| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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?
"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? 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. Steve H G0LMV |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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? |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
Steve,
You're asking the Ford vs. Chevy question...and everyone will have their favorite. There may not be one answer, at all. Given the top price you're willing to pay, you can have, arguably, any receiver you want that might be available. Your broad spec could be met by a myriad of receivers. Entering the Ford vs. Chevy argument, I'd recommend the Collins 51J4 or the R-390A. Cheaper but entirely usable would be the Hammarlund HQ-180AC. There are many, more esoteric, radios that can be had up to $2000, to be sure. You did mention, however, the implied ability to repair and maintain. Beware of equipment that is beyond a reasonable hope of home or local repair. For example, many excellent and modern receivers, especially military or high-end commercial, either require a depot repair environment or parts and modules that are virtually "unobtanium". What's not been said is what you really want to do with the gear. Is it simple short-wave listening or serious collecting? Maybe you could pass on more details about your requirements? And, which side of the pond are you on? de Jeep/K3HVG |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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? |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
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/ |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
Boy, this is a question that could require a lot of beers among friends to
fully explore. Fred Osterman's Third Edition "Receivers Past and Present" (now out of print), is a good source of information to curl up in front of the warm winter fire and memorize. The fact is that modern high end solid state receivers are better than the older tube models. They have product detectors, 1 Hz stability and readout and some even have dsp. However, you want a tube model. There is an implication that you want the tube model based upon nostalgia and/or aesthetics. Those values are subjective, so you will need to see how the radio makes you feel and what features bring joy to you. I have some radios that use multi-position switches to tune in a station. They are excellent for tuning in stations at a known frequency, but terrible for "tuning around". Some look great in a rack, while others look great in their original cabinet. Tuning in sideband or cw is great with a product detector. I like to use full avc on cw, but others like the manual gain control. In short, it is all subjective. I recently purchased an old Lafayette KT-200 radio for $25 (that is the S-38 wanna-be with s-meter). Got it working and was shocked that, with the rf amplifier working full strength on the broadcast band, it is probably the best broadcast band receiver I have with a short antenna. For short wave listening, I like the radios with push-pull audio, so if that is a big interest, look for radios with push-pull audio. The old SX-62 was not bad for audio, but not a good all around communications receiver. The RA-17 is unique because it uses a Barlow-Wadley loop for stability. The 390A has a number of wonderful features and a lot of die hard supporters. In the end, many collectors find that no radio is perfect. So, they collect as many as they can. Collectively, they have all the features they want. This requires a large room - preferably a heated museum. Better to be able to turn them all on at once, with a multi-antenna switch. Now, where is the beer. Colin K7FM |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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... Collins R-390A is one of the best RF performers around. The audio quality stinks and I would not consider it even slightly field-maintainable, but if you want to pick weak signals up out of the muck you can't beat it even with the latest Watkins-Johnson rig. An outboard product detector will give you greatly improved SSB performance, and will still make it under your price barrier if you can find one. If you can find two, please call me because I want one too! --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
I'll agree that the R-390 or the A version are about the best.
For general coverage, consider an R-392. Doesn't have all of the bells and whistles of the 390/A, but basically the same rig, far cheaper. Of course, as others have pointed out, no product detector. Another possibility is a Halli SX-117, which does have true SSB. Its primarily a ham band receiver, but with an external synthesizer in place of the LO xtals, it works fine as a general coverage rig. Restored one recently, and its performance is impressive. It will haul in signals my TS-830 will not. Steve |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
For the info of all, in case you haven't seen his ad, there's a Canadian
guy that sells a very nice product detector kit on Epay. The price (about $175) is a lot less that the HC-10 or the several "CV-xxx" SSB converters. It has worked (on my gear) very well. It also will work with virtually any receiver with an I.F. of either 455 or 500 kHz. That could dispel worries of no SSB detection capability on a given receiver. Also, there's a company out West (S&S Engineering) that sells a multi-offset VFO that will convert any suitable receiver to general coverage. I did an article for the Drake R-4C (et al) using this unit. It beats the heck out of the Drake synthesizer abomination. FYI, the article was in ER, last year. Regards K3HVG |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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 ... 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 |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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! |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
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 |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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 |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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." |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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! |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
Stan Barr ) writes:
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... The Wadley loop is often seen in mystical terms, presumably because people aren't bothering to understand it. Obviously, it was a way in the fifties to get rid of that need for crystals every 500KHz, yet in retrospect I'm not sure that the effort couldn't have been put into a synthesizer. After all, generating a first mixer signal every 500KHz requires about the same circuitry if done with a PLL. A few years later there were receivers that used PLLs for such signals, though over the years I've seen posts where people mistake those PLLs with Wadley loops. The problem with the Wadley loop is that it puts at least an extra mixer in the signal path, and by definition you can't put ultimate selectivity until three mixers down. Done right, as I'm sure it was done in the Racal receivers, it works. But done carelessly, and you have a receiver that uses a more esoteric design but automatically comes out worse than something done a different way. After the Racal, it mostly seems to have been used to cut costs, but once you reduce costs the extra mixers in the signal path are a liability. Moving the "synthesizer" out of the signal path means you don't have that extra mixer in the signal path. And I'm not convinced that making a decent PLL that only has to generate signals every 500KHz is harder than all the filtering and isolation that the Wadley loop requires. People have confused the PLL in the HRO-500 and the mix-sixties Galaxy receiver with the Wadley loop because on some level they are similar. I've explained the Wadley loop in the past so I'm not going to explain it again, but the HRO-500 PLL used a crystal oscillator at 500KHz, generated lots of harmonics, and then the variable oscillator would be locked to the harmonic of the reference. You'd be tuning the oscillator with a manual variable capacitor, with a small varicap to actually tune it to look by the voltage out of the phase detector. There is similarity to the Wadley loop, but they aren't the same thing, and you get the "synthesizer" out of the signal path in the receiver. The circuitry would be about the same, if not a tad simpler, for the PLL. SO in the end, I'm not convinced of the Wadley loop being anything more than a neat trick, which at first seemed like a great solution in the fifties but in retrospect may not have been. Come the seventies with the FRG-7, there ultimately was no good reason to use the Wadley loop in there, and using a PLL might have given it better specs. Michael VE2BVW |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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! |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
Stan Barr wrote:
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. Try working one channel while an adjacent transmitter is operating a few hundred KC away and you'll see why the RA-17 beats the RA-1792 for full-duplex radiotelephone service hands down. The filters on the RA-1792 sure are nicer than on the RA-17, though, and consequently audio quality on SSB is a whole lot better with less noise. --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 Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:49:06 -0500, K3HVG wrote:
What's not been said is what you really want to do with the gear. Is it simple short-wave listening or serious collecting? Good evening, Jeep. Technically, it's neither, but it's more the former than the latter. I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few minutes of thought. :-) The main reason I want old and all tubes and etc. is something I hesitate to mention, because every time I do, I get ridiculed as a Chicken Little and a paranoid (though, as we all know, it ain't paranoia if the sonsabitches really are out to get you!). I firmly believe, in my heart of hearts, that sooner rather than later the United States (which, to answer your other question, is the side of the pond I'm on) will receive one or more nuclear attacks. It could be a 10-kiloton device that gets smuggled into downtown Washington in the back of an SUV, or it could be a Jericho-style widespread attack, or anything in between. When that happens, much of the solid state gear (radios, computers, cell phones, the Internet, packet BBSs, etc.) within a fairly large radius of ground zero will be reduced to doorstops and paperweights. Assuming I'm still around after the attack, and since I'm within reasonable EMP distance of a few large cities, I would like to have set up at least a basic communications capability that has a chance of surviving that. A really good receiver is a first step that, as you all have noted, shouldn't cost too much. Of course, that begs the question of how I'm going to power the damn thing if commercial power is down, but I guess I'll have to, as they say, jump off of that bridge when I come to it. Anyway, I really do like the old gear, and though I'll almost certainly never be a serious collector, I wouldn't mind having, up and running, a few quality pieces from back in the day. |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:12:51 -0500, "C. J. Clegg" wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:49:06 -0500, K3HVG wrote: What's not been said is what you really want to do with the gear. Is it simple short-wave listening or serious collecting? Technically, it's neither, but it's more the former than the latter. snip reasonable EMP distance of a few large cities, I would like to have set up at least a basic communications capability that has a chance of surviving that. A really good receiver is a first step that, as you all have noted, shouldn't cost too much. This is disappointing. I was expecting you to say something like that you prefer radios that glow in the dark. But you're preparing for a future in which everything glows in the dark for a while. OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well? 73's, but geez... Dale KJ7SL |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
Obviously he'll be talking to those parts of the country that have not
been hit & to others who are well prepared in his region. In such a post disaster scenario, communications will be vital & could potentially save many lives. He's being courageous, practical & toughtful. What's "disappointing" about that? Why would you give him with the qualified 73? Both comments say more about you than him. Terry W8EJO This is disappointing. I was expecting you to say something like that you prefer radios that glow in the dark. But you're preparing for a future in which everything glows in the dark for a while. OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well? 73's, but geez... Dale KJ7SL |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:29:32 -0800, Dale wrote:
OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well? Beats me. Not my job. All I can do is try to be prepared myself, in some minor sort of a way. |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
On 8 Jan 2007 04:05:30 -0800, "Nomad" wrote:
Obviously he'll be talking to those parts of the country that have not been hit & to others who are well prepared in his region. In such a post disaster scenario, communications will be vital & could potentially save many lives. He's being courageous, practical & toughtful. It struck me more as mere survivalism. What's "disappointing" about that? Why would you give him with the qualified 73? Both comments say more about you than him. Probably true. And he will probably have the advantage of not needing to bother with getting a license to transmit. I'll concede your points and go back to living for the here and now, rather than for our eventual doom. It just seems like some almost eagerly anticipate the latter, which bothers me. I'm sure I'm way off base. Unqualified 73's to you both. Dale |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:23:35 -0500, "C. J. Clegg"
wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:29:32 -0800, Dale wrote: OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well? Beats me. Not my job. All I can do is try to be prepared myself, in some minor sort of a way. Sorry about the snotty remark re the corpses. I hope you found that objectionable, despite your lack of comment :) Nomad's points are well taken by me. But what would you hope to do in such a situation? I have no idea where you live, but many natural disasters occur short of a nuclear attack in which amateur radio operators can be helpful. Are you a ham? Given your interest in radio communications- if you aren't, I'd encourage you to become one. Part of being prepared is practice. Getting licensed is part of that process at the present. And you might enjoy they casual, non-emergency QSOs in the meantime. After all this, I have to vote for the R-388 / 51J. No product detector, but a really nice radio :) With a real radio dial :) Take care, Dale |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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. After all this, I have to vote for the R-388 / 51J. No product detector, but a really nice radio :) With a real radio dial :) Take care, Dale |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
On 7 Jan 2007 19:28:36 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Stan Barr wrote: 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. Try working one channel while an adjacent transmitter is operating a few hundred KC away and you'll see why the RA-17 beats the RA-1792 for full-duplex radiotelephone service hands down. 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. -- 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?
C. J. Clegg wrote:
I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few minutes of thought. :-) Skip the receiver and get a KWM-2. Receive performance is not as good as the R-390, but it will work fine out of band (they used to be the standard State Department issue rigs at foreign embassies) and they are a lot easier to work on. Also, it's a lot more convenient to use. When that happens, much of the solid state gear (radios, computers, cell phones, the Internet, packet BBSs, etc.) within a fairly large radius of ground zero will be reduced to doorstops and paperweights. Note that a lot of the newer solid-state military gear was designed with EMP-hardening in mind. You can look for something like the Trans-World sets (which replaced the KWM-2 at embassies) for example. Of course, that begs the question of how I'm going to power the damn thing if commercial power is down, but I guess I'll have to, as they say, jump off of that bridge when I come to it. I would worry more about long-term maintenance. The R-390A is a wonderful rig and a great performer but I would not want to have to work on one. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
C. J. Clegg wrote: I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few minutes of thought. :-) Skip the receiver and get a KWM-2. Receive performance is not as good as the R-390, but it will work fine out of band (they used to be the standard State Department issue rigs at foreign embassies) and they are a lot easier to work on. Also, it's a lot more convenient to use. Yes, it is, but it has a point contact diode balanced modulator/demodulator. EMP would kill one in a heartbeat. -Chuck |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
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? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
In article ,
Chuck Harris wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: C. J. Clegg wrote: I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few minutes of thought. :-) Skip the receiver and get a KWM-2. Receive performance is not as good as the R-390, but it will work fine out of band (they used to be the standard State Department issue rigs at foreign embassies) and they are a lot easier to work on. Also, it's a lot more convenient to use. Yes, it is, but it has a point contact diode balanced modulator/demodulator. EMP would kill one in a heartbeat. Any reason why a 1N4007 wouldn't be happy in there? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
Let me enter the fray just once more. Although I did not fall off the
onion wagon recently and have been at all this for a while now, it was not until contemporary times that I came to really appreciate the R-390A. Yes, I knew they were tough birds, well designed, and had worked on them from time to time but I did not realize their full potential until I got on the air with the components of a GRC-26D. On 75 and 40 meters, and at all times of day and night and in conditions of severe QRM and N, my R-390A's have provided nothing short of outstanding service. I cannot say that of many of the others I own.... One simply will not lose money nor be dissatisfied by investing in a good one! |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Chuck Harris wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: C. J. Clegg wrote: I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few minutes of thought. :-) Skip the receiver and get a KWM-2. Receive performance is not as good as the R-390, but it will work fine out of band (they used to be the standard State Department issue rigs at foreign embassies) and they are a lot easier to work on. Also, it's a lot more convenient to use. Yes, it is, but it has a point contact diode balanced modulator/demodulator. EMP would kill one in a heartbeat. 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. -Chuck |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
Chuck Harris wrote:
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. Okay, so we need a fast Schottky diode, with outrageously high breakdown voltage. Something like that has to be out there, right? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote: 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. Okay, so we need a fast Schottky diode, with outrageously high breakdown voltage. Something like that has to be out there, right? --scott Shottky, and outrageously high breakdown voltage don't go together. What you think of as a normal diode is a slab of P, and a slab of N semiconductor bonded together to form a junction. A shottky diode is a slab of N semiconductor fused to a piece of metal. 100V is a really high voltage for a shottky diode. 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. -Chuck |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000?Under $2000?
|
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:58:58 -0800, Dale wrote:
Sorry about the snotty remark re the corpses. I hope you found that objectionable, despite your lack of comment :) I did ... but saw nothing to be gained by commenting. :-) Are you a ham? Given your interest in radio communications- if you aren't, I'd encourage you to become one. I have an interest in doing that but it's only really limited. I'll probably do it sometime this year. I do a lot of listening, but the fact of the matter is I don't like to talk much. And I really think the modern ham licenses have been dumbed down (no, I REALLY don't want to start another thread on that topic, though). Whenever I have any doubts about that, I go listen on 3910 for a while. :-( I have received the "now that there's no code requirement anymore..." speech but the fact is I could have passed the old Extra code test (20 WPM) in my sleep, back in the day. Nowadays I'm only comfortable around 15 or so. |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
Don Bowey wrote:
On the Beach. Good book and movie. Yes. I especially liked the part where the mysterious CW operator turned out to be a window shade... ;) |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
"C. J. Clegg" wrote:
And I really think the modern ham licenses have been dumbed down... Whenever I have any doubts about that, I go listen on 3910 for a while. :-( the fact is I could have passed the old Extra code test (20 WPM) in my sleep, back in the day. Nowadays I'm only comfortable around 15 or so. So get a ticket and work CW. There's not any 3910 stuff there... ;) |
What is BEST all-tube, general coverage receiver under $1000? Under $2000?
"C. J. Clegg" wrote: So get a ticket and work CW. There's not any 3910 stuff there... ;) Or AM. AM attracts a different breed of operator. You'll find them to be (for the most part) gentleman who appreciate a real conversation. With the new voice allocations, AM activity will increase. Terry W8EJO |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com