Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|