[Hallicrafters] Best rx controversy

[Carl]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Everette" <radiocompass at yahoo.com>
To: <hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:52 PM
Subject: [Hallicrafters] Best rx controversy


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

Nope but a handful come close

>
> 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.


My wife says Im always bad.


>
> 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.

Good


>
> 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.


Like you said its one mans opinion(-;  I wouldnt throw it under the bus 
either and it can be OK as long as you accept its flaws.



 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.


Makes you wonder why a SX-96 often sells for $300-400 and a SX-100 for not 
much less at times. There are a lot better at that price.
I enjoy my SX-73 and was using the SX-32 today for SWLing.


>
> 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.


Never owned a 76, 96, 99 but they come thru for service fairly often. About 
the same comments that you noted.


> 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!


The SX-115 rules that roost and the 101A fixed most of the earlier family 
problems. I dont let weight interfere with enjoyment. I also have a hot 
rodded SX-140 with dual conversion and lots of goodies. Neat AM/CW 
lightweight to go with a modified Knight T-150A at the Maine cottage where 
space is tight. Plus I wont be too upset if they are stolen.
Never had a 111 in here that I remember.

My Halli collection runs from the SX-9 to 115. As Greg knows I had a 88 from 
68-98,  gave it to my folks to listen to SW and got it back when mom moved 
into a condo after dad died. Put it thru all the tests at National and wasnt 
all that impressed but it was 14 years old and untouched. It was as nice as 
the day it was built, the original owner had a satin cover when it wasnt in 
use and my folks continued that habit.



>
> 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.


Worked on several of both and own a 180 with the optional noise blanker. It 
has SMD now as do most all the late Hammarlunds; its a PITA to pull and fix 
the IF cans.Also own a HQ-120 thru 160 and a 145. Current SP is a 400.


 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.


The NC-101X is another PW dial black box but its ham bands only and includes 
160. My HRO's are a pair of the first runs from 1935.


 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.


Its easy to hide a zener for LO and BFO regulation and if you run them on 
the 180V doghouse they are even more stable.


>
>
> 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 wouldnt give a 348 house room. My military gear includes a RBB and RBC 
paired with an ATC (Navy ART-13). Also have a RAK/RAL when I get the urge to 
play with regens. Also have a BC-312 but that is all SS; the heaviest 
sandstate box Ive ever owned.


>
> 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.


I have a stock 388, a filter kit 388, and a 51J4. No mods as I have other 
stuff for SSB including a 390A with HC-10


  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.


I guess none of them were ever fixed then. My A4 notch works great as do the 
filters once a bit of gain redistribution is done. I run cascaded mechanical 
and xtal filters as well as SS AGC tailored to each stage, 7360 mixers, 6GM6 
RF and more.

>
>
> 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 75A2 sux as far as overload and AGC. I use a A3 with the AM and CW 
filters with a 32V2. Both tweaked a bit to sound better on AM.


>
> 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.


I got rid of several BC series SP's cuz of the drift, the 400 has some TC 
which helps a lot.

As far as audio there is nothing on any BCB or SW that has any fidelity 
these days; anything with PP audio sounds good. I prefer a NC-183 for the 
best fidelity, stability and sensitivity and a NBS-1 for battle conditions. 
It is a 183 variant with 3 IF's and selectable IF selectivity; basically a 
SP that doesnt drift and has calibrated BS.  All the other Nationals here 
with PP audio from the 101X to HRO-60 sound and work as only a National can. 
A HRO-500 with LF-10 makes a great band cruiser once its overhauled and a 
few flaws fixed; they are not cheap these days...I got mine at about the 
value bottom 25 or so years ago.



>
> 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.

Thats why I dont own one.

>
> 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!


It is a sleeper that is being discovered as other models escalate in price. 
A NC-200/240D are other excellent performers for a pre war design.

>
> 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.


I did exactly that in 68, no contest as a ham band radio once the mods were 
done. There are a lot of hot rodded A4's out there and at least 1-2 shops 
specialize in them. The market is there.


>
> 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.

It wasnt meant to be. Hook a hi fi amp to the diode load and enjoy the 8 or 
16 kc selectivity positions. I worked on enough of both models in the Navy 
and later and wouldnt want a 390 cuz of the mechanicals. I love my 390A but 
it doesnt get an awful lot of bandswitching.


>
> 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.)


I finally found a rust free very early RME-45 a few months ago in AZ and 
went thru it completely; final test date was 11-7-45. Its not even as 
sensitive as a HQ-129X on the high bands thanks to low performance loctals 
and there arent any plug in subs as with a 129X. The crystal filter design 
is a laugh. It looks nice on a display shelf with the funky speaker plus a 
DB-22A and VHF-152A.

>
> 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.

Coward (-;  I have a 42 and a pair of 62A's. The latter get used a lot for 
non critical easy listening. One feeds a R-42 and the other the audio deck 
of a 50's RCA console with PP 6V6's and 4 speakers including a pair of 12". 
It has more audio options and can rattle the house. The 42 usually is used 
with a postwar HT-9 and one of the SX-28's with a prewar HT-9.

Another window rattler, that lives in the DR, is a 1947 Scott 800B. You have 
to hear those 6L6's talk to the 15" coaxial Jensen.


  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.

By far the worse POJ made by a major company is the National SW-54.


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

There are over 300 radios in the collection here, that includes many 
consumer radios, mostly wood table and console models of the AC variety. 
I'll start thinning out the lesser sets once prices pick up.

I just fixed your call.
Carl
KM1H

>
> 73
>
> Mike
> W4DSE
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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