Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm working on an NC-88 and a couple things aren't sitting right with me.
1. Overall 'oomph' seems to be missing. It receives well enough but even benchside listening requires that the volume be up to about 75%. Doesn't seem right. An AA5 would blow it away. Finger on the volume pot wiper gives a very healthy hum so the problem must be further back. 2. BFO. Works but is really weak. I tried more coupling but no increase. The Sensitivity control has to be almost at the floor to hear it. Its really too weak to be functional. Recapped, many resistors found out of tolerance, voltage checks are all ok. Some previous owner had the IFs badly mistuned. Found an intermittent factory joint on the bandswitch. I guess what I'm asking are these 'features' typical of the NC-88? I wouldn't think so. Maybe the two symptoms are related? Thanks for any comments. -Bill WX4A |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Bill M wrote:
I'm working on an NC-88 and a couple things aren't sitting right with me. 1. Overall 'oomph' seems to be missing. It receives well enough but even benchside listening requires that the volume be up to about 75%. Doesn't seem right. An AA5 would blow it away. Finger on the volume pot wiper gives a very healthy hum so the problem must be further back. 2. BFO. Works but is really weak. I tried more coupling but no increase. The Sensitivity control has to be almost at the floor to hear it. Its really too weak to be functional. I don't have a clue, but before SSB (and I can't remember whether this receiver predates it, it likely doesn't matter for this purpose when it came out), BFOs were relatively weak. Their purpose wasn't to provide a good mixing action, just a beat note. Which is why there were all those articles about turning down the RF gain when receiving SSB on such receivers. I'm sure a lot had terribly weak BFOs even then. And given that the same general design in general coverage receivers carried over into the age of SSB, the age of the receiver may not be that important. There may be an issue, but perhaps your expectations are higher than the design had in mind. Michael VE2BVW Recapped, many resistors found out of tolerance, voltage checks are all ok. Some previous owner had the IFs badly mistuned. Found an intermittent factory joint on the bandswitch. I guess what I'm asking are these 'features' typical of the NC-88? I wouldn't think so. Maybe the two symptoms are related? Thanks for any comments. -Bill WX4A |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill M" wrote in message ... I'm working on an NC-88 and a couple things aren't sitting right with me. 1. Overall 'oomph' seems to be missing. It receives well enough but even benchside listening requires that the volume be up to about 75%. Doesn't seem right. An AA5 would blow it away. Finger on the volume pot wiper gives a very healthy hum so the problem must be further back. 2. BFO. Works but is really weak. I tried more coupling but no increase. The Sensitivity control has to be almost at the floor to hear it. Its really too weak to be functional. Recapped, many resistors found out of tolerance, voltage checks are all ok. Some previous owner had the IFs badly mistuned. Found an intermittent factory joint on the bandswitch. I guess what I'm asking are these 'features' typical of the NC-88? I wouldn't think so. Maybe the two symptoms are related? Thanks for any comments. -Bill WX4A All of this points to something in the detector/avc/noise limiter area. Have you made tube socket resistance measurements and voltage measurements? Those may show something up. When doing extensive recapping there is always the chance of getting something in wrong or one of the new caps being bad. While the BFO voltage is generally low in conventional receivers its not _that_ low and should give a strong beat note with the RF gain in normal position although it will no be linear enough for SSB. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles WB6KBL |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Knoppow wrote:
All of this points to something in the detector/avc/noise limiter area. A big ole DUH for me. ANL switch was open in either position. Amazing any audio got through at all. Sounds pretty normal now. -Bill |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill M" wrote in message ... Richard Knoppow wrote: All of this points to something in the detector/avc/noise limiter area. A big ole DUH for me. ANL switch was open in either position. Amazing any audio got through at all. Sounds pretty normal now. -Bill Contratulations!!! Its so easy to overlook obvious things. It can be very helpful to have someone else look at a thing you have been busting your head over. The NC-88 is a neat little receiver. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles WB6KBL |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Knoppow wrote:
Contratulations!!! Its so easy to overlook obvious things. It can be very helpful to have someone else look at a thing you have been busting your head over. The NC-88 is a neat little receiver. Yeah, I had to step away from it for it to become obvious. I've had a fun time tuning around with it. I bought the thing on a nostalgic bent and its nice to cruise around on a relatively simple old tube receiver. Most of my SWLing in recent years has been solid-state and homebrew stuff. Thats fun too but its just not the same ![]() 73, Bill |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:16:48 -0400, Bill M
wrote: Richard Knoppow wrote: All of this points to something in the detector/avc/noise limiter area. A big ole DUH for me. ANL switch was open in either position. Amazing any audio got through at all. Sounds pretty normal now. -Bill I think we've all had our DUH moments. Mine had to do with an HQ-145 which was given to me when I bought a Heath SB-200 from a ham who was selling the stuff on behalf of an estate from a deceased ham. He said it didn't work...and it didn't. I recapped it after an inital "smoke test" was positive. I also bough a 3rd part reproduction manual for it. Several instances of cursory testing didn't improve matters and the receiver was set aside for other matters. Later when I noticed some minor varients between my receiver and the schematic, I downloaded another schematic and noted that this new schematic had a note on it that my orignal schematic did not have. The note said that you have to have either a send receive relay in place or you have to jumper the line cord socket on the back panel intended for the send-receive relay. Otherwise, the receiver will think it is set to be deadened for transmission. I quickly ginned up a jumper, plugged it in and of course the receiver worked perfectly. But talk about feeling dumb. I think I lost the import of that connection in my tracing the circuit through some switching. We all do it. Jon W3JT |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question Guy's Questions Raises More Questions | Shortwave | |||
Is it possible to ask questions here? | Antenna | |||
2 questions. | Shortwave | |||
FA: NATIONAL NC-270 HAM RECEIVER - ONE THE LAST NATIONAL BUILT | Boatanchors | |||
BEWARE SPENDING TIME ANSWERING QUESTIONS HERE (WAS Electronic Questions) | Antenna |