|
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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 |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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"... Oh, why? let's see... 2 - 32Mc continuous tuning... SSB (suppressed carrier) SSB (with carrier) DSB (suppressed carrier) DSB (with carrier) FSK FAX CW MCW Pulse modulation Phase modulation Receiver "stuff"... Diversity: frequency or space. (this is the "super" FRR-60 - with two full receivers paired and interconnected for active diversity). Can handle 70db signal variation without AGC - 100 db with AGC usable signal recovery to 150db range AFC can track signal "drift" at least to 1KC at a slew rate of 10cps/sec. Active noise limiting Tunable notch filter +/- 8khz (works at IF frequency rather than audio). Transmitter "stuff"... 10KW PEP (FRT-39) or 40KW PEP (FRT-40) Same operating modes as receiver, including independant DSB (ISB) with or without carrier. Frequency accuracy to one part in 10 to the 8th. per day. (what drift?). I'd hate to pay the power bill on the beast - but what a rig!!!! -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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 |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote:
one of the most world-worthy was the KWM-2/A. Yes, an incredible radio. When I was in the Air National Guard at the Charlotte airport we had 2 complete KWM-2/A stations. One with a 30-L1 amp on a full size 80 meter rombic and the other with a 30-S1 on a tri-band on about 30 ft of tower. They wouldn't let us have much tower since we were located right next to the main runway. The big rombic worked great during the week , but on Guard drill weekends the field that it was over became a parking lot, when it was full of cars it got real hard to get the antenna to tune. I hope to have a KWM-2/A in my shack some day. If anyone in the group is active on AM maybe we can meet on the air soon. I bought a Johnson Viking 2 at the Salisbury hamfest just a few hours ago. This was about the best Salisbury fest they've had for several years. There's was a good bit of BA gear there, and got to see a bunch of old friends. Besides the Viking I also bought a Diawa CN-800H cross needle SWR/Watt meter and a couple of Waters coax switches. I looked all over the fest for a Dow-Key relay so I can hook up the Viking and my NC-183D for the Am station. 73 and happy 07-07-07 Ron http://radioheaven.homestead.com/ |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Michael Black wrote:
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. Certainly, and - one could go to the other extreme- handy-talkies, which are as "absurd" as my first example (which was intended toungue-in-cheek). As the OP noted - there are bound to be favorites, and keeping within the likely "bounds" he intended- one of the most world-worthy was the KWM-2/A. There have been many tube transceivers over the years with good reputations for performance, etc. - but only the KWM-2 stood head-and-shoulders above the others in "field" reputation due to it's service with the military over the Viet Nam years. First introduced in the late 1950s, the KWM-2/A was fully mature by the time the military started looking for a "solution" for it's MARS activities starting in early 1960s. Collins had the perfect answer: A complete HAM (MARS) station in a pair of Samsonite Suitcases. One holding the KWM-2/A and the other the power supply, antenna and other accessories - the Marines first started shipping these to the troops in January, 1963. Not only very portable, but tough. Operating in a war, in a climate that would destroy lesser equipment in weeks, the KWM-2/A earned it's reputation as a reliable, effective workhorse over the next decade years. I don't have sales figures on the KWM-2/A - but likely when combined with it's predecessor the KWM-1 - they likely are the top selling transceiver of all time. as always - just my .02 -- randy guttery A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews so vital to the United States Silent Service: http://tendertale.com |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 23:45:23 -0500, "Beech Creek"
wrote: 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 I'd agree that the Collins KWM2 transceiver is about the best for SSB service but it came at a high price. However, it was mediocre at best for CW service. 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. Another favorite of mine was the National NCX-5. The first mass produced ham rig with a digital readout, albeit a mechanical one, that was actually accurate. It had good audio, good filtering and was reliable (with the exception of the weird T/R relay that was always energized in receive mode). It also had a decent sense of style and used sweep tubes but ran them at a realistic limit. With its companion NCL2000 2KW linear, it's a real rock cruncher of a station. 73, Doug/WA1TUT |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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. |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Don't forget the Drake TR3's & TR4's & the later Swans (500CX).
Excellent radios. I've had several of each & they perform well. You can pick up a TR4 with PS for $250. The Heath stuff will have variable build quality. The KWM2's are overpriced (I have the KWM2-A). Terry W8EJO. |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Beech Creek wrote:
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 Arguably, a late production Kenwood TS-830S might be considered, albeit its a hybrid type radio. It has all the features that one might really need and they still hold a reasonable value. With the '230 digital VFO and some after market filters, the radio will provide excellent service. The radio also can be serviced in the field, like their all-tube brethren. |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Beech Creek wrote:
I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever produced and why? PRC-8/9/10. There's just something so cute about all those little submini tubes. And the RF performance isn't half bad. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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 |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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 |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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. |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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 |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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 |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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. |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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. |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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." |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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 |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
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 |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Barry wrote: What about the Swan 350C and/or 500C? I never owned one, but they would certainly qualify as a tube transceiver. I think the word "Best" would eliminate any Swan gear... Ron |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Well, if you ever get the opportunity....get a nice TR4C!
I have an SB303, 301 and an SB102. They are mint 'keepers', but they are just light years away from the overall quality and performance of the TR4's ....Dave wrote in message ps.com... 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. |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
On Jul 11, 4:36 pm, Ron in Radio Heaven
wrote: Barry wrote: What about the Swan 350C and/or 500C? I never owned one, but they would certainly qualify as a tube transceiver. I think the word "Best" would eliminate any Swan gear... That's very true, as regards ham gear. However later Cubic commercial gear, from the company Swan evolved into, can be quite good. |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Irv Finkleman wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: reseauplate 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 TV sweep tubes don't like to be run linear. I recall seeing a 16 x 6LQ6 amplifier in the Handbook (or was it QST?) eons ago. I shudder at the thought of the IMD3 response! 6146s are a bit better than sweep tubes. My favorite tube in terms of linearity would be the 807/1625, albeit a bit taller than the others. I still have my first SSB xcvr, a new-to-me SB102. I would concur with most of what others have said about the cheesy mechanicals. Even with fresh tubes in the frontend & IF and aligned, the receiver seemed to fall off in sensitivity above 20m. 3 elements on 15m at 38' made up for it. I added a Fox-Tango Club 500Hz CW filter before retiring it. 73, Bryan WA7PRC |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Ron in Radio Heaven wrote:
Barry wrote: What about the Swan 350C and/or 500C? I never owned one, but they would certainly qualify as a tube transceiver. I think the word "Best" would eliminate any Swan gear... The 350C isn't really a ham band transceiver. I mean, you can tune it into the ham bands... but it won't stay there... or anywhere else... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
That is true, Scott, but the good thing about the 350C was that you could
then work all the rest of us using EICO 753s. :) Didahdidahdit ZUT Vern W9STB |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
On Jul 7, 12:45?am, "Beech Creek" wrote:
I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever produced and why? I presume you mean "amateur HF band transceiver", and whether you allow matched-pair receiver/transmitter setups that allow transceiving on one or both of the VFOs. I think it all depends on how you define "best", and whether you allow mostly-SS hybrids like the TS-520S to be considered "tube". For example, if the definition is best-performing-on-SSB one-box transceiver, the KWM-2A is at the top. Yes it's mediocre on CW, has no RIT and cost the earth in its time, but for performance on SSB it was tops in its era. If you want RIT and good CW performance in one box, the Drake TR-4cw (the latest version) is the one to have. OTOH, if the definition is most-performance-for-your-money, it's a close tie between the Heath SB-101 and HW-101. I do agree about the mechanicals but consider what they cost in their time, compared to other rigs. If you allow matched-pair tx/rx, the Collins S-line (meatball 75S-3C/ 32S-3) are at the top, followed closely by the Drake 4C twins. --- Although I haven't tried it, there is allegedly a cure for the cheap Heath mechanicals in the HW-100/101 and SB series. What you do is to look around for a junker Tempo One, which is actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly, which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz. Then you remove the Heath LMO/VFO and replace it with the Tempo unit. Some mods will be needed to get supply voltages and make up for the loss of the tube in the Heath LMO/VFO, but those aren't hard to do. The mechanical mods are left as an exercise for the reader - if it were me, I'd make a new front panel while I was at it. As a bonus, the Tempo VFO unit has RIT. The Tempo VFO is solid-state, but more important, has a sweet all- antibacklash-gear drive and 1 kHz readout. (It's arguably the best part of the rig). -- Although it's not really a transceiver, but rather a receiver and transmitter in one box with a common power supply, the Heath HW-16 has to win the award for best-HF-amateur-tube-rig-designed-for-a-specific- purpose. It was meant as a Novice rig for the privileges of its time, and except for being anemic on 15 did that job very well and at a low low price. All IMHO 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
) writes:
Although I haven't tried it, there is allegedly a cure for the cheap Heath mechanicals in the HW-100/101 and SB series. What you do is to look around for a junker Tempo One, which is actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly, which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz. If you're going to start doing that, then any external VFO that covers 5 to 5.5MHz is a potential candidate. Even up to something like the external digital VFO that went with the TS-830, though at the moment I can't remember if it's a 5MHz VFO. Or build an external vfo with that variable capacitor from the BC-221 that's been lying around for decades, and put a frequency counter in the box. That's not even a new idea, there were things like that over thirty years ago when digital ICs became cheap enough to easily make frequency counters. This thing will then work with any rig that needs a 5MHz VFO, and has the advantage of not requiring dramatic changes to the rig. Many will even have things in place for an external VFO. There was a whole article in the September 1972 issue of CQ about this sort of thing for the SB/HW transceivers, though I don't think he used a frequency counter. Michael VE2BVW |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Michael Black wrote:
Jim, N2EY writes: Although I haven't tried it, there is allegedly a cure for the cheap Heath mechanicals in the HW-100/101 and SB series. What you do is to look around for a junker Tempo One, which is actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly, which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz. If you're going to start doing that, then any external VFO that covers 5 to 5.5MHz is a potential candidate. Even up to something like the external digital VFO that went with the TS-830, though at the moment I can't remember if it's a 5MHz VFO. Or build an external vfo with that variable capacitor from the BC-221 that's been lying around for decades, and put a frequency counter in the box. That's not even a new idea, there were things like that over thirty years ago when digital ICs became cheap enough to easily make frequency counters. This thing will then work with any rig that needs a 5MHz VFO, and has the advantage of not requiring dramatic changes to the rig. Many will even have things in place for an external VFO. There was a whole article in the September 1972 issue of CQ about this sort of thing for the SB/HW transceivers, though I don't think he used a frequency counter. Michael VE2BVW I married a Drake RV4 to my SB102 for split operation (using the SB102's xtal oscillator as a buffer). Bryan WA7PRC |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
On Jul 14, 6:02?pm, (Michael Black) wrote:
) writes: a junker Tempo One, which is actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly, which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz. If you're going to start doing that, then any external VFO that covers 5 to 5.5MHz is a potential candidate. Agreed, but the idea (which I didn't state very clearly) is that you put the Tempo One VFO *inside* the Heath rig, so it's still one-box. If you're willing to do the external-VFO thing, just mount the LMO in an external box and make a nice dial drive for it, plus the digital readout. Or build an external vfo with that variable capacitor from the BC-221 that's been lying around for decades, and put a frequency counter in the box. Or a mechanical dial. I've done that for homebrew rigs. That's not even a new idea, there were things like that over thirty years ago when digital ICs became cheap enough to easily make frequency counters. I made one in 1975. But it's a lot more than just a counter. For one thing, the VFO frequency isn't the signal frequency. But the big deal is that, in the Heathkits, the VFO tunes the wrong way (5 is the high end of the band and 5.5 is the low end). Both are solved by use of a presettable down-counter. This thing will then work with any rig that needs a 5MHz VFO, and has the advantage of not requiring dramatic changes to the rig. Many will even have things in place for an external VFO. Agreed. But if you want a one-box tube transceiver, and you happen across a junker Tempo One with a good VFO, the result could be pretty sweet without all the work of building a stable VFO. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
On Jul 10, 5:47 am, wrote:
How did they get the bezels on the DX-60 and the HW-16 so right and the SB so wrong? The HW-16 is a really really sweet CW transceiver. With a couple mods the break in completely seamless - it honestly feels like I can even hear the band with the key down! The phenolic circuit boards are mediocre. The design is fine. Thick FR4 glass epoxy would have made the Heath's much better. I had many, many problems with intermittent cracked traces in HW-100's and HW-101's. They'd be fine when cold, but when the set began to warm up the opens could happen just about anywhere. Usual situation was that receive signal goes away, or transmit power does, and it's remedied by a couple sharp knocks on the chassis. Tim. |
Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Bryan wrote:
Irv Finkleman wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: reseauplate 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 TV sweep tubes don't like to be run linear. I recall seeing a 16 x 6LQ6 amplifier in the Handbook (or was it QST?) eons ago. I shudder at the thought of the IMD3 response! 6146s are a bit better than sweep tubes. My favorite tube in terms of linearity would be the 807/1625, albeit a bit taller than the others. I rebuilt an RCA TTU-25B 25 KW UHF TV transmitter about 18 years ago. It had 17 6146 tubes in the video modulator. What a pain in the ass to match 16 6146 tubes for the output stage. :( -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com