[Hammarlund] Re: HQ-160

[Ken Kaplan]

Dan,

Ok. Having an HQ-180 but no HQ-160, I can't make my own comparison. Could you 
elaborate a bit? In what way is it better? On paper, I always thought the HQ-160 was a 
pretty good receiver. My HQ-180 works great and I'd call it a "hot" receiver. Stability is 
reasonable, sensitivity is great and selectivity is good (although a mechanical filter 
would probably be a great addition).

Don't tell me (or my wife) that I now "need" an HQ-160! Gone are the days when you 
could go to Henry Radio or wherever and try these things out <sniff>. I'm sure I'm like 
many who poured over the various catalogs dreaming of a receiver purchase. I 
remember weighing the purchase of Hallicrafters and Hammarlund receivers. That SX-
100 sure looked great but I couldn't see how I could afford it. Better lower my sites to an 
SX-96. I'd hate to have to settle for an SX-99. Darn that HQ-180 looks great but it costs 
more than the SX-100. Matter of fact, so does the HQ-160. Guess I'll be stuck with the 
KnightKit Ocean Hopper for a while.

It wasn't until much later in life that I got anything that I drooled over in those catalogs. 
Now I have an SX-100 and an HQ-180AC. I admit it - I got these to fulfill my youthful 
dreams. I'm glad I did it. It's like I finally did something that I had planned and dreamed 
about but never accomplished. Yeah, that's it. They are on my life checklist. Now if I can 
only find a way to get a Ford GT-40 or a...

Pardon my tangent.

Feeling better now,
73 Ken kb7rgg

> Now that I have my HQ-160 working correctly I have to say to me it is a better receiver than a 180! I know a 180 has more features but the 160 is just plain a better radio!  Dan