Mike M. wrote:
Hello,
How do the old tube type receivers such as the
Hammarlund ,Hallicrafter etc compare to the modern solid state
receivers in performance?
I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market.

Two separate issues.

All of the old radios are starting to show their age. Capacaitors are failing.
tubes are failing (some of the cheaper ones were not as "airtight" as people
thought), and so on. Once they are properly maintained, with replacement
capacitors, new tubes if needed, etc, they can perform as well as they
did the way they were made.

However the chance of finding an old (1930-1940's) rig that has sat on
the shelf for 30 years, turning it on, and not seeking smoke and actually
hearing anything except hum is pretty small.

There are proper ways to bring them back to life, and often they work
with few parts needing to be replaced.

As for performance, it depends upon the radio. On the lower frequencies
(below 15mHz) they should do quite well, some of the 1930's vintage rigs
tuned up to 30 or 40mHz, but were quite "deaf" there.

Since they do not have sythesizers, they are generally quiet, with low internal
noise. What they lack is filtering, although some were made with Collins
mechaincal filters (or similar ones) which are as good as or better than
their modern equivalent.

You also should, IMHO look at some of the lesser rigs too. People sat around
for hours listening to them, the way they spend time watching their plasma
TVs these days before hitting pause and switching to their email. :-)

They won't hold up well on a crowded band, but if you can find a clear signal
with little close by stations, they can be a pleasant listen.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.