[R-390] Tranzeestors [WAS: photo taking]

Jerry K w5kp at hughes.net
Sun Nov 30 18:15:31 EST 2008


True, Don. But let us also not forget that if the neighborhood takes a 
close lightning hit, or the power company slings a spike down the line, 
or one of those admittedly wonderful proprietary microprocessor chips 
chokes on a stuck bit, or any of a dozen other possibilities happens, 
99% of Drake R-8x users are unequivocally and totally screwed. At least, 
that is, until he or she sends it off to Drake and waits some number of 
weeks for the receiver and the repair bill to be shipped back to 
him--said bill likely being roughly equal to the cost of an entire 
R-390A. Conversely, many, or even most, R-390A users can troubleshoot 
down to the component and repair a specific problem in hours, if not 
minutes.

I have owned and used several different types of Racal, Drake, and 
Harris "modern" receivers, all of which were great in their own way, and 
all of which I ultimately sold off mainly because I want to be able to 
troubleshoot and repair my equipment in my own shop, using my test 
equipment. It's a nice feeling afterwards to have done that--certainly a 
much nicer feeling than writing a big check to a repair facility.

Best regards, Jerry W5KP



2002tii wrote:
> Tell you what, though, I have a 390A on the same antenna as a Drake 
> R8B, and there isn't a signal I've heard in the last 5 years (since I 
> got the Drake) that is better in any respect on the 390A.  But many 
> signals are hugely better on the Drake because of its synchronous 
> detector, selectable sideband (USB/LSB/DSB) AM operation, passband 
> shift, and impressive notch filter.  Not to mention the improvement in 
> the suppressed-carrier modes, but that's not really fair because the 
> 390A isn't designed for that in the first place.  Ditto FM.  The Drake 
> sounds much better, too, with its LC IF filters, plus it has real bass 
> response and the AGC works better.  Even using the 390A with a 
> Sherwood SE-3, the Drake easily beats it.  It is also quieter than the 
> 390A.  Then there's the ease of operation -- the Drake is no more than 
> 5 seconds away from any signal, in any mode, from 10 kHz to 30 MHz.  
> And finally, the Drake has no artifacts from my three very close MW 
> stations (two in the 0 to -5 dBm range and one at about -10 dBm off my 
> antenna), even with the preamp on, while the 390A shows some front end 
> nonlinearity.
>
> And a 6-year-old girl can tuck the Drake under her arm and walk away 
> with it!
>
> The 390A is a great radio, but technology hasn't stood still these 
> last 60 years.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Don
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>


More information about the R-390 mailing list