"K3HVG" wrote in message
news
that they didn't use many (if at all) paper capacitors. Finally, FYI,
Heath never made an upscale general coverage receiver. Good hunting.



Hi Jeep

The SB-310 was perhaps the best SW receiver they made.
Albiet limited coverage... It did a PD if I recall...

Pete

"Uncle Peter" ) writes:
"K3HVG" wrote in message
news
that they didn't use many (if at all) paper capacitors. Finally, FYI,
Heath never made an upscale general coverage receiver. Good hunting.



Hi Jeep

The SB-310 was perhaps the best SW receiver they made.
Albiet limited coverage... It did a PD if I recall...

Pete


One of the ones I always wondered about came in the sixties and I'm
pretty sure was still in the catalog in 1971 when I would have seen
my first Heath catalog. It was a general coverage receiver, and looked
a lot like the average low end receiver. But it used an IF in the 1600KHz
range, using a two-crystal lattice filter. I've always been curious
about it because of that high IF which obviously would make an improvement
for the highest band in terms of image rejection compared to the usual
cheap SW receiver. But I've never really seen anything about how the
receiver was generally. A higher IF suggests something better, but
it might have just been as bad as the usual low end SW receiver.

Micahel VE2BVW

"Michael Black" wrote in message
One of the ones I always wondered about came in the sixties and I'm
pretty sure was still in the catalog in 1971 when I would have seen
my first Heath catalog. It was a general coverage receiver, and looked
a lot like the average low end receiver. But it used an IF in the 1600KHz
range, using a two-crystal lattice filter. I've always been curious
about it because of that high IF which obviously would make an improvement
for the highest band in terms of image rejection compared to the usual
cheap SW receiver. But I've never really seen anything about how the
receiver was generally. A higher IF suggests something better, but
it might have just been as bad as the usual low end SW receiver.

Micahel VE2BVW



Michael

I believe my old HR-10 used an IF of 1680 kc with a simple
2-pole lattice filter. Of course that was ham coverage only..

Pete

"Uncle Peter" ) writes:
"Michael Black" wrote in message
One of the ones I always wondered about came in the sixties and I'm
pretty sure was still in the catalog in 1971 when I would have seen
my first Heath catalog. It was a general coverage receiver, and looked
a lot like the average low end receiver. But it used an IF in the 1600KHz
range, using a two-crystal lattice filter. I've always been curious
about it because of that high IF which obviously would make an improvement
for the highest band in terms of image rejection compared to the usual
cheap SW receiver. But I've never really seen anything about how the
receiver was generally. A higher IF suggests something better, but
it might have just been as bad as the usual low end SW receiver.

Micahel VE2BVW



Michael

I believe my old HR-10 used an IF of 1680 kc with a simple
2-pole lattice filter. Of course that was ham coverage only..

Pete


Yes it did. I was even going to say that the shortwave receiver I
was talking about might have been a variant of that ham band only
receiver.

Michael VE2BVW

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
"Uncle Peter" ) writes:
"K3HVG" wrote in message
news
that they didn't use many (if at all) paper capacitors. Finally, FYI,
Heath never made an upscale general coverage receiver. Good hunting.


snip

One of the ones I always wondered about came in the sixties and I'm
pretty sure was still in the catalog in 1971 when I would have seen
my first Heath catalog. It was a general coverage receiver, and looked
a lot like the average low end receiver. But it used an IF in the 1600KHz
range, using a two-crystal lattice filter. I've always been curious
about it because of that high IF which obviously would make an improvement
for the highest band in terms of image rejection compared to the usual
cheap SW receiver. But I've never really seen anything about how the
receiver was generally. A higher IF suggests something better, but
it might have just been as bad as the usual low end SW receiver.

Micahel VE2BVW



You're thinking of the GR-54 model which has a 1682 KHz IF frequency.
Tuning range is 180-420 & 550-1550 KHz and 2-30 MHz (notice the
coverage gap between 1.55 and 2 MHz). I bought one in the fall of
1966; price was about $85 US + shipping.

Quite sensitive and, with the high IF frequency, images are a non-issue
unlike the
typical low-end 455 KHz receivers so definitely a step up.

Mine still works but sits on a shelf in a closet. With no digital readout
it's
just too hard to find anything on the not-too accurate slide rule dial.

Regards,
John

My vote would go to the Drake R4A or R4B.

I've used many of the radios discussed here & many modern rigs as
well. The Drakes are excellent performers.

Crystal them up for your SW freq.'s of interest or add a freq.
synthesizer if you don't want to bother with crystals. There were
construction articles in June 2004 QST & ELECTRIC RADIO Dec 2005 to
build your own freq. synthesizer.

I've got the R4A & it's one of my favorite radios. Great on SSB & CW
as well as AM.
Four selectivity positions , .4 kc, 1.2 kc, 2.4 kc and 4.8 kc ; pass
band tuning, etc.

The copper chassis are prone to tarnish but it doesn't effect
performanace.

I currently own the following tube type receivers/transceivers: R4-A,
R390A, HRO-50, HQ-160, KWM2-A, Hammarlund Super-Pro SP-200.

I have owned over the years Collins R-388 & 75A-3, National HRO-60,
Drake R4-C, RCA AR-88, Hallicrafters SX-100, SX-101, SX-115, SX-117,
SX-122, SX-42, Drake TR-3 & TR-4.


I've also owned or used much modern equipment including many rice
boxes & Ten-Tec gear.

Terry
W8EJO







On Mar 25, 9:50 am, "Uncle Peter" wro


"K3HVG" wrote in message

news
that they didn't use many (if at all) paper capacitors. Finally, FYI,
Heath never made an upscale general coverage receiver. Good hunting.

Hi Jeep

The SB-310 was perhaps the best SW receiver they made.
Albiet limited coverage... It did a PD if I recall...

Pete

Nomad wrote:
My vote would go to the Drake R4A or R4B.

I've used many of the radios discussed here & many modern rigs as
well. The Drakes are excellent performers.

Crystal them up for your SW freq.'s of interest or add a freq.
synthesizer if you don't want to bother with crystals. There were
construction articles in June 2004 QST & ELECTRIC RADIO Dec 2005 to
build your own freq. synthesizer.

I've got the R4A & it's one of my favorite radios. Great on SSB & CW
as well as AM.
Four selectivity positions , .4 kc, 1.2 kc, 2.4 kc and 4.8 kc ; pass
band tuning, etc.

The copper chassis are prone to tarnish but it doesn't effect
performanace.

I currently own the following tube type receivers/transceivers: R4-A,
R390A, HRO-50, HQ-160, KWM2-A, Hammarlund Super-Pro SP-200.

I have owned over the years Collins R-388 & 75A-3, National HRO-60,
Drake R4-C, RCA AR-88, Hallicrafters SX-100, SX-101, SX-115, SX-117,
SX-122, SX-42, Drake TR-3 & TR-4.


I've also owned or used much modern equipment including many rice
boxes & Ten-Tec gear.

Terry
W8EJO


Terry,

I'll ask you to do the same thing for Drake as I asked another poster to
do for Hammarlund: please post a list of the Drake units, with a summary
of the advantages/disadvantages of each.

TIA.

William

(Filter noise from my address for direct replies)

K3HVG wrote:
Rick,
Owning not a few receivers in my current collection, including all those
spoken of, so far, let me first agree with many of the comments,
including those about the SX-100. Its a beautiful looking receiver but
not without its foibles. A truly nice R-392, SP-600, R-388/51J, et al
currently appear to demand what an HQ-180 would, or more. I'd like to
add to your list the Hammarlund HQ-160. Its not a selectable sideband
receiver, per se, but it is double conversion, general-coverage and,
arguably, a less expensive substitute for the HQ-180. I have a late,
raised-lettering version that works quite well with one of my vintage
operating positions. I have tried several outboard product detectors
with this receiver, to include the Hammarlund HC-10, the CE Sideband
Slicer, and the kit detector from that Canadian fellow. They all work,
although the price of an HC-10 approaches the base price of an
HQ-180A!!! I'd also bet money that you might find yourself liking the
HQ-145A, also a general-coverage, double-conversion receiver with very
respectable performance. Nice thing about later Hammarlund receivers is
that they didn't use many (if at all) paper capacitors. Finally, FYI,
Heath never made an upscale general coverage receiver. Good hunting.

OM,

Thanks for the information.

I've sometimes wondered about earlier versions of Hammarlund receivers:
as a VE, I get questions about "low priced radios" all the time from new
or upgraded hams, and I'd like to have more information on the
Hammarlund line.

Please provide your list of the various Hammarlund receivers and their
good and bad points. With the flea market season starting, this would be
really nice to have while looking at tailgates.

Thanks in advance.

William

(Filter noise from my address for direct replies)

Early Hammarlund Receivers:

The pre-war HQ-120 was a modern bandswitching general coverage receiver.
They are not bad. 455 kc (pre kHz) if and rf amplifier. They were fairly
good. The problem with Hammarlund was that they continued on with design
for the next 20 years and while others went to dual conversion, more
selectivity and product detectors, Hammarlund continued onward with the same
design.

These designs were the HQ-129X, the HQ-140 and even the HQ-150. They all
work well for a 1938 design. Later, the HQ-100 continued on with pretty
much the same design, in a more modern package. They are not bad
receivers - but they are simply in a different league compared to the Drake
R-4 series. The HQ=100 replaced the semi-useful crystal filter with a next
to worthless Q multiplier.

None of the Hammarlunds mentioned are in the same league as the HQ-180 or
the SP-600.

You may want to get a copy of "Shortwave Receivers Past and Present" by Fred
Osterman. It is excellent.

Some inexpensive sleepers might be some of the National receivers. The
NC-2-40 C and D are quite good. They, along with other National receivers,
have push-pull audio and are good on broadcast stations. Some of the later
National receivers have not impressed me. National also made some WW II
receivers which are under appreciated - the RAO series. Many of the older
receivers require replacement of the paper caps, but are mechanically
stable. They were used shipboard 24 hours a day. Dependable workhorses.

73, Colin K7FM

Rick ) writes:
Well, I am beginning to have some doubts about the likelihood of finding
an excellent-quality Hammarlund HQ-180 at a price I can afford.

Certainly I am going to keep looking, but meanwhile I guess I need to come
up with a few alternatives that I can "settle" for if, as seems likely,
the HQ-180's have priced themselves out of my reach.

I need something that is all tubes, and works well on SSB. I plan to use
it mostly on CW but I need decent SSB performance. AM is relatively less
important (it should work on AM but doesn't need to be a spectacular
performer).

It does need to be general coverage 500 KHz to 30 MHz.

R390's and 51J4's would be good (but of course, more expensive than the
HQ-180) but none comes with a product detector and so performance on SSB
is likely to be marginal at best, right?

This is mostly a myth. I had an SP-600 for years, and never had problems
receiving SSB. You just turn down the RF gain, turn up the audio gain
to compensate, turn on the BFO and tune away. The issues of using
such receivers for SSB date from the very early days, when people didn't
understand how to do it, and so they were disappointed. Obviously, some
cheap receivers did have problems, because even with the gain turned
way down, the BFO wasn't strong enough. But that's not likely the case
for the better receivers.

The limitations would be in whether the dial allows for fine enough
tuning (which will likely be fine in those receivers) or lack of selectivity
(which won't be a factor with those receivers, and doesn't actually affect
SSB reception, just affects how much other clutter you do receive).

Having a product detector did make it easier to tune in SSB signals, making
the process less cumbersome.

Michael VE2BVW