From: "Brian Hill" brianehill@charterDOTnet
Date: 1/11/04 10:05 PM Eastern Standard Time

The looks
of the SX-28 is what makes it desirable along with its great audio. That's
what made them popular with Military and FCC monitors was they were less
fatiguing to listen to. Its arguably the best looking boatanchor of all time
too.

Best-looking of all time? Nobody insults my National NC-2-40D without a fight!
It's even on the cover of Osterman's book on communications receivers. The
SP-600 series has to be a close contender. But unless you've got a thing for
little steering wheels as tuning knobs, the National has the Deco look down
much better than the SX-28. Even the speaker has those cool squatty Deco feet.

But it does raise the interesting question: what in your opinion was the
best-looking communications receiver ever produced? Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong.

Avery W3AVE
Potomac, Md.

AComarow wrote:

But it does raise the interesting question: what in your opinion was the
best-looking communications receiver ever produced? Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong.

The R-390, of course. Not the R-390A. The original R-390. But I'm
biased.

--
Want an abuse desk to be part of the solution? Dip it in acid.

From: (Mike Andrews)
Date: 1/12/04 7:23 PM Eastern Standard Time

AComarow wrote:

But it does raise the interesting question: what in your opinion was the
best-looking communications receiver ever produced? Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong.

The R-390, of course. Not the R-390A. The original R-390. But I'm
biased.

We're all biased, Mike. We just believe our individual biases are the right
ones.

And speaking of biases, I like the 390, too. Still...impressive, yes.
Functional, yes. But "best looking"?

Others?

Avery W3AVE

AComarow wrote:

We're all biased, Mike. We just believe our individual biases are the right
ones.

And speaking of biases, I like the 390, too. Still...impressive, yes.
Functional, yes. But "best looking"?

Others?

Avery W3AVE

SX-115!
-Bill M

From: -Bill- exray@coquidotnet
Date: 1/12/04 9:01 PM Eastern Standard Time

SX-115!
-Bill M

I understand the appeal, but it's always left me cold. Arrogant. ("Why am I so
much more expensive than other ham receivers? Because I CAN be! Nyah, nyah.")

Avery W3AVE

AComarow wrote:

SX-115!
-Bill M


I understand the appeal, but it's always left me cold. Arrogant. ("Why am I so
much more expensive than other ham receivers? Because I CAN be! Nyah, nyah.")

Avery W3AVE

I got mine for $100 in the eighties so I try not to let current prices
bother me :-)

-Bill

From: -Bill- exray@coquidotnet
Date: 1/13/04 7:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

AComarow wrote:

SX-115!
-Bill M


I understand the appeal, but it's always left me cold. Arrogant. ("Why am I
so
much more expensive than other ham receivers? Because I CAN be! Nyah,
nyah.")

Avery W3AVE

I got mine for $100 in the eighties so I try not to let current prices
bother me :-)

-Bill

Give you $150 for it.

Avery

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:07:24 UTC, (AComarow) wrote:

But it does raise the interesting question: what in your opinion was the
best-looking communications receiver ever produced?

I don't like the peep-hole windows like Hammarlund used. A radio
should have a BIG scale and big knobs.

NC-270
SX-62

The metaphore scales are confusing too, HRO, Collins. It's too much
like looking at a movie through a soda straw. Don't get me started
on digital displays. What's that, a bunch of numbers. It doesn't
show me where the station is in the context of the band.

SX-101A, now there is how 40 meters should be splayed out.

While I have the floor, anyone remember the big 20 meter antenna
that was on the cover of QST in the mid 1960's. It was six
6-elements wide spaced on a 210 foot tower.

Is it still on the air? Are there pictures of it on the web? There
was a similar big 20 meter array in Europe. Might have been in
Norway.

de ah6gi/4

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: NoSpam
Date: 1/12/04 8:36 PM Eastern Standard Time

I don't like the peep-hole windows like Hammarlund used. A radio
should have a BIG scale and big knobs.

NC-270
SX-62

The metaphore scales are confusing too, HRO, Collins. It's too much
like looking at a movie through a soda straw. Don't get me started
on digital displays. What's that, a bunch of numbers. It doesn't
show me where the station is in the context of the band.

SX-101A, now there is how 40 meters should be splayed out.

de ah6gi/4

With due respect, the NC-270 was just a cheaper, tarted-up NC-303. But I guess
if you like blue...

Avery W3AVE

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:47:50 UTC, (AComarow) wrote:

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: NoSpam
Date: 1/12/04 8:36 PM Eastern Standard Time

I don't like the peep-hole windows like Hammarlund used. A radio
should have a BIG scale and big knobs.

NC-270
SX-62

The metaphore scales are confusing too, HRO, Collins. It's too much
like looking at a movie through a soda straw. Don't get me started
on digital displays. What's that, a bunch of numbers. It doesn't
show me where the station is in the context of the band.

SX-101A, now there is how 40 meters should be splayed out.

de ah6gi/4

With due respect, the NC-270 was just a cheaper, tarted-up NC-303. But I guess
if you like blue...

Avery W3AVE

No, the 303 didn't have all the bands in front of you the way the
NC-270 did.

I have a theory about these radios. I have a pal who is a "spec"
reader. You know the type. He doesn't have a good feel for
"real-world" phenomenum but he can memorize numbers and parameters.

A lot of radio guys are "spec" readers, 3rd order intercept,
fractional microvolt sensitivity, the more esoteric, the better they
like it.

The real world ain't a bunch of specs. It's how you use the tool,
not the size in mm.

The NC-270 had a nice look, a unique color scheme, that flywheel on
the tuning knob, and decent enough electronics.

I really appreciate BIG slide rule scales and smooth tuning knobs
with some heft to them.

I'm not saying that the '303 wasn't a great radio. It was.

I simply appreciate a radio with the scales in front of you. My
old SX-101A was a nice radio. It gives you a better feel for the
band layout than, say, an S-Line, HRO, or one of the new digital
boxes.

I like maps because I can see that "this" is close to "that". You
don't get that sense from a digital radio.

Anyway, these are all interesting and fun.

de ah6gi/4