What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

Nomad wrote:
Actually the Collins designed R-388/51J series of receivers was a
predecessor design to the Collins designed R390A. See:

http://www.r-390a.net/


I had a 51J-3 & sold it because it was not in the same league as my
R390A. IMHO, my HRO's, Hammarlund Super Pro & Drakes all outperformed
the 51J by considerable margins.

The 51J is a good looking radio though. But IMO the performance doesn't
live up to the looks & the mistique.


I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
 

Chuck Harris wrote:

What you could do, is put some of your favorite diodes in a metal can,
and install them after your radio has died from EMP. Something which
will never happen anyway.

Probably not due to nuclear effects, but I have sadly seen lots of radio
gear destroyed by RF on grounds from nearby transmitters when antenna lines
failed. Not to mention my personal favorite, the radar that wasn't supposed
to be pointed toward the radio shack. The R-390 wouldn't be damaged by
that... hell, the front end probably wouldn't even overload....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

Richard Knoppow wrote:

I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?

Selectivity. The crystal filter really stinks, compared with the Collins
mechanical filters.

I had a 51J for a few years and traded it up for an R-390. Ergonomically
I liked the sliderule tuning on the 51J more, and the audio quality was
better, but the mechanical filters on the R-390 were a lifesaver.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
 

On 1/9/07 6:58 AM, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

Richard Knoppow wrote:

I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?

I had the experience of using a new 51J4 along side a new TMC GPR90 in the
late 50's. I loved them both, but I always had better ability to pull out a
readable signal with the GPR90. For specific meet schedules I always
started with the 51J4, because of it's freq accuracy. These were used for
both the ham bands, and for commercial service. We also had the best of
test equipment, so I did run s/n tests on them. I don't recall the numbers,
but the GPR90 was better. Just as I love the SX28 for it's looks and
warmth, I loved the GPR90 for it's. With room lights turned down, it was a
beauty. The 51J4 is cold.

Just FYI, I also had full-time use of a new TMC GPT750 transmitter. There
was nothing not to love about it, either. My little CE 10B could easily
drive it to the max, but I preferred to run it barefoot.

Don


Selectivity. The crystal filter really stinks, compared with the Collins
mechanical filters.

I had a 51J for a few years and traded it up for an R-390. Ergonomically
I liked the sliderule tuning on the 51J more, and the audio quality was
better, but the mechanical filters on the R-390 were a lifesaver.
--scott

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

On 8 Jan 2007 15:28:36 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Stan Barr wrote:

Yeah, true. I regularly transmit on, say, 3.5MHz while one of the receivers
is tuned to Shanwick AT control on 5.599 without any problem, but then
that's a bigger separation and I'm only running a few watts normally.

That brings to mind... I have been listening to Shanwick weather recently,
just below 80M. Do they welcome reception reports?

I don't know, but I imagine they get a few. They probably have a
website.



--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)

The future was never like this!

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:10:25 -0500, Chuck Harris
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,

Any reason why a 1N4007 wouldn't be happy in there?

Well, yes. When functioning as a demodulator, the diodes take the
IF frequency (455KHz), and the BFO frequency (453.65/456.35KHz), and
make audio. When functioning as a modulator, the diodes take the
audio, and the BFO frequency, and make modulated IF.

A 1N4007 cannot switch at even audio rates, let alone at 455KHz.

You could always try a "vaccuum state" diode such as a 6AL5...

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)

The future was never like this!

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

Stan Barr ) writes:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:10:25 -0500, Chuck Harris
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,

Any reason why a 1N4007 wouldn't be happy in there?

Well, yes. When functioning as a demodulator, the diodes take the
IF frequency (455KHz), and the BFO frequency (453.65/456.35KHz), and
make audio. When functioning as a modulator, the diodes take the
audio, and the BFO frequency, and make modulated IF.

A 1N4007 cannot switch at even audio rates, let alone at 455KHz.

You could always try a "vaccuum state" diode such as a 6AL5...

Of course, Collins likely had a good reason for using solid state
diodes there.

Far lower current consumption would be one thing.

The semiconductor diodes also make it smaller.

But also balance. I'm sure it's far easier to keep a balanced modulator
balanced when using semiconductor diodes than two tubes each supplying
two diodes.

Michael VE2BVW

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
 

On 1/9/07 10:32 AM, in article
l, "Stan Barr"
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:10:25 -0500, Chuck Harris
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,

Any reason why a 1N4007 wouldn't be happy in there?

Well, yes. When functioning as a demodulator, the diodes take the

Splitting hairs, if the diodes were in a ckt such as a "ring modulator"
where they functioned as a product detector, then they *were* a demodulator,
but most diode detectors were just envelope detectors.


IF frequency (455KHz), and the BFO frequency (453.65/456.35KHz), and
make audio. When functioning as a modulator, the diodes take the
audio, and the BFO frequency, and make modulated IF.

A 1N4007 cannot switch at even audio rates, let alone at 455KHz.

You could always try a "vaccuum state" diode such as a 6AL5...

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
 

On 1/9/07 10:44 AM, in article , "Michael Black"
wrote:

Stan Barr ) writes:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:10:25 -0500, Chuck Harris

wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,

Any reason why a 1N4007 wouldn't be happy in there?

Well, yes. When functioning as a demodulator, the diodes take the
IF frequency (455KHz), and the BFO frequency (453.65/456.35KHz), and
make audio. When functioning as a modulator, the diodes take the
audio, and the BFO frequency, and make modulated IF.

A 1N4007 cannot switch at even audio rates, let alone at 455KHz.

You could always try a "vaccuum state" diode such as a 6AL5...

Of course, Collins likely had a good reason for using solid state
diodes there.

Far lower current consumption would be one thing.

The semiconductor diodes also make it smaller.

But also balance. I'm sure it's far easier to keep a balanced modulator
balanced when using semiconductor diodes than two tubes each supplying
two diodes.

Michael VE2BVW



If you were to use any tubes at all, it would be best to use one tube akin
to the 6be6, hang the oscillator and the product detector ckts on it, and
have the advantage of getting conversion gain instead of loss.

Don

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
 

Don Bowey wrote:
On 1/9/07 10:32 AM, in article
l, "Stan Barr"
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:10:25 -0500, Chuck Harris
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
Any reason why a 1N4007 wouldn't be happy in there?
Well, yes. When functioning as a demodulator, the diodes take the

Splitting hairs, if the diodes were in a ckt such as a "ring modulator"
where they functioned as a product detector, then they *were* a demodulator,
but most diode detectors were just envelope detectors.

How so? The diodes in a KWM2/2A are used as a ring modulator, and
work just as I described below. A 1N4007 would not be capable of
working that way at 455KHz.



IF frequency (455KHz), and the BFO frequency (453.65/456.35KHz), and
make audio. When functioning as a modulator, the diodes take the
audio, and the BFO frequency, and make modulated IF.

A 1N4007 cannot switch at even audio rates, let alone at 455KHz.
You could always try a "vaccuum state" diode such as a 6AL5...

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

Don Bowey ) writes:

But also balance. I'm sure it's far easier to keep a balanced modulator
balanced when using semiconductor diodes than two tubes each supplying
two diodes.

Michael VE2BVW



If you were to use any tubes at all, it would be best to use one tube akin
to the 6be6, hang the oscillator and the product detector ckts on it, and
have the advantage of getting conversion gain instead of loss.

Don


I'd thought of that after I posted. It's easy to lose track of things,
and really, the 6AL5 suggestion was that.

Yes, once you take out the semiconductor diodes, there are better ways
of solving the problem than putting in tube diodes.

On the other hand, it's easier to imagine someone modifying the KWM-2
than the R390, which proves the point of whoever suggested the KWM-2.

Michael VE2BVW

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

"C. J. Clegg" wrote in message
...

Looking for the best all-tube general-coverage (0.5-30) receiver I can
get.

Need good operation on SSB and CW and capability on AM, along with
sensitivity, stability, ruggedness, and availability of replacement parts
e.g. tubes (that last one might be difficult...).

I'm thinking Collins 51Jx or R-390, although I remember that I really
liked an old Hammarlund I had once...

Would like to stay under $1000 but if I had to I suppose I could go as
high as $2000 for something that's really mint.

What do you guys recommend I look for?


AN\FRR-59

RA17

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

Richard Knoppow wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Actually the Collins designed R-388/51J series of receivers was a
predecessor design to the Collins designed R390A. See:

I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles

I had the 51J-3/R388 so I can't speak to the J-4 which has the
mechanical filters.

I always wanted one of these as a mate to my 32V2. I always thought
that they looked like the quintessential boatanchor receiver.

The max bandwidth on mine (6KC) wasn't really wide enough for great
audio on AM
& with no product detector, it was not good for SSB. Compared to my
Super Pro (SP210), HRO's & even the Drake it had the worst audio.

Selectivity choices were limited.

Stability was excellent & that was really the radio's strong point.
Band cruising was a PITA. Lots & lots of knob turning required to get
from the low end of 160 to the high end of 10 meters.

My Drake R4A was much better for SSB, had better selectivity, was
equally stable & had better audio.
My Super Pro has far superior AM audio, a wide bandwidth choice for
HiFi AM & is a better SW bandcruiser. Same for the HRO's + the HRO's
are now my choice as the best looking boatanchor receiver with that big
round dial.

Bottom line the 51J couldn't do AM or SSB as well as my other radios, &
wasn't much fun for SW either. So out it went.

Now the R390A, that's another story entirely. Finally got one of these
recently & i find it to be a great radio. It can hear better than any
radio I've used (noise floor is lowest ever measured I believe -
143db), has 6 levels of selectivity (up to 16kc), mechanical filters,
great stability, & does great audio through the outboard HiFi.
Mechanical digital dial accuracy
& with an add on product detector it does SSB.


Terry
W8EJO

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

Seems like the R-390 has been left out. No, I do not mean the R-390A. The
R-390A was designed to be a lsee expensive version of the R-390.

The R-390 uses LC filters, which can yield better audio than the 390A, with
the mechanical filters. The mechanical filters also inserted a phase shift
of the signal.

Best to have one of each.

Colin K7FM

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

I really like all the R-388 receivers that I've had.
All worked right off the bat with no repairs, etc.
I still use on for 10 meter AM.
Easy to use!
Rich WA2RQY/4

On Jan 7, 1:54 am, "C. J. Clegg" wrote:
Looking for the best all-tube general-coverage (0.5-30) receiver I can
get.

Need good operation on SSB and CW and capability on AM, along with
sensitivity, stability, ruggedness, and availability of replacement parts
e.g. tubes (that last one might be difficult...).

I'm thinking Collins 51Jx or R-390, although I remember that I really
liked an old Hammarlund I had once...

Would like to stay under $1000 but if I had to I suppose I could go as
high as $2000 for something that's really mint.

What do you guys recommend I look for?

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

r390, r390a or sp600. They're survivors built like tanks,. The rest was ham
stuff not built for the long haul.


"C. J. Clegg" wrote in message
...

Looking for the best all-tube general-coverage (0.5-30) receiver I can
get.

Need good operation on SSB and CW and capability on AM, along with
sensitivity, stability, ruggedness, and availability of replacement parts
e.g. tubes (that last one might be difficult...).

I'm thinking Collins 51Jx or R-390, although I remember that I really
liked an old Hammarlund I had once...

Would like to stay under $1000 but if I had to I suppose I could go as
high as $2000 for something that's really mint.

What do you guys recommend I look for?

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:54:11 -0500, C. J. Clegg wrote:


Looking for the best all-tube general-coverage (0.5-30) receiver I can
get.

Need good operation on SSB and CW and capability on AM, along with
sensitivity, stability, ruggedness, and availability of replacement parts
e.g. tubes (that last one might be difficult...).

I'm thinking Collins 51Jx or R-390, although I remember that I really
liked an old Hammarlund I had once...

Would like to stay under $1000 but if I had to I suppose I could go as
high as $2000 for something that's really mint.

What do you guys recommend I look for?

I have 2 in mind: the Rohde & Schwartz EK-07 - It works great on SSB as
well, but R & S made a sideband adaptor for it, and the Siemens E311,
which has a built-in product detector and selectable sidebands. It is the
last generation of high-end professional receivers with tubes.
The EK-07 outperforms the R-390A, but it's more complicated to service.
The Racal RA-17 or RA-117 are not bad, but not as good as the first two I
mentioned.

73, Meir WF2U

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

While the Rohde & Schwarz stuff is legendary (there is also the EK11-10
which has USB/LSB operation), it is also difficult to service and hard
to find.

This cannot be said of the R390A, but just in case, you might get two
of them and then be able to troubleshoot (and keep it up and running)
by swapping modules. The rx has the added advantage of having a large
devoted following, with ensuing mailing lists, documentation,
availability of tubes and spares, friendly help, etc. And then add the
Sherwood Engineering SE-3 Synchronous Detector to it for great SSB and
general listening pleasure.

It would also be good at handling transient peaks, as well as stable
enough to run RTTY and other utility modes.

My 0.10 Euro...

Best,

Clemens S.Ostergaard
Aarhus, Denmark

PS: Of course there is also the robust Chinese tube receiver 339 from
1976, being offered NOS over ebay, and getting a good review in E-ham.

And the Eddystone 880/2 is a superior tube receiver, which is so
intensely screened and doublescreened that nothing gets in (or out)
except through mains and antenna.


Meir Ben-Dror wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:54:11 -0500, C. J. Clegg wrote:


Looking for the best all-tube general-coverage (0.5-30) receiver I can
get.

Need good operation on SSB and CW and capability on AM, along with
sensitivity, stability, ruggedness, and availability of replacement parts
e.g. tubes (that last one might be difficult...).

I'm thinking Collins 51Jx or R-390, although I remember that I really
liked an old Hammarlund I had once...

Would like to stay under $1000 but if I had to I suppose I could go as
high as $2000 for something that's really mint.

What do you guys recommend I look for?

I have 2 in mind: the Rohde & Schwartz EK-07 - It works great on SSB as
well, but R & S made a sideband adaptor for it, and the Siemens E311,
which has a built-in product detector and selectable sidebands. It is the
last generation of high-end professional receivers with tubes.
The EK-07 outperforms the R-390A, but it's more complicated to service.
The Racal RA-17 or RA-117 are not bad, but not as good as the first two I
mentioned.

73, Meir WF2U

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

There's also that big National receiver that has umpteen dozen tubes in
it,
shipboard, it's a monster.

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

found the name: AN/WRR-2

Don't see many of those on ebay.

On Jan 25, 10:56 am, " wrote:
There's also that big National receiver that has umpteen dozen tubes in
it,
shipboard, it's a monster.

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

" ) writes:
found the name: AN/WRR-2

Don't see many of those on ebay.

Isn't that the one that used subminiature tubes? The one I'm thinking of
was pretty fancy, I never saw one up close, but I thought it did. And while
getting tubes doesn't seem to be a problem, subminiatures might be given
they never saw the same useage even in the old days.

Michael VE2BVW

On Jan 25, 10:56 am, " wrote:
There's also that big National receiver that has umpteen dozen tubes in
it,
shipboard, it's a monster.

What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
 

It had about 65 tubes, came in two parts and was a horror to maintain.
There is absolutely no good reason to mention it in this thread, I am
afraid :-). The Navy did not like its performance either. It does
sometimes come up for sale, but not at any high price. Postage and
Packing problems means that it is not a typical ebay item.

Clemens

On Jan 25, 8:08 pm, (Michael Black) wrote:
" ) writes:
found the name: AN/WRR-2

Don't see many of those on ebay.Isn't that the one that used subminiature tubes? The one I'm thinking of
was pretty fancy, I never saw one up close, but I thought it did. And while
getting tubes doesn't seem to be a problem, subminiatures might be given
they never saw the same useage even in the old days.

Michael VE2BVW

On Jan 25, 10:56 am, " wrote:
There's also that big National receiver that has umpteen dozen tubes in
it,
shipboard, it's a monster.