On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:28:57 -0000, Steve H mycalland remove the blank@arrl .net wrote in :
"C. J. Clegg" wrote in message
news

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?

Have a look on ebay for a RACAL RA17 , they tend to go cheaply as there are
so many about. No problem with replacement valves.

My correspondent in .UK who has an RA-17 _loves_ it. He has had various
other fairly-good RXes, including at least one Collins 51J, but thinks
his RA-17 beats them all hollow. Look up "Wadley loop"[1] for insight
into why the RA-17 is pretty darned stable.

Or simply look at
http://www.televideo.ws/wadley.html,
http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/b_wadley.html, and
http://www.qsl.net/n4xy/rcvr_racal.html
for a start.

If I had house space for an RA-17, I'd be looking for one -- to go
with the R-390, 2 R-390A, FRG-100, DEBEG 2000, RA-6217E, ITT/Mackay
3020, and the ricebox appliances.

[1] With the quotes this time.

--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO

Tired old sysadmin

Mike Andrews wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:28:57 -0000, Steve H mycalland remove the blank@arrl
.net wrote in :

Have a look on ebay for a RACAL RA17 , they tend to go cheaply as there are
so many about. No problem with replacement valves.

My correspondent in .UK who has an RA-17 _loves_ it. He has had various
other fairly-good RXes, including at least one Collins 51J, but thinks
his RA-17 beats them all hollow. Look up "Wadley loop"[1] for insight
into why the RA-17 is pretty darned stable.

Or simply look at
http://www.televideo.ws/wadley.html,
http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/b_wadley.html, and
http://www.qsl.net/n4xy/rcvr_racal.html
for a start.

Yes, the Racal receivers are definitely nice, and good performers.
I have a RA2617D, which is a solid state version of the RA17. It
uses the same Wadley loop to create the 1 MHz hetrodynes that do
the conversions for the 1 MHz bands. It is an interesting way of
gaining stability from the hetrodyne conversions without requiring
the hetrodyne oscillator to be especially accurate, or stable.

-Chuck

The relatively inexpensive Yaesu FRG-7 also uses the Wadley loop. It's
an excellent performer for the price (although solid state).

Terry
W8EJO


Chuck Harris wrote:
Mike Andrews wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:28:57 -0000, Steve H mycalland remove the blank@arrl
.net wrote in :

Have a look on ebay for a RACAL RA17 , they tend to go cheaply as there are
so many about. No problem with replacement valves.

My correspondent in .UK who has an RA-17 _loves_ it. He has had various
other fairly-good RXes, including at least one Collins 51J, but thinks
his RA-17 beats them all hollow. Look up "Wadley loop"[1] for insight
into why the RA-17 is pretty darned stable.

Or simply look at
http://www.televideo.ws/wadley.html,
http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/b_wadley.html, and
http://www.qsl.net/n4xy/rcvr_racal.html
for a start.

Yes, the Racal receivers are definitely nice, and good performers.
I have a RA2617D, which is a solid state version of the RA17. It
uses the same Wadley loop to create the 1 MHz hetrodynes that do
the conversions for the 1 MHz bands. It is an interesting way of
gaining stability from the hetrodyne conversions without requiring
the hetrodyne oscillator to be especially accurate, or stable.

-Chuck

On 7 Jan 2007 10:15:35 -0800, Nomad wrote:
The relatively inexpensive Yaesu FRG-7 also uses the Wadley loop. It's
an excellent performer for the price (although solid state).

Somebody once wrote about them that Yaesu were so pleased at getting the
Barlow-Wadley loop working in solid-state that they forgot to give the
receiver any rf performance :-)

There's a whole raft of mods to bring it up to scratch though...
--
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!

My 2 cents:

Most of the best older tube receivers (R390, R390A, National HRO's,
Hammurlund Super Pro's) did not have built in product detectors for SSB
reception. You will have to add a product detector if you buy one of
those. Product detectors can be had for under $200.

The best of the group is the R390A.

I own the R390A, & the HRO-50, HRO-60 & the SP210 Super Pro.
All are excellent receivers. The HRO's use plug in coils which makes
changing bands a P.I.T.A. The HRO's & the Super Pro have great audio,
but the R390A is a much better all around receiver. It (R390A) is a
pain to work on however.

Another good receiver is the National NC183D, but again, no product
detector for SSB.

For a tube radio that does it all out of the box, I'd vote for the
Drake R4A or R4B with auxillary crystals for your SW frequencies of
interest, or an add-on FS-4 frequency synthesizer. They provide
excellent out of the box reception on AM, SSB & CW. They are stable,
have 4 stages of selectivity & provide passband tuning.

As far as tubes are concerned, not to worry. There are literally
millions of tubes available either NOS (new old stock) or used from
many many suppliers.

I don't think you have to spend $2,000 for a very good radio. A top
condition R390A, with an add-on product detector should cost you $1,000
or less.


A minty R4A or R4B all crystalled up will go for around $300-$400. An
FS-4 frequency synthesizer for the Drake will be in the $400 range.


Terry
W8EJO


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?

One more thought, check the reviews of many receivers he

http://www.eham.net/reviews/products/54

and

http://www.eham.net/reviews/products/82

and

http://amfone.net/ECSound/JNRECS.html

The last by John, W3JN, (one of the real tube radio experts) is written
specifically for AM mode.


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?

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?


Virtually all of the high end military vacuum tube boat anchors were
designed before SSB became common. They require an external converter
or the addition of a product detector and AGC mods to work properly.
The only receivers I can think of that meet your requirements are the
Hammarlund HQ-180 and the National NC-400. The 180 is quite common but
the 400 is very rare and pricey.

Regards, Roger

--
Remove tilde (~) to reply

Remember the USS Liberty (AGTR-5)
http://ussliberty.org/

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 09:26:41 -0500, Roger D Johnson wrote:

Virtually all of the high end military vacuum tube boat anchors were
designed before SSB became common. They require an external converter
or the addition of a product detector and AGC mods to work properly.

My Racal RA-17 works fine on SSB, you just have to remember to adjust the
attenuator and/or IF gain to stop the detector overloading. Agc is
switchable for short/long time constant. There are external ssb and isb
adapters, the set has connectors for one, but I've not found one yet...

--
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!

Stan Barr wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 09:26:41 -0500, Roger D Johnson wrote:

Virtually all of the high end military vacuum tube boat anchors were
designed before SSB became common. They require an external converter
or the addition of a product detector and AGC mods to work properly.

My Racal RA-17 works fine on SSB, you just have to remember to adjust the
attenuator and/or IF gain to stop the detector overloading. Agc is
switchable for short/long time constant. There are external ssb and isb
adapters, the set has connectors for one, but I've not found one yet...

I'll put a good word in for the RA-17 as well. Ergonomically I think it's
a little better than the R-390A, and it's a lot easier to work on, though
I don't think the RF performance as good.

On the other hand, it's a lot better than the newer solid-state Racal
receivers. I was really shocked to compare the R-17 with an R-1750
on a marine install... CW stuff that was easy to copy on the R-17 was
down in the noise floor on the newer receiver.
--scott

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

On 7 Jan 2007 13:43:22 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I'll put a good word in for the RA-17 as well. Ergonomically I think it's
a little better than the R-390A, and it's a lot easier to work on, though
I don't think the RF performance as good.

There's no doubt the 390 has better if filters than the Racal.


On the other hand, it's a lot better than the newer solid-state Racal
receivers. I was really shocked to compare the R-17 with an R-1750
on a marine install... CW stuff that was easy to copy on the R-17 was
down in the noise floor on the newer receiver.

My RA-17 is racked up with a RA-1792, (synthesised solid-state, mine has
provision for remote control and modified eproms to allow tuning down to
0Hz!) the 1792 has better performance than the 17 but I still prefer
the older rx for general tuning around.

--
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!