View Single Post
  #17   Report Post  
Old November 2nd 11, 09:49 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors
Edward Feustel Edward Feustel is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 39
Default Hammarlund comprison HQ-145X, 170A, 180A

On 1 Nov 2011 18:14:27 -0000, Kulin Remailer
wrote:

sctvguy1 wrote:

What other radios do you think are better?


I had a couple Nationals and my friends ran homebrews and Drakes and the
occasional Collins.

The National 303 especially was a favorite. Audio was warm like Bill Haley
and the Comets on Fender tube (of course!) amps, and that heavy heavy tuning
flywheel could almost spin across the whole band with one flick of the
wrist. I believe it had 6 bandwidths from about 6K down to 250Hz. I haven't
seen a better tube CW rig ever. SWL was great on it too. They seem to be
loved by everyone who had one or ever used one. They were huge though, make
room in the shack.


What are the attributes that must be "part of better"?
Does sctvguy1 want just a receiver or will a transceiver do?
What modes does he really want to listen to, e.g., teletype, digital,
cw, ssb, am, fm? What frequency range is desirable? Would he want
VHF and UHF if he could get it? How about frequency setability?
How about a computer interface to the receiver? Does it have to have
knobs, or is a Software Defined Receiver ok? Is sensitiity more
important than selectivity? Must it look "pretty"?

Better is also a function of $. What kind of $ range is to be
considered.

Ed, N5EI