"Roadie" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 5, 6:02 pm, "SWL-2010" wrote:
"Roadie" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 5, 10:52 am, Count
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:37:55 UTC, "Roadie" wrote:
On Apr 4, 7:29 pm, (Michael Black) wrote:
"SWL-2010" ) writes:
I havn't had time to sit down and tune it much yet, but so
far so
good. I
can't detect any drift to amount to anything. The sound is
great.
The two
tone controls make it rich, or flat, any way you want it. And
so
far, like
my older S350, the sensitivity is very good. I've used my S350
a
great deal,
so I thought I would get the newer verision since the price
was
right at
only a hundred bucks.
What some people forget is what it was like to have a low end
receiver
forty years or so ago.
I bought a Hallicrafter's S120A (as I've mentioned before, it
was a
solid
state receiver) in the summer of 1971, and paid something like
$80,
maybe a
bit more, here in Canada. It was about the cheapest new
receiver I
could
buy, and it was barely within my price range.
It got the really strong signals, and not much else. It
overloaded
badly,
it seemed to be from FM broadcast stations or maybe TV. The BFO
was
so
weak that it wasn't useable for receiving SSB. The dial had all
kinds of
exotic locations listed on it, but not only was the calibration
way
off,
but frequency readout was like "it's closer to the .5 than the
..0
mark".
It had horrible backlash on the tuning knob. It was awful.
I claim it was the world's worst shortwave receiver, but I
suspect
it
wasn't that different from many of the low end solid state
receivers
from
the period, before real advancements had been made in making
good
solid
state shortwave receivers. We suffered through them because we
couldn't
afford anything better.
I imagine a $20 shortwave portable from Radio Shack today
couldn't
be
worse than that old Hallicrafter's. Plus, you'd get a digital
readout,
and likely the tuning knob (if it wasn't tuned by up/down
buttons)
would
have less backlash than that first receiver of mine.
That doesn't mean that relative to better receivers of today the
low
end are perfect, merely that they can't be worse, and may be
better
for the simple reason that design has changed.
Michael
I think an old Hallicrafters S120A, Lafayette HA230 or Realistic
DX150b are good examples of radios that were for very good reasons
popular once upon a time. They can be fun to spin the dials on
even
today. Ultimately however, I think they serve as a benchmark from
which to measure how far radio technology has advanced.
It would not be difficult to find a digitally tuned portable
priced at
$50.00 to $100.00 that will substantially out perform any of those
oldies. But it won't look or feel like a bandspread tuned receiver
either, and it won't give the tactile and aural pleasure of
slowly
turning a weighted bandspread knob and listening carefully as
stations
gradually come into and out of tune. Eventually, when finding a
specific station or jumping from band to band goes to slowly the
game
gets a little old.
My first sw radio was an S-120, my mother got it for me for
Christmas
at Sears. It was terrible on accuracy, not very selective, but when
you are 12 years old, hearing world stations was exciting. I think
that I got over 40 countries QSL'd and many states(from OK at the
time). Now, I have two restored boatanchors: An S-38 and its bigger
twin, a Lafayette HE-10, both provide the experience you mention:
the
fun of seeing the old dial lamps and turning the big dials looking
for
that elusive station.
--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Probably the most satisfaction I got from tuning a bandspread receiver
was with a Kenwood R300. It just felt good to look at and use and it
did the job reasonably well. And the xtal marker helped in some
situations.
A Kenwood R-300? I have one sitting right next to me right now. It's one
of
my favorites. It's a big beautiful old black receiver in very good
condition, and I use it everyday. It has plenty of controls, and if you
get
it calibrated just right, mine is pretty accurate. But the sensitivity
is
the great part. Mine doesn't miss anything. I also use my old Drake
SSR-1 a
lot too. The Wadley Loop is very accurate. All you do is set the band
switch. Tune in the MHz, and then just tune the main tuning dial for
KHz,
and it's right there. It's in very good condition too. I use the
Kenwood
and the Drake when I just want to slowly go up and down bands. I could
not
even say how enjoyable they are.
Hey, it's good to find someone else who has used an R300. Mine worked
great for about 2 years then the bandswitch started to go south. I
called a guy at the then local Kenwood repair depot and he said the
only real fix was to replace the long out of stock switch. So the
R300 was retired.
But it sure was a lot of fun to use. Mine had the SWL bandspread
drum.
Mine has the amatuer bandspread drum, but it is still usable to set up the
main tuner. The guy I bought it from said he had a hard time finding a buyer
because most guys had no idea how to tune the radio, so, I got it for a
decent price. And you're right, it is just plain fun to use.
I owned a National HRO-500 for a while, and turning that massive bank-
vault tuning knob was unadulterated pleasure. It was a royal PITA to
tune and otherwise move around the bands with though.
I've never tuned a National, but I would love to.
It's an impressive looking unit, and their first fully transistorized
unit. It was surprisingly compact and lightweight. Had 4 filters,
frequency synthesizer, passband tuning and dial resolution to 1khz.
Sold new for the princely sum of $3,000 in the 1960's. I understand
that repair and alignment was quite complex.
That sounds like a fine radio. I didn't know they were that feature rich.
I always knew the National HRO's were expensive, and when I look at E-bay
listings, they still go for a lot of money.
I have several hobbies, but SWL is still my favorite
Here's a borrowed shot:
http://www.rigpix.com/national/hro500.jpg
Oh boy! I love the looks of that! I love that style receiver. A few years
back I had a pair of Allied receivers. One was an AX-190, the other was an
SX-190, both had seperate speakers, and were styed similar to the National.
They had the center dial, and controls to the left and right. I loved that
pair of receivers, and sometimes I wish I would have never sold them. They
were not on the same level of the national of course, but they were
beautiful, and not bad performers either. But that National HRO...WOW, now
thats a radio! I would love to have that.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -