[Hammarlund] Re: Hq-180 vs 145 and 170

[Ken Kaplan]

Good question. I've never had the opportunity to use an SP-600 but you don't have to be on 
these list very long to learn that they are admired by many. I have an HQ-180AC and find it a 
very good receiver for general SWL use and an ok receiver for ham use. When on frequency, 
it is a fine SSB receiver but mine needs periodic adjustment of the vernier control to keep 
Donald Duck away. Maybe mine has a slight problem in this area. Don't know. As soon as 
the month of Roundtoit gets here I'm going to find out why it does that. Btw some have 
complained about the audio but I find it ok.

In my opinion, good general coverage receivers don't compete well with good ham receivers  
for ham band use. Conversely, most ham band receivers make lousy general coverage 
receivers. Duh. I use a like new HQ-215 for ham band listening. If you ever get your hands on 
a good one, I think you'll be impressed. I bought mine back when everyone was moving to 
transceivers. If I just want to fool around on the bands, my SX-28A is so cool. Kind of like a 
time machine. I've even received SSB but it's a challenge.

What I wonder is, how do the HQ-145(A) and HQ-160 compare? I always thought that the 
160 was the next step down from the 180 but a check of Osterman's shows otherwise. Not 
that it matters because I'm NOT getting one anyway.......ah good, my wife just left the room.

Hey, when in doubt, go for the radio with the most toobs & knobs <g>. I think I've discovered 
a problem with your original question. You used the word "replacing". The proper word is 
"adding". How was this for a non-answer?

Ken

> Hi:
>
> I have both an HQ-145 and an HQ-170, and I'm thinking of replacing 
> both by either a Sp-600 or Hq-180.  Does anybody out there have 
> thoughts: good move, neutral move, Hq-180 beats Sp-600,   ... ? 
> I typically SWL and am working to get General lic. I've checked the 
> net and it appears there is a dedicated Sp-600 following and an 
> equally dedicated Hq-180 following.  A while back I listened to W1AW 
> on both the -145 and -170 and thought both were good, although I have 
> probably not developed a discerning ear yet.
>
> Thanks for help
>
> Mike