[Hammarlund] Favorite Hammarlund Radio

[Carl]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
To: "Hammarlund Radios" <hammarlund at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Hammarlund] Favorite Hammarlund Radio


> On 10 Dec 2011 at 22:13, Carl wrote:
>
>> > At the time they first came out, the Hammarlund SP-200s were the
>> > most expensive receivers available, as I remember it.
>>
>> RBB and RBC beat it I bet
>
> I guess I should have said, "...the most expensive HAM receivers
> available..."
>
> Of course the RBB/RBC (and the VLF RBA) were FAR more expensive: but
> those were military-only receivers, and cost was no object.
>
> However, even the RBB/RBC didn't have that variable IF selectivity
> that the Hammarlunds did/do.


** But it had fairly steep IF skirts plus the filter. I find the RBB 
enjoyable on 80CW even on a crowded band and the RBC is fine on the higher 
bands.

>
> I have used the RBB and RBC extensively (and the RBA) and while they
> were certainly more stable than the military variants of the SP-200,
> they were also certainly not any more sensitive, nor had they
> comparable audio quality.


** Look at the front ends again Ken; circuit design and the tubes used. The 
RCA's used the latest and quietest while the SP's used the noisest and most 
obsolete they could find. While most anything will work well where the 
antenna noise predominates the SP's wisely stopped at 20mc in most models. 
My SP-400 is deef on 15/10M considering its other qualities and its just a 
rebadged SP-200.
The RBx's are almost too sharp for AM quality and were mainly used for CW 
and RTTY. AM was for short haul such as entering port.


>
> Also, I heard that the old Navy radio operators actually preferred
> the older RAL/RAK to the RBA/RBB/RBC on board ship since the RAK/RAL
> were far less subject to interference from nearby transmitters. The
> RAK/RAL had better RF selectivity and no IF to be overloaded.

** Having spent several years aboard ships with the RBx's and the RAK/RAL as 
emergency backups I can say without a doubt the RBx's were completely immune 
to overload. Dont forget that the CW nets were full break-in with seperate 
RX/TX antennas only seperated by a short distance.

>
> One thing I DID find very impressive about the RBB/RBC was their
> audio limiter: that thing is absolutely amazing!!!!!!

** Yep!

>
> When I was using my RBB, I was also running a KW on CW. I used a
> separate antenna for the receiver, and with the limiter on and
> properly set, my own KW transmitter was not any louder in my
> headphones than the signal I was copying.
>
> Once, one of my Elmers stopped into the shack while I was handling
> traffic and was completely amazed by what he heard. He couldn't get
> over it.
>
> I wish I could incorporate that limiter into every receiver I own.
>
> I have never yet used any AGC in any receiver I have ever used which
> could even begin to compare in effectiveness at keeping sudden strong
> signals from blasting my eardrums.

** The audio limiter/AGC in the RAK/RAL is equally effective. They are 
arguably the best regens ever built....another RCA great. Too bad they blew 
it with the POS SRR series.

Carl
KM1H


>
> Ken W7EKB
> ______________________________________________________________
> Hammarlund mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hammarlund
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Hammarlund 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
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1415 / Virus Database: 2102/4073 - Release Date: 12/10/11
>