[R-390] RE: HSR-2 vs 390a

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:34:29 -0800

Today, rejection of interference is much more important
than sensitivity.  The latter is a lot easier to
measure (that is, if you don't mind being wrong, see
the old metrology threads), which is why you see it
done so much.

There's no way a naked 6BE6 can compete with the R-390A's
image- and adjacent-channel rejection.

73,
Dave Wise

> -----Original Message-----
> From: WF2U [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 7:24 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [R-390] RE: HSR-2 vs 390a
>=20
>=20
> I can list off-hand 3 receivers of the same vintage which run=20
> rings around
> the R-390A noise floor and sensitivity-wise - this according=20
> to the product
> specifications, lab tests and actual side-by-side on the air=20
> comparison -
> with at least equivalent if not better stability and more=20
> filter options:
>=20
> 1. Rohde & Schwartz EK 07
> 2. Telefunken E 104
> 3. Siemens E 311
>=20
> On the down side, both the EK 07 and the E 104 are bigger=20
> (about 1.5 times
> the volume) and heavier than the R-390A (they were more=20
> expensive as well in
> their heyday), and much more complex and difficult to maintain.
> In a fixed, controlled environment, for weak signal reception and band
> cruising the EK 07 and E 104 are clear winners.
>=20
> The E311 is smaller and lighter than the R-390A but it's=20
> complex and not
> easy to align.
> It is however more rugged, but the mechanical-digital kHz=20
> display - like in
> the R-390A - doesn't make it a band cruiser (the MHz dial is analog
> however).
>=20
> Overall, the advantage of the R-390A is that except for the mechanical
> complexity, electrically it's simpler and would take fewer=20
> man-hours to
> repair/maintain.
> It is also more rugged under field conditions.
>=20
> Purely by performance data, the 3 receivers mentioned above=20
> are better than
> the R-390A. For overall utility and value for the given=20
> package (size and
> maintainability, the R-390A is the winner.
>=20
> I own and enjoy all of the above.
>=20
> One caveat: I'm talking about standard, as-issued, off the=20
> shelf receivers,
> and not specially tweaked, massaged, hand-selected tube=20
> packed specimens.
>=20
> 73, Meir WF2U
>=20
>=20
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	[email protected]=20
> [mailto:[email protected]]  On
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:14 AM
> To:	[email protected]
> Subject:	Re: [R-390] RE: HSR-2 vs 390a
>=20
> We all know the R-390A is a superb receiver. I am always=20
> suspicious when
> someone claims another receiver "runs rings" around the=20
> R-390A. I have never
> found
> that to be the case whenever another receiver is carefully tested
> side-by-side with a properly-aligned and properly-functioning=20
> R-390A. Visit
> Robert
> Sherwood's website for comparisons of the R-390A with other=20
> receivers under
> careful
> test conditions. 73 Todd Roberts WD4NGG.
> _______________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>=20