[HBR] Blog post about HBR receivers

[Peter Bertini]

Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes by an appliance operator. He pretty much
disses all tube receivers of that era. Heck, I can find fault with many
modern radios too. Take it with a grain of salt. Anyone who completes a HBR
project will have a receiver to be proud of, and one that will still hold
its own on the bands.  Besides, it is also easy to add many improvements if
a builder is so inclined. The HBRs were each an improvement on the other;
with a goal  putting the receiver within the grasp any ham who desired to
own one.
Pete k1zjh
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Everybody,
>
> How about a little anecdotal evidence about tube receivers vs riceboxes.
> In the 80s I had an old junk station. The rx was a Hammarlund HQ145x and
> I had a Johnson Ranger (still have) and DX100 (also still have). I had
> wire antennas in the trees (still use those). A friend of mine had a
> nice Kenwood station, TS520 with extras and an R1000. He had towers and
> yagis and all the toys. One day I happened to hear a VE7 in a qso with
> him. I copied it for a little while and then moved on.
>
> Later my friend was telling me about how badly he wanted a qsl card from
> that guy but just couldn't pull him outta the noise. I gave my friend
> some fills and he got his card. I never have been envious of somebody
> else's station since. Of course I can admire whatever they may have put
> together but late, great gear isn't the be all, end all. My "inferior"
> station nicely demonstrated that.
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> HBR mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hbr
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HBR at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>