[Milsurplus] history and evolution of the Collins gear

[Bruce Gentry]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I like the comment"If you want to find them, use a Collins. If you want to listen to them,use a Hammarlund"
>   
     In my past as a broadcast engineer,  Collins equipment tended to be 
very reliable, it just sat there and worked, and made money.  Reliable, 
excellent construction, but rather bland in sound.  On the other hand,  
a classic RCA or General Electric studio console or transmitter made 
music, likewise for many Hammarlund receivers. However, RCA  and General 
Electric  never quite made it in airborne HF gear after World War  Two.  
I am very interested in finding an  RCA ARC-21 for sentimental reasons, 
but will never argue it to be better than a Collins ARC-38 or 58.  

    Bruce Gentry, KA2IVY
>
> ............................................................................
> ............................................................................
> ..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Al Klase
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 11:10 AM
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] history and evolution of the Collins gear
>
> Folks,
>
> The post-war Collins receivers were a radical departure from almost 
> everything that came before in that you could set the dial to a desired 
> frequency, and be certain you were within a kilohertz or two.
>
> "If you want to find them use a Collins.  If you want to listen to them 
> us a Hammarlund." :-)
>
> Al
>
>