[Premium-Rx] Not even close..

Thu May 22 10:56:46 EDT 2003

a good idea....a second "Semi-Premium" Receiver list....but then it could
get really long really fast.  But, you could just dump names in there and
leave it be.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Hauser" <barry at hausernet.com>
To: "Herschel McCullough" <w5mc at austin.rr.com>; <premium-rx at ml.skirrow.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Premium-Rx] Not even close..


> 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
>