Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
the SX28 and 28A were designed in the 30s.

I also own both an R390 and an R390A. If you want the ultimate in AM
performance, either of these beauties will do it for you. I perfer
the R390 because it tunes more smoothly and overall has a smoother
feel. On the air performance is similar in both, and of course both
have the famous mechanical dial.

The RF performance on these radios cannot be beat. In my office at work
I have a Watkins-Johnson HF system that cost the government a few tens of
thousands of dollars and directly digitizes the IF for digital filtering
and demodulation. The R-390A is better at pulling weak signals out of
the trash (although the panadaptor display on the Watkins-Johnson is hard to
beat).

The problem with the R390 is that the audio quality just stinks. Great for
DXing, not good for casual shortwave listening. The filters ring like mad
and the distortion on the output stage is way too high for my taste. There
are some aftermarket AF decks for these but they don't solve the real problems.

But, my god, they pull stuff out of nowhere. And once they are warmed up,
they are stable enough to stay tuned on a RTTY station for weeks.

I throw my lot in with Scott on the R-390/R-390A for stability and
sensitivity. It's all technology that I understand, but it sure is
a lot like magic.

I don't have the reservations about fidelity and distortion that
he does: they sound about as good as my Yaesu FRG-100 and my Icom
PCR-1000.

Anyone who wants to give (or lend) me a recent-model WJ receiver is
welcome to do so; I'll happily do A/B comparisons for a year or two.

--
Mike Andrews, once WN5EGO, and hoping to be W5EGO

Tired old sysadmin

Mike Andrews wrote:

I throw my lot in with Scott on the R-390/R-390A for stability and
sensitivity. It's all technology that I understand, but it sure is
a lot like magic.

I thought I understood it, then I found a sensitivity problem on the lowest
band... and now I am pretty sure I don't. AAARGH! Time to call Chuck Rippel
again.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Andrews wrote:

I throw my lot in with Scott on the R-390/R-390A for stability and
sensitivity. It's all technology that I understand, but it sure is
a lot like magic.

I thought I understood it, then I found a sensitivity problem on the lowest
band... and now I am pretty sure I don't. AAARGH! Time to call Chuck Rippel
again.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article , (Scott Dorsey)
writes:

The problem with the R390 is that the audio quality just stinks. Great for
DXing, not good for casual shortwave listening. The filters ring like mad
and the distortion on the output stage is way too high for my taste. There
are some aftermarket AF decks for these but they don't solve the real
problems.

Might you have meant the "A" when you said the filters ring? SWLs often prefer
the older non-A since its LC IF selectivity doesn't ring like the mechanical
filters in the "A".

There is the Kleronomous audio module mod for the "A" -- I have it and it
sounds great, though as you said it can't cover up the filter ringing, if that
bothers you.

I don't know of any audio mods for the non-A, but you can always feed the Diode
Load output to the firebottle mono amp (Dyna into Big Advents?) of your choice.
73, Mike K.

Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

In article , (Scott Dorsey)
writes:

The problem with the R390 is that the audio quality just stinks. Great for
DXing, not good for casual shortwave listening. The filters ring like mad
and the distortion on the output stage is way too high for my taste. There
are some aftermarket AF decks for these but they don't solve the real
problems.

Might you have meant the "A" when you said the filters ring? SWLs often prefer
the older non-A since its LC IF selectivity doesn't ring like the mechanical
filters in the "A".

There is the Kleronomous audio module mod for the "A" -- I have it and it
sounds great, though as you said it can't cover up the filter ringing, if that
bothers you.

I don't know of any audio mods for the non-A, but you can always feed the Diode
Load output to the firebottle mono amp (Dyna into Big Advents?) of your choice.
73, Mike K.

Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

Mike Knudsen wrote:
In article , (Scott Dorsey)
writes:

The problem with the R390 is that the audio quality just stinks. Great for
DXing, not good for casual shortwave listening. The filters ring like mad
and the distortion on the output stage is way too high for my taste. There
are some aftermarket AF decks for these but they don't solve the real
problems.

Might you have meant the "A" when you said the filters ring? SWLs often prefer
the older non-A since its LC IF selectivity doesn't ring like the mechanical
filters in the "A".

Yes, I did. I think the mechanical filters are worth every penny for the
better selectivity. I mean, amazing selectivity. But the ringing gets
to you on long listening sessions.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Knudsen wrote:
In article , (Scott Dorsey)
writes:

The problem with the R390 is that the audio quality just stinks. Great for
DXing, not good for casual shortwave listening. The filters ring like mad
and the distortion on the output stage is way too high for my taste. There
are some aftermarket AF decks for these but they don't solve the real
problems.

Might you have meant the "A" when you said the filters ring? SWLs often prefer
the older non-A since its LC IF selectivity doesn't ring like the mechanical
filters in the "A".

Yes, I did. I think the mechanical filters are worth every penny for the
better selectivity. I mean, amazing selectivity. But the ringing gets
to you on long listening sessions.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I wonder if you are thinking about the same receiver as I
am..............the R388 had 30 bands, in 1 MHz increments, from .5 to
30.5MHz. This unit had 1kHz readout throughout the range. I've owned the HRO
60-T, and while it was a good receiver, it still wasn't as good as a
properly working R388. You are right about that audio output stage on the
National receiver, though. It did sound good. Same thing about those Johnson
products. That VFO was a work of wonder.

Pete

Roger Brown wrote in message
...
Stay with Johnson products. DX-100 OK but Heath gear was mechanically
inferior in comparison. As to a receiver - go with the HRO-60. Beats any
of the Collins for audio fidelity and output, although not as mechanically
well built. The HRO's superior bandspread is another advantage you'll
lose
with a 388. That's my preference.
Roger Brown, KL7Q

"Charles" wrote in message
.. .
Go with the DX-100 B Much better Transmitter
"Dave" wrote in message
news.com...
In the future I would like to set up an AM station for the low bands
(just 160m, 80m, and 40m) and am doing some research as to what
equipment I should be looking for.

What I use I think is awesome. Heathkit DX-100 (not the B version)
and a Collins R388 housed in a matching DX-100 cabinet. The two
make a 'pair' that way - the R388 fits the DX-100 case exactly, and
they look terrific together. And the AM quality of the plate
modulated
DX-100 beats any of the smaller AM rigs out there. Also makes
a fantastic CW setup, and the R388 is a very delightful all-wave SW
receiver to boot.

That's my vote

Dave WB7AWK

I wonder if you are thinking about the same receiver as I
am..............the R388 had 30 bands, in 1 MHz increments, from .5 to
30.5MHz. This unit had 1kHz readout throughout the range. I've owned the HRO
60-T, and while it was a good receiver, it still wasn't as good as a
properly working R388. You are right about that audio output stage on the
National receiver, though. It did sound good. Same thing about those Johnson
products. That VFO was a work of wonder.

Pete

Roger Brown wrote in message
...
Stay with Johnson products. DX-100 OK but Heath gear was mechanically
inferior in comparison. As to a receiver - go with the HRO-60. Beats any
of the Collins for audio fidelity and output, although not as mechanically
well built. The HRO's superior bandspread is another advantage you'll
lose
with a 388. That's my preference.
Roger Brown, KL7Q

"Charles" wrote in message
.. .
Go with the DX-100 B Much better Transmitter
"Dave" wrote in message
news.com...
In the future I would like to set up an AM station for the low bands
(just 160m, 80m, and 40m) and am doing some research as to what
equipment I should be looking for.

What I use I think is awesome. Heathkit DX-100 (not the B version)
and a Collins R388 housed in a matching DX-100 cabinet. The two
make a 'pair' that way - the R388 fits the DX-100 case exactly, and
they look terrific together. And the AM quality of the plate
modulated
DX-100 beats any of the smaller AM rigs out there. Also makes
a fantastic CW setup, and the R388 is a very delightful all-wave SW
receiver to boot.

That's my vote

Dave WB7AWK