Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Edward Feustel wrote:
On 1 Nov 2011 18:14:27 -0000, Kulin Remailer wrote: sctvguy1 wrote: What other radios do you think are better? I had a couple Nationals and my friends ran homebrews and Drakes and the occasional Collins. The National 303 especially was a favorite. Audio was warm like Bill Haley and the Comets on Fender tube (of course!) amps, and that heavy heavy tuning flywheel could almost spin across the whole band with one flick of the wrist. I believe it had 6 bandwidths from about 6K down to 250Hz. I haven't seen a better tube CW rig ever. SWL was great on it too. They seem to be loved by everyone who had one or ever used one. They were huge though, make room in the shack. What are the attributes that must be "part of better"? Does sctvguy1 want just a receiver or will a transceiver do? What modes does he really want to listen to, e.g., teletype, digital, cw, ssb, am, fm? What frequency range is desirable? Would he want VHF and UHF if he could get it? How about frequency setability? How about a computer interface to the receiver? Does it have to have knobs, or is a Software Defined Receiver ok? Is sensitiity more important than selectivity? Must it look "pretty"? Better is also a function of $. What kind of $ range is to be considered. And I suspect at this point that "better" may not be the only criteria. The H1-180 was about a decade old when I first read about it, coming into the hobby in 1972. It always seemed intriguing, something different about it, even though it wasn't the only receiver at the time it came out that dropped to 60KHz for selectivity with LC circuits (and thus supplying multiple bandwidths with less limitation of the phasing type crystal filter). So wanting it now might be because of that lust when it came out and was too expensive. There were lots of receivers that came out that had some neat thing about them, or others that were barely discussed, and yet they may take precedence over the "better receivers" because it's the unique that's desired, not "best reception". Now, so many have transceivers (or a matched pair of receiver and transmitter), and if recent enough, they even have general coverage reception built in. So like I said, criteria is different now from even forty years ago, when you'd be trying to stretch a general coverage receiver to ham use. If you now have the function of general coverage, and generally good design, then the novelty of that Clegg receiver with the external converter so it covers the shortwave bands is much more appealing, whether or not there are "better receivers". I'm not just talking about collecting, but that one can still lust after an old receiver without it being Top of the Line (though perhaps one lusts after those at the same time). Michael VE2BVW |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crystals for Hammarlund HQ-145X | Boatanchors | |||
Hammarlund HQ-180A | Boatanchors | |||
Differences between Hammarlund HQ-180 and -180A | Boatanchors | |||
Hammarlund HQ-180A NICE!!!!! | Boatanchors | |||
Hammarlund HQ-180A NICE!!!!! | Shortwave |