[Hammarlund] Re: HQ-160

[Dan Cotsirilos]

Ken I would be happy to. I have always had 180's in past, until now I have 
never owned a 160. Now granted this one I have is like brand new, it only 
needed a tube and a alignment, but the major differences are audio quality 
and stability! The audio is wonderful where the 180's are a little muffled 
by comparison. I can turn this radio on and it instantly is on the same freq 
as I turned it off??? Now I am speaking a of a AM shortwave station of 
course, but the 180's I have had in the past almost never settled down, 
especially if the heat came on or if the room air conditioner kicked in etc. 
In other words if the room temperature changed so did the 180. I have heard 
the hams on here complain of the same thing. Another thing I do enjoy the 
Q-multiplier also.  Dan



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Kaplan" <krkaplan at cox.net>
To: <hammarlund at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:37 PM
Subject: [Hammarlund] Re: HQ-160


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer W8DBF
> ** For Assistance: dfischer at usol.com **
> ----
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hammarlund