Well, as far as "normal" rigs....those you can set on a tabletop and use
very well today....
The KWM2 is useless on CW, and the band segments are broken up in the middle
of the band.
The HW101/SB102 series are great rigs, but age and the home-made aspect
means many of them have problems.
A TS-520,820,830, does not fall in to this category (tube rig)
My vote would be a TR4CW/rit. It has everything, and is solid and reliable.
Runner up would be a Kenwood TS511S
Problem is, that model Drake has had the price ebayed through the roof, and
the Kenwood is hard to find. But....waddya gonna do. They are old, and work
well...so the demand is up!.
.....Dave

"Beech Creek" wrote in message
. ..
I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever
produced and why?

I know there will be lots of different opinions but I am interested in the
reasons behind these opinions.

Thanks!

Cal Barton
WB5CYS

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:05:18 -0700, kh wrote:

On Jul 8, 4:17 am, Doug wrote:

A transceiver that I believe actually sold in greater numbers than the
KWM2 series was the lowly Heathkit HW101. I know that they sold over
20,000 of them.

For it's price, if you can get one that was well assembled, you can do
no better. The HW101 was almost as stable as the KWM2, was FAR better
on CW with true carrier insertion, sidetone, vox that worked well and
an optional CW filter.

It's more expensive big brother was the Heathkit SB101 or SB102, the
poor mans copy of the Collins KWM2.

What a thing to consider! The KWM-2/2A cost between five and ten
times what the HW-101 and SB-100,101,102. did. The prices of all
three lines varied over the years but at the end, the Collins was over
$3,000 and I don't think the SB's ever went over $400. $299 sticks
in my mind for the HW-101.

What do you mean by "What a thing to consider"???

My point was exactly that for their prices, a well built
HW101/SB101/SB102 performs almost as well as a Collins KWM2 on SSB
and far better than the Collins on CW.
Thus in terms of their value based on cost versus performance, one can
easily argue they outperform the Collins.

As for the Drake radios, I don't like tube radios that really need
matched pairs or trios of sweep tubes to maintain performance,
especially when the supply of such tubes is rapidly vanishing.
My National NCX3/5's seem to be relatively unfussy about whether the
6GJ5 or other sweep tube used are matched.

Another great thing about Heathkits was that they used 6146 tubes in
their finals, just like the Collins.

As for Heathkit build quality, like most things, you have to try
before you buy. One that is working well on a bench today has
certainly gotten all of its bugs worked out it by this time, with only
normal age related failures to be expected.

I agree with another that the Kenwood TS820/830 series is far more a
solid state than a tube rig. I had a TS-820S - thought it was a rather
poor performer. Its CW semi-breakin operation was miserable. A
transister went bad in one of the mixer oscillators. It's layered,
non-plug-in circuit board construction made service access difficult.

Doug/WA1TUT

The Quim 2 was in a class by itself as a single unit (plus power
supply) box in terms of overall usability but...it's a SSB only, ham
band only rig practically speaking.

Drake and Collins separates that intertransceive are fine, but not
really a "transceiver".

Heathkits worked well when properly assembled. Few were. Some can be
straightened out with patience. The use of soldering flux and good
technique can rescue some.

On Jul 8, 8:29 pm, Doug wrote:


What do you mean by "What a thing to consider"???

I mean, "BEST Tube-Type Transceiver" is a strange and difficult
consideration. It's the topic of this thread.

The problem with Heathkit's SB transceivers isn't the soldering.
That's an old-ham's saw. It's not quite up there with the "Acid Core"
urban legend, but it's close.

While I have encountered poor solder jobs, I have only seen one
problem that was clearly solder based and that was in a factory,
machine-made part.

The problem with Heath are the mechanicals. The design is clever;
the parts are mediocre; the mechanical build quality is generally
horrible.

A case in point is the LMO pinch drive and the tension on the rings.
I've spent hours cleaning and adjusting the drive and when it's right,
it's terrific. It's light, smooth, precise, no backlash. I have a
Heath SB tuning knob with lead weights in it. It's a perfect match
for the LMO drive.

Even when you have the pinch drive adjusted right, the 100 kHz
indicator is off. That's a 30 minute trial and error adjustment where
1/64 inch position shift of a piece of metal under a machine screw is
amplified by an articulated arm. After the fine tuning, you're
fighting the play in stamped parts.

Then there's the fiduciary on the LMO. What's with that?

Every fiduciary knob is corroded. I polished one until it shines.
It's still a knob on a 1/8 inch shaft in a hole drilled in plastic, no
fore-aft stop, driving a piece of wobbly plastic with friction.

Another problem with Heath are the thin skirts on the knobs. The
skirts could be thicker and more precise. When I put the knobs back
on a Heath, I use a feeler gauge to space the skirt from the front
panel. That's after I find the low spot on the skirt.

The bezel on the SB's should be more like Collins. That was a bad
place for Heath to cut corners. A thick solid bezel would give the
fiduciary's drive shaft more bearing surface.

How did they get the bezels on the DX-60 and the HW-16 so right and
the SB so wrong?

The phenolic circuit boards are mediocre. The design is fine. Thick
FR4 glass epoxy would have made the Heath's much better.

On sheer performance, the Heath's are up there. Hot receivers, 6 pole
crystal filters, stable, 1 kHz readout, etc. Drake and Halli didn't do
that until they went digital.

-C

The last of the tube TR4's had 1 khz readout.....and a WHOLE lot more
repeatable, and end to end accurate then the SB102!!

....Dave

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 8, 8:29 pm, Doug wrote:


What do you mean by "What a thing to consider"???

I mean, "BEST Tube-Type Transceiver" is a strange and difficult
consideration. It's the topic of this thread.

The problem with Heathkit's SB transceivers isn't the soldering.
That's an old-ham's saw. It's not quite up there with the "Acid Core"
urban legend, but it's close.

While I have encountered poor solder jobs, I have only seen one
problem that was clearly solder based and that was in a factory,
machine-made part.

The problem with Heath are the mechanicals. The design is clever;
the parts are mediocre; the mechanical build quality is generally
horrible.

A case in point is the LMO pinch drive and the tension on the rings.
I've spent hours cleaning and adjusting the drive and when it's right,
it's terrific. It's light, smooth, precise, no backlash. I have a
Heath SB tuning knob with lead weights in it. It's a perfect match
for the LMO drive.

Even when you have the pinch drive adjusted right, the 100 kHz
indicator is off. That's a 30 minute trial and error adjustment where
1/64 inch position shift of a piece of metal under a machine screw is
amplified by an articulated arm. After the fine tuning, you're
fighting the play in stamped parts.

Then there's the fiduciary on the LMO. What's with that?

Every fiduciary knob is corroded. I polished one until it shines.
It's still a knob on a 1/8 inch shaft in a hole drilled in plastic, no
fore-aft stop, driving a piece of wobbly plastic with friction.

Another problem with Heath are the thin skirts on the knobs. The
skirts could be thicker and more precise. When I put the knobs back
on a Heath, I use a feeler gauge to space the skirt from the front
panel. That's after I find the low spot on the skirt.

The bezel on the SB's should be more like Collins. That was a bad
place for Heath to cut corners. A thick solid bezel would give the
fiduciary's drive shaft more bearing surface.

How did they get the bezels on the DX-60 and the HW-16 so right and
the SB so wrong?

The phenolic circuit boards are mediocre. The design is fine. Thick
FR4 glass epoxy would have made the Heath's much better.

On sheer performance, the Heath's are up there. Hot receivers, 6 pole
crystal filters, stable, 1 kHz readout, etc. Drake and Halli didn't do
that until they went digital.

-C

Years ago there was a guy that was making a "solid state tube". for
sweep tube replacement. It consisted of two or three transistors an a
potted cast assembly on an octal base, very much like solid state
rectifier tube replacements. A customer claimed he'd busted one apart
and it looked like a horizontal output transistor on a plate, some
small transistors, a resistor and was put in black hard potting
compound with some smppth small rocks for packing. He was not
sufficiently on the ball to have made a schematic.

Failing that, converting the beasts to a transmitting tube of some
sort seems the only way to go,as sweep tubes are a thing of the past.
Apparently they take a lot of different internals from audio types,
which are the market today.

On Jul 10, 6:36 pm, "Dave Edwards" wrote:
The last of the tube TR4's had 1 khz readout.....and a WHOLE lot more
repeatable, and end to end accurate then the SB102!!

...Dave

Yes. Good point.

I don't own Drake except for a 2B/2BQ that's been in storage for 35
years. Don't know a lot about them, never operated a TR.

Overall though, the SB-102 package, as part of the Heath SB system
which includes several amps, scopes, etc., was the premier 1960s/1970s
set up. The weakness of the SB's was the mechanical build quality
and the mechanical alignment.

Drake PTO vs. Heath LMO is an interesting comparison. My SB-102 is
not seen bench time yet but I've had an SB-303 (same solid state LMO
albeit without the tubes nearby) on a frequency counter for a week.
The drift measured in the few tens of Hz! This was in an un-
airconditioned room.

wrote:

Failing that, converting the beasts to a transmitting tube of some
sort seems the only way to go,as sweep tubes are a thing of the past.
Apparently they take a lot of different internals from audio types,
which are the market today.

Yes, I grew up watching folks changing old surplus military gear to
take cheap commercial sweep tubes. Now I am watching people converting
cheap commercial gear to take surplus military sweep tubes....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

wrote:

Failing that, converting the beasts to a transmitting tube of some
sort seems the only way to go,as sweep tubes are a thing of the past.
Apparently they take a lot of different internals from audio types,
which are the market today.


Yes, I grew up watching folks changing old surplus military gear to
take cheap commercial sweep tubes. Now I am watching people converting
cheap commercial gear to take surplus military sweep tubes....
--scott

I converted my old Hallicrafters SR150 from sweep tubes (6DQ6's if I recall)
to 6146s. It is still around the local ham community and running fine. The
nice things about the 6146's was that they are small enough to fit in almost
any PA subchassis, and all I had to do was rewire the sockets.

Sure wish I still had it. I let it go about 25 years ago!

Irv VE6BP

On Jul 7, 8:12 am, (Michael Black) wrote:
Randy or Sherry Guttery ) writes: Beech Creek wrote:

I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever
produced and why?

It'd probably be nice if you'd define "transceiver"... otherwise there
is no contest... The AN/FRR-60 / AN/FRT-39/40 "set" wins hands down.
But then at a couple tons (literally)... and requiring over 60KW
primary power... not exactly your typical "base unit"...

Gee, I was thinking something like a Gonset Communicator.

Not really, but yes "transceiver" is a very wide open term. It can
go from those transmitter and receivers in one box with very little
in common, to an actual SSB transceiver that the poster likely is
asking about.

But I was going to point out that in retrospect (and if we limit
the discussion to amateur radio SSB transceivers), the time span
is about fifteen years or so. It was the late fifties when such
a thing arrived on the market, and it was over by the early seventies,
with solid state taking over. Given it's at least thirty years since
then, it is a finite selection to start with.

Michael VE2BVW

What about the Swan 350C and/or 500C? I never owned one, but they
would certainly qualify as a tube transceiver.

Barry - N4BUQ