[Premium-Rx] Not even close..

[Llgpt at aol.com]

Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh, the natives are restless I see.

Good points Barry, but Mac it seems has his mind made up. You won't change it. I no longer list my receivers after mysignature, because somebody always has an opinion that isn't in line with yours. YMMV

Les Locklear

In a message dated 5/22/2003 7:24:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, Barry Hauser <barry at hausernet.com> writes:

>Herschel wrote:
>
>>Webster's  dictionary sez   " PREMIUM "    exceptionally quality,
>RF-550  with a >little help possibly so..   a sum over or above a price
>regularly paid.. RF-550 I don't >think so..  A high value , or a value in
>excess of something.. RF-550 performance or >operating features are sorely
>lacking..
>
>Unfortunately "Premium" is one of those words that can mean almost anything
>and was probably chosen for lack of a better term.  It has been widely used
>in advertising and product ID.  For example -- what do they mean by "Premium
>Saltines" -- heck, it's a cracker with salt on it, right?  A premium can
>also refer to a cheap sales incentive.  Ironically, there have been many
>"premium radios" in the history of magazine subscription sales, as well as
>calculators, mugs, tote bags, etc., not to mention those things in Cracker
>Jack boxes.  So "premium" can apply to something cheap or free, not to
>mention those payments you make to the insurance company.  Unfortunately
>"premium" is not a "premium" word and doubtful if the dictionary is of much
>help.
>
>>I have a very decent Harris collection of receivers, xmitters and xcivers
>.. but it has >never even come close that any RF-550 would follow me home
>and endear a >operating place at this location..
>
>I don't know enough about this one vs. the others to know why you say this.
>A number of other listmembers apparently disagree.  I'm still fiddling
>around with this RF-550.  I can already see some pro's and con's.  I like a
>receiver with a good assortment of bandwidths for maximizing AM
>fidelity/readability according to conditions.  This thing  seems to provide
>a choice of 6khz, too narrow and too wide. It was never tops on my buy list
>due to the decadic tuning, -- I have others like R-1051's, GRC-106, and an
>R-1490. However, I was somewhat pleasantly surprised that the next
>significant digit increments after you hit 999, etc. and this one has the
>"fast" button.
>
>>I don't think they are RARE, the value is well below what we typically see
>or expect >to pay for PREMIUM receivers..
>
>Not a particularly good criterion.  RA6790GM's seem to be much more
>plentiful.  Sometimes a highly maintained, upgraded unit fails to pull $750
>on auction.  The mechanical build quality is not exceptional.  But they're
>good receivers -- I've got two.  If I'm not mistaken, some of the listed
>receivers are still in production and while up there in price, are therefore
>not exactly rare.
>
>>There is just no way I see this dog making it as a premium receiver.. cost
>, availability >or operating performance ,  it's just not there..  I vote
>NO!
>
>I dunno - a lot of others seem to disagree.  I don't have enough experience
>with this one to say, and if it fell short performance-wise, I wouldn't jump
>to any conclusions as it may be due for some maintenance.
>
>>these thoughts are my own, thus what you have paid for them, might be a
>>consideration..   mac/mc
>
>Price is probably the poorest indicator.  A five tube catalin radio with a
>big chunk out of its side pulled nearly $4,000.  A certain Hallicrafters --
>SX-88, I think -- pulls big bucks in the four figures.  It was one of their
>better receivers, but not that much better - commands a high price due to
>rarity, maybe only 500 built.  My Debeg 2000 is rare -- but not worth a
>whole heck of a lot.
>
>Original government cost?  Those numbers are way out there and not
>particularly relevant.  Maybe someone knows what it would run for a compact,
>ruggedized, schrapnel-resistant unit that can run under adverse conditions
>and stop a bullet for you?  Like a BC-312.  That's a premium receiver all
>right -- from that perspective.
>
>Quality?  That issue is also a function of reliability, service-ability and
>"when".  Some 70's and 80's equipment were populated with oodles of tantalum
>caps that failed sure as the black beauties in the tube gear of the 50's.
>Worse are those with special run IC's or once standard numbers that are
>impossible to find.  Ironically, it's the old tube gear that is still more
>serviceable and restorable 50 years later.  So, what's the situation now and
>what's it likely to be in 5 or 10 years, which is relevant to the
>quality/cost consideration?
>
>Availability?  Is scarce a criterion?  It doesn't seem so from the listinfo
>page.  Actually, that page doesn't say much.  Is there someplace else on the
>site with more detail?
>
>Functionality?  There are some high-end designs that are intentionally
>"hobbled" for reliability in actual, original application.  A number of
>Navy/maritime receivers, for example, have the mode and bandwidth set by a
>single control.  There the original objective was to prevent mistakes
>whereby the unit could be set to the correct critical frequency, but the
>mode or bandwidth would cause signals to be missed or RTTY or facsimilie to
>fail.
>
>In a sense, I agree with you.  Inclusion shouldn't be based purely on voting
>(and sentiment) -- it should still fit with a set of criteria to make sense.
>
>A solution might be to create another, companion list for receivers that
>don't quite make the cut or are arguable, but tend to be popular with the
>the Premium-RX group and very rare units that come up from time to time -
>surveillance rx's, countermeasures, propagation systems like the TRQ-35
>family.  Chances are, most list members would subscribe to both.  Maybe even
>a third one -- Premium/BC -- which is where you'd go if you were wanted some
>"premium"-type advice on a BC-348.
>
>Sorry for all the bandwidth -- must have slipped into 20 kb, er, 20 kHz.
>
>Barry
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Premium-Rx Mailing List
>To Post: premium-rx at ml.skirrow.org
>For Info: http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
>