"COLIN LAMB" wrote in message
...
I have always wondered if Hallicrafters was responsible for
much more than we give it credit for. Originally, SX meant
that it was a Hallicrafters with a crystal filter, which
was the deluxe model.

I think Hallicrafters became the model for manufacturers
in Japan, and some of the early Japanese radio successes
used X in their model number. Then, when cars came out,
many had X or SX in the name. Perhaps these model numbers
can be traced back to the success of the Hallicrafters
line?

73, Colin K7FM Newberg, Oregon
Well, Kodak also liked X in names, usually indicating
an improvement. An example is the developer Microdol-X.
Originally called just Microdol an anti silvering agent was
added to prevent a sort of fog common in very fine grain
developers and the X added to the name. RCA did rather the
same thing, examples are the 77-D and 44-B microphones
released in improved models with an X added.
I think Hallicrafters was a master of marketing. Bill
Halligan found a niche in making affordable equipment for
hams and SWLs. The stuff always looked well styled.
Originally he used names like Skyrider. That's what the S in
the model numbers means. The SX-28 was a Super-Skyrider with
crystal filter. Hallicrafters also used some advanced
technology in a couple of places like the Lamb noise blanker
in the SX-28. Unfortunately, it didn't work very well in
that embodyment although similar noise blankers with
separate noise antennas did work well in other applications,
for instance the blanker supplied for the Collins KWM-2
transceiver.
Hallicrafters was also one of the first companies to
produce single side band equipment for the amateur.
I think sometimes features got ahead of performance. I
have somewhere (I wish I could find it) a WW-2 vintage
military communications technical manual which has a survey
of some available receivers in it. There are charts showing
spurious responses of three or four receivers. Among them
are the SX-28 in its military guise and the SPX-200
Super-Pro. The Super Pro chart has perhaps two spurs, namely
the expected image responses while the SX-28 chart looks
like a cornfield. Of course the Super-Pro cost almost twice
as much as the SX-28. BTW, the X in SPX also means it had a
crystal filter, which was optional although I've never seen
a Super-Pro without one.
BTW, I wonder if anyone out there has had experience
with the Hallicrafters version of the SP-600? I am curious
how its performance compares with the original.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA