[Hallicrafters] Best rx controversy
mac
w7qho at aol.com
Sun Nov 28 16:14:39 EST 2010
MIke
Wow, great rundown (keeper)! Didn't think the thread had become
"controversial" tough. Agree completely on the AR-88 as I said in a
earlier post. Came up with a 6K8 product detector mod for mine and
now a great SSB performer too. Also have a pair of S-76s I'm looking
forward to getting into.
Dennis D. W7QHO
Glendale, CA
**********
On Nov 28, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Mike Everette wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Hallicrafters mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hallicrafters
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
>
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF
> ** For Assistance: dfischer at usol.com **
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
More information about the Hallicrafters
mailing list