent in 
making up a cal chart for the bandspread, it cannot be beat.  And it's no worse 
by a long shot, that having to keep the dictionary-sized manual (or even a cheat 
sheet) for a rice box at your fingertips in case you should push the wrong 
button.... AAAAAUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!  Ever tried using an 857 mobile...? Know 
what I mean, Vern...?

As for th' good ol' BC-348:  It is very darn stable even with varying input 
voltage, has excellent tuning characteristics, a bullet-proof front end, the AVC 
works on CW, and its selectivity on CW is not really bad at all once the IF is 
correctly aligned to the filter crystal... very few come to you that way, so you 
have to do it yourself.  Easy.  Basic radio.  Not rocket science.

I really like the Collins R-388/51J series; in fact I'd trade an R-390 for a 388 
any time -- but unless they are modified with product detector and longer AVC 
time constant, they are not the best.  After several mods and some time spent 
playing with the AVC, mine sounded better than a 75A-4 I owned concurrently.  I 
sold the A-4 and never looked back.  The "ringing" of its 800 cycle CW filter 
was annoying; and while the passband tuning was nice, having few other 
selectivity options wasn't good.  No, the A-4's notch filter did not work... 
wasn't worth a flip.  I've played with a few other A-4s and they were all the 
same in that regard.  


The best thing about any Collins receiver is the frequency readout, if the radio 
has a reasonably well calibrated PTO; and of course the stability.. Beyond that, 
I'm a bit underwhelmed.  If I wanted to buy another Collins, I'd probably look 
for a 75A-2.  This is pre-mechanical filters, which makes the audio sound a 
little less like a talking robot, and gives different selectivity options with a 
crystal filter.

The best sounding audio of any vintage receiver has to be, far and away, from 
the Hammarlund SP-200/210/400 Super Pro series aka BC-779/BC-794.  They have 
variable IF bandwidth plus a crystal filter, which give practically unlimited 
selectivity options.  They also drift a bit, and have uncalibrated 0-100 
bandspread.  The Halli SX-28 has good sounding audio as well, but I think -- no, 
I'm sure -- the Super Pro sounds better.

Of all the vintage receivers I've ever used -- and their name is Legion, for 
they are many -- the  most universally impressive I have ever encountered, bar 
none, is the RCA AR-88.  It is amazingly sensitive, smooth to tune, mechanically 
solid (at 100 pounds, it better be), has the best mechanical tuning gearbox 
ever, is stable in the extreme, has quite good frequency resettability (using 
the logging-scale mechanical bandspread) although the actual frequency readout 
is not too great due to a visually confusing dial.  The selectivity is very darn 
good, although the AR-88 series doesn't have a front-panel crystal phasing 
adjustment (the later CR-88 variant does); and the audio is very pleasant.

So what's my "Fave" receiver?  I'd say it's a toss-up between the AR-88 and the 
HRO Senior/HRO-M.

What's the biggest surprise?  Probably the Halli S-22R.  Very darn good for what 
it is; it has one of the best tuning mechanisms out there, with decent 
resettability once it warms up.  No selectivity to speak of, but for casual 
operating or listening, it's a very fun radio.  A definite plus:  No image 
troubles, due to a 1600 IF; but it only tunes to 18 MHz on HF.  And it's 
Acey-Deucey in a METAL case, so without an isolation transformer (easy to hide 
inside the cabinet) it can reach out an' touch ya.  In not-good ways.

Another recent (for me) and real pleasant surprise is the National NC-173.  Very 
nice, all around... it even has AVC that works on CW and SSB, which few postwar 
receivers did.  Tuning is a little stiff due to rim drive plastic dials a la 
Heathkit, but you get used to it.  Decent audio.  A few images on the high bands 
due to one RF stage and a 455 IF, but it's got the gain to hear the weak 
signals!

The most underwhelming?  Collins 75A-4.  Overpriced.  Overrated, in my opinion.  
Admittedly I've never used one that's been hot-rodded with all the mods that 
supposedly make it better.  I would like to have the opportunity to side-by-side 
compare it to the SX-88, which I have never owned nor operated.

Least worthy of veneration?  Maybe the R-390, because of its tuning mechanism.  
It ain't a band scanner.  I personally prefer band scanners.  The audio ain't 
that good either.

Radios with a lot of potential:  RME 69, and 45 series.  Can be frustrating 
mechanically, especially the el-cheepo vernier tuning in the 45B.  But nicely 
built and fairly simple to work on.  TLC and care pay off here.  Don't buy a 
rustbucket.  (That goes for ANY model or make.)

Receivers I would be very reluctant to touch:  Halli SX-42 and SX-62.  Too many 
design problems.  Seen 'em, used 'em, haven't worked on one, don't want to.  By 
comparison the SX-28 is easy; and you have more when you finish a 28.

What's the worst?  The S-38, in any incarnation.  The next closest competitor is 
the National NC-60.  I'd far rather use a Command Set receiver, than either.

I still love messing with other radios... I constantly pan for gold among what's 
out there, regardless of manufacturer....

73

Mike
W3DSE