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