Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 30th 11, 11:49 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 487
Default Hammarlund comprison HQ-145X, 170A, 180A

Bill M wrote:

I've owned all three and think the 180A is the best of the lot. A
common complaint is the narrow audio on AM but I call that "selectivity"
(wink). Doesn't bother me because my top-end hearing response is
somewhat damaged.


With the "death" of shortwave broadcasting, the bands have gone from so crowded
that nothing can separate the signals to enough spacing that wide AM
selectivity is a good thing.

Still plenty to listen to, but you no longer need a sideband splitter
(or synchronous AM detector) or narrow filters to hear it.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(


  #2   Report Post  
Old October 30th 11, 10:04 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2009
Posts: 103
Default Hammarlund comprison HQ-145X, 170A, 180A

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Bill M wrote:

I've owned all three and think the 180A is the best of the lot. A
common complaint is the narrow audio on AM but I call that "selectivity"
(wink). Doesn't bother me because my top-end hearing response is
somewhat damaged.


With the "death" of shortwave broadcasting, the bands have gone from so crowded
that nothing can separate the signals to enough spacing that wide AM
selectivity is a good thing.

Still plenty to listen to, but you no longer need a sideband splitter
(or synchronous AM detector) or narrow filters to hear it.

Geoff.


Well, yes and no. Even though the SWBC bands are nowhere near as
crowded as in the past all it takes is 'one' situation where Rcvr A's
ability supercedes Rcvr B and then you're sold

All three are good radios. Gen Coverage vs ham band only coverage makes
the 170 an apple compared to the other two oranges in some respects. I
used a 170 for a while for hamming but I fell upon a sweetheart deal on
a 180A and made the switch. Although it didn't have that big vernier
knob like the 170 it was every bit as good - and maybe even better. I
wound up liking the 180A better - in part because I do like to cruise
the spectrum and I didn't feel like I lost anything on the ham bands by
going with a GC receiver.

Scott mentioned dial backlash. There must have been a problem with his
radio! Its a direct drive and I can't imagine how you could get
backlash unless the 'disc' had worn spots.

-Bill
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crystals for Hammarlund HQ-145X AKSWL Boatanchors 1 November 18th 08 11:08 PM
Hammarlund HQ-180A Roger D Johnson Boatanchors 2 October 13th 07 03:15 AM
Differences between Hammarlund HQ-180 and -180A Rick[_3_] Boatanchors 2 March 8th 07 12:14 AM
Hammarlund HQ-180A NICE!!!!! [email protected] Boatanchors 1 June 25th 04 04:55 PM
Hammarlund HQ-180A NICE!!!!! [email protected] Shortwave 0 June 25th 04 03:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017