[R-390] Broke 390 latest

[rbethman@comcast.net]

Okay,

    I'm NOT going down the path of one vs the other.

    BUT, I have a question for Walter.  (And it MAY have interest for others
as well!)

    Would it be possible to modify the R-390A (DON'T SCREAM YET FOLKS.....)
to incorporate "I especially love the MED (medium) "audio response" position
on the non-A, which the "cost-cutting" A model left out."?

Curious.....

Bob - N0DGN  Craf-T-Bob  (Because I love Hallicrafters!)
R-390A EAC '67, R-390A Collins '52, BC-610I, BC-939B,
and BC-614E

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Wilson"
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 16:50 PM
Subject: Re: [R-390] Broke 390 latest


> > Oh I forgot, as to what you should do with the 390.  Sell it and get
> > your 390a back if you can!
>
> Now there you go trying to start some trouble.  Now everyone will pitch in
> with their opinion of the R-390 versus R-390A.  You'll hear opinions from
> both sides, probably, so here's mine:
>
> I've worked on a LOT more R-390A receivers than R-390.  I know a lot more
> about how to tweak and tune and fix the A model.  I feel like I can do a
> good job on just about any R-390A, but don't have that same level of
> confidence (yet) on the non-A.  BUT, here's the kicker.  I have one non-A
> that I've worked with, and it has BETTER performance than my best A model
in
> both SENSITIVITY and AUDIO QUALITY.  Get in a tight band listening to AM
> with some SSB signals nearby, and the mechanical filters in the A model
will
> put it a step ahead.  But on a normal night, the non-A wins in my book
EVERY
> time.  I especially love the MED (medium) "audio response" position on the
> non-A, which the "cost-cutting" A model left out.
>
> OK.  I'll crawl back in my hole now, but you got me stirred up.
>
> Walter Wilson - KK4DF
> http://r-390a.us
> (REAL Radios: R-390A, R-390, T-368E, Ranger, Thunderbolt, KWM-2A)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> R-390@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390