[R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A

[wb5uom at hughes.net]

I know that when my CV-591 went on the blink, I put the Drake R8B in its
place on the R-390A and it worked like a champ, almost to the point of
forgetting about the CV
Actually, I have pressed into operation on of my Racal 6217A's for the same
purpose on a second R-390A , and it is doing well too.

David/ WB5UOM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cecil Acuff" <chacuff at cableone.net>
To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>; "2002tii" <bmw2002tii at nerdshack.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A


> Hi Don,
>
> I guess many of us are just not as demanding...and I approached this from
> the perspective that it is the best of what is commercially available at
the
> moment.  There's no question that a better box is within the realm of
design
> but nobody has stepped forward with one that they are willing to build or
> kit for the receiver enthusiast.  Even most AM Sync detectors included in
> commercially available receivers are lacking in performance.  The Drake
R8B
> being one of the best...but it's not in production.  The Icom R-75 is a
good
> radio but the AM Sync detector is flawed right out of the gate...and with
> mods barely approaches the Drake.  That said using most of these radio's
for
> IF/Detector/Audio sections for the R-390 series comes with the limitations
> contained in the radio selected.   They all cost as much or more, new or
> used than the SE-3.  But that said they are all better performers at AM
Sync
> detection and SSB then the R-390 alone...or even with the simple mods like
> the two diode deal and or AGC mods.
>
> At least that's my oppinion...
>
> Hope you all had a Merry Christmas and the next week off..HA!
>
> Cecil...
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "2002tii" <bmw2002tii at nerdshack.com>
> To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 10:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A
>
>
> > Regarding my comments about the SE-3, Cecil wrote:
> >
> >>that is not at all the experience I have seen nor heard from a local
> >>that used one for a very long time.
> >
> > All the ones I've seen perform similarly.  Some folks may have
> > tighter temperature control in their shacks than I do, so the lack of
> > temperature compensation may not be a practical problem for some
> > users.  However, the need for manual guidance (intolerable in a PLL
> > demodulator, IMO) is no secret -- it is described on the
> > manufacturer's web site.
> >
> > I've designed and built more than a few different PLL detectors over
> > the last 30 years, and the worst of the bunch performed a lot
> > better.  There are also commercial designs that perform well.  I
> > think the folks who sing the SE-3s praises do so simply because they
> > haven't used a PLL detector that works as one could (and
> > should).  Horse-drawn buggies must seem really fast to someone who
> > hasn't ever seen a car.  If an SE-3 fills someone's needs, fine -- 
> > but it is far from the best that can be done, and the price is
> > outlandish (IMO) in light of this shortfall.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > R-390 mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>