Hagstar wrote:
--exray-- wrote:

Single-conversion is a big
negative for a SW receiver but it has some other features.


So, does that mean the single conversion SX-42 is not as good as the
double conversion SX-43 ?

John H.

If I'm not mistaken, aren't they both single conversion across the HF
bands? I think the 43 goes double conv (10.7 Mc 2nd IF) above 44 Mcs
and the SX-42 only uses the 10.7 on the FM band....or something like that.

-Bill

A lot of receivers of "that era" are single conversion 3.5-4.0 MHz
receivers with a "converter stage" ahead of them to move the "other"
bands down to 3.5-4.0 MHz.

Almost all of them have a 455 KHz IF strip.

Jeff

--exray-- wrote:

Hagstar wrote:

--exray-- wrote:

Single-conversion is a big
negative for a SW receiver but it has some other features.



So, does that mean the single conversion SX-42 is not as good as the
double conversion SX-43 ?

John H.


If I'm not mistaken, aren't they both single conversion across the HF
bands? I think the 43 goes double conv (10.7 Mc 2nd IF) above 44 Mcs
and the SX-42 only uses the 10.7 on the FM band....or something like that.

-Bill


--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
A lot of receivers of "that era" are single conversion 3.5-4.0 MHz
receivers with a "converter stage" ahead of them to move the "other"
bands down to 3.5-4.0 MHz.

But not the 42 or 43.

-Bill

"--exray--" wrote in message
...
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
A lot of receivers of "that era" are single conversion 3.5-4.0 MHz
receivers with a "converter stage" ahead of them to move the "other"
bands down to 3.5-4.0 MHz.

But not the 42 or 43.

-Bill


The 42/62 used two RF amps to reduce images.

Frank Dresser

You cannot generalize about single and double conversion. To simplify a
bit, the designer selects the IF as a trade off between image rejection and
selectivity. On double coversion sets the first wider IF provides the
required image rejection while the lower frequency 2nd IF provides improved
selectivity. However, you can also achieve improved selectivity with the
crystal filter. Since the SX110 has a crystal filter, the relevent question
is how effective is that filter.

In article ,
"Joel Levine and Barbara Pickell" wrote:

You cannot generalize about single and double conversion. To simplify a
bit, the designer selects the IF as a trade off between image rejection and
selectivity. On double coversion sets the first wider IF provides the
required image rejection while the lower frequency 2nd IF provides improved
selectivity. However, you can also achieve improved selectivity with the
crystal filter. Since the SX110 has a crystal filter, the relevent question
is how effective is that filter.



The SX-110 is a step up from a 5-tube superhet. There is on RF stage, a
mixer/oscillator stage followed by the IF strip with 2 IF amps. There
is a xtal filter in the IF strip which will help with adjacent-signal
interference. The RF stage will help a bit with image rejection, but I
wouldn't expect it to be very good.

Dave

"Dave Moorman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joel Levine and Barbara Pickell" wrote:

You cannot generalize about single and double conversion. To simplify a
bit, the designer selects the IF as a trade off between image rejection
and
selectivity. On double coversion sets the first wider IF provides the
required image rejection while the lower frequency 2nd IF provides
improved
selectivity. However, you can also achieve improved selectivity with
the
crystal filter. Since the SX110 has a crystal filter, the relevent
question
is how effective is that filter.



The SX-110 is a step up from a 5-tube superhet. There is on RF stage, a
mixer/oscillator stage followed by the IF strip with 2 IF amps. There
is a xtal filter in the IF strip which will help with adjacent-signal
interference. The RF stage will help a bit with image rejection, but I
wouldn't expect it to be very good.

Dave

It's not all that good. I used to have a 110 and a 111. I have both again.

If you want a ham receiver, for CW and SSB, the 110 is a poor choice. The
111 has ham band only coverage and a product detector. Plus 5 steps of
selectivity. A major step over the 110.

The 110 is a decent AM shortwave receiver, and possibly a decent ham AM
receiver.

Dan/W4NTI