[Hammarlund] Speaker for HQ 150?

[Todd Bigelow - PS]

Russ WQ3X wrote:

>Hi to the list -
>
>I'll add my 2 cents to this discussion. I was glad to see the speaker
>listing page that Roy mentioned is
>back.(<http://www.3rdtech.com/nick/ham/speakers.htm>). This page seems to
>come and go for me and it is a great resource.
>  
>

I didn't even realize the link was down, but then I don't use it that 
often. Absolutely right, though - excellent resource. Roy should be the 
official 'cool links' guy.

>I think the "correct" speaker for the HQ-150 looks like the one listed on
>that page for the HQ-140X. But I believe the HQ-140X version has the grey
>hammertone finish mentioned by Todd. The HQ-150 version has a matching grey
>wrinkle finish according to the manual. I have an HQ-150 and am using it
>with a hammertone finished speaker. (Oh no) These smooth ones appear all the
>time on eBay and the price varies a lot especially if it is not listed with
>Hammarlund in the title. (Like under "Hammerlund" or "OLD speaker".)
>  
>

I wondered about this. I think it was Les Locklear who first mentioned 
the wrinkle gray version to me, but I've never seen one. Seen a bunch of 
the hammertone versions, though. I dunno who's worse here, Russ - you're 
at least using the 'correct' speaker, just wrong finish. I'm using an 
S-100, but it has the nice convex metal name badge on it instead of the 
usual flat raised plastic. Seems to go pretty well with the later 
cabinet style, too.

>On the receivers, I had noticed the HQ-150s had 2 different sized cabinets
>(mine now and the one I had in high school had the larger cabinet.) I didn't
>know the smaller cabinet was later. Thanks Todd for bringing it up.
>  
>

Someone else asked me about this also, so I took a picture of my late 
model last night. Before divesting myself of the older 'large cabinet' 
model I should take a picture of the two side-by-side for comparison. Of 
course, then I'd need to have a page to post them to. Maybe Prof. 
Locklear will add them to the Hammarlund Historian page?

>I really enjoy getting down and nit-picky.... but in the old days very few
>hams had the matching speakers for their receivers. Whatever worked was good
>enough and to most normal people (who aren't "rabid" collectors) it is still
>true. I have foamed at the mouth long enough...
>

Yep, agree completely. Object was (still is, to me) to make it work. 
I've never considered myself a "collector", rabid or otherwise but 
rather collect stuff to restore, use, and enjoy. Still, as one 
'accumulates' stuff to enjoy, some sort of a collection emerges. I'm 
with you, Russ - it's actually kinda fun to finally get to a point where 
you can focus on being nit-picky about having everything just so. For us 
packrats who never had the money or chance to get complete/correct sets 
years ago, it's fun to chase down the piecesparts (other than ARC-5 
gear, that just gets annoying at times). I'm in the process of restoring 
an old Collins BC transmitter and it's amazing how many little pieces 
are missing or kludged up. If people think us hams are bad about making 
mods, broadcast engineers are in a league of their own, far beyond us. A 
much different perspective on things I'm sure, when keeping it working 
means paying the bills.

de Todd/'Boomer'  KA1KAQ