WOW - well never seen a picture of one but heard of them from some RME
Collectors here in Dallas. Kinda collectable since it was the last gasp of
RME. There is a small group here that collects the last tube rigs of dying
companies from the 50's 60's and 70's.

Interesting concept since back then most would do anything they could to
save their companies and some of these "desperation" rigs reflect that.

-Biz WDØHCO
Dallas, TX

Well, if by desperation you mean ill-conceived or rushed designs, yes, there
was some of that. Hammarlund's HQ-215 or -205 (I don't recall the exact model
number) comes to mind--a nondescript receiver coupled with a CB transmitter.
But the RME 6900 was a very good radio, at least in my opinion. It performed
well and looked pretty neat, and was priced well below the top of hamband-only
receivers.

Avery W3AVE

In article ,
(AComarow) writes:

Hammarlund's HQ-215 or -205 (I don't recall the exact model
number) comes to mind--a nondescript receiver coupled with a CB transmitter.

HQ-105TR - it was an HQ-100 with a one-tube one-channel 5 watt 10 or 11 meter
rig inside (used the rx audio system for the modulator). Circa 1958 - not a
desperation move by Hammarlund, just a marketing attempt.

The HQ-215 (1968 or so) was meant to be a solid-state top-end rx. It used the
same het scheme as the Collins S-line and it could (in theory, anyway)
transceive with a 32S-3. But I doubt many Collins fans wanted one!

But the RME 6900 was a very good radio, at least in my opinion. It performed
well and looked pretty neat, and was priced well below the top of
hamband-only
receivers.

How did it compare with, say, a 75A-4?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Hammarlund's HQ-215 or -205 (I don't recall the exact model
number) comes to mind--a nondescript receiver coupled with a CB transmitter.

HQ-105TR - it was an HQ-100 with a one-tube one-channel 5 watt 10 or 11 meter
rig inside (used the rx audio system for the modulator). Circa 1958 - not a
desperation move by Hammarlund, just a marketing attempt.

The HQ-215 (1968 or so) was meant to be a solid-state top-end rx. It used the
same het scheme as the Collins S-line and it could (in theory, anyway)
transceive with a 32S-3. But I doubt many Collins fans wanted one!

But the RME 6900 was a very good radio, at least in my opinion. It performed
well and looked pretty neat, and was priced well below the top of
hamband-only
receivers.

How did it compare with, say, a 75A-4?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks for setting me straight on the Hammarlunds, although I'd still bet the
company didn't sell many 105TRs.

As for the RME-6900 vs. a 75A-4, no fair. Not even close, nor did it pretend to
be. It was in the price class of an HQ-170. It lacked mechanical filters (among
other 75A-4 features) and certainly wasn't overbuilt like the A-4. It was more
comparable to a 75S-3, and even then there was really not much of a contest. I
sold mine because I had an HQ-170A that I preferred because of the slot filter,
audio performance, and flexibility. But one of the things I liked about the RME
was its one knob, one function design, with nice big knobs. I'm not much on
multifunction controls. I keep forgetting how to access the secondary and
tertiary functions and even what they are.

Avery W3AVE

(AComarow) wrote in message ...
Hammarlund's HQ-215 or -205 (I don't recall the exact model
number) comes to mind--a nondescript receiver coupled with a CB transmitter.

HQ-105TR - it was an HQ-100 with a one-tube one-channel 5 watt 10 or 11 meter
rig inside (used the rx audio system for the modulator). Circa 1958 - not a
desperation move by Hammarlund, just a marketing attempt.

The HQ-215 (1968 or so) was meant to be a solid-state top-end rx. It used the
same het scheme as the Collins S-line and it could (in theory, anyway)
transceive with a 32S-3. But I doubt many Collins fans wanted one!

But the RME 6900 was a very good radio, at least in my opinion. It performed
well and looked pretty neat, and was priced well below the top of
hamband-only
receivers.

How did it compare with, say, a 75A-4?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks for setting me straight on the Hammarlunds, although I'd still bet the
company didn't sell many 105TRs.

Agreed! The HQ-100 had a lot of compromises - not even a separate BFO!
The -100A was an improvement.

As for the RME-6900 vs. a 75A-4, no fair. Not even close, nor did it pretend
to be. It was in the price class of an HQ-170. It lacked mechanical filters
(among
other 75A-4 features) and certainly wasn't overbuilt like the A-4. It was more
comparable to a 75S-3, and even then there was really not much of a contest. I
sold mine because I had an HQ-170A that I preferred because of the slot filter,
audio performance, and flexibility.

All that makes sense. Probably why '170s are so much more common than
'6900s.

But one of the things I liked about the RME
was its one knob, one function design, with nice big knobs.

YES!

This is one feature that I always admired in the Collins 75A series.
Big, serious controls, nothing tiny or dainty.

I'm not much on
multifunction controls. I keep forgetting how to access the secondary and
tertiary functions and even what they are.

I agree 100%. I have incorporated that philosophy in all my homebrew
rigs, too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

But one of the things I liked about the RME
was its one knob, one function design, with nice big knobs.

YES!

This is one feature that I always admired in the Collins 75A series.
Big, serious controls, nothing tiny or dainty.

I'm not much on
multifunction controls. I keep forgetting how to access the secondary and
tertiary functions and even what they are.

I agree 100%. I have incorporated that philosophy in all my homebrew
rigs, too.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Jim,

It's a philosophy, interestingly, that Grundig built into its Satellit 800
shortwave radio that hit the market a couple of years ago. It's one big sucker
of a radio, especially for a portable unit (more of a luggable than a portable
at 14+ pounds). Bucking the modern trend in shortwave radios most exemplified,
IMO, by the AOR 7030 (a stellar performer that I absolutely despise), the 800
follows the path you and I prefer: one knob, one function. Largish, easy to
grasp controls. And after Grundig worked out a few bugs, the 800 performs
extremely well for its sub-$500 price. If I didn't already have so much gear
crowding the shelves, I'd get one.

Avery W3AVE