|
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
Mike M. wrote:
Hello, How do the old tube type receivers such as the Hammarlund ,Hallicrafter etc compare to the modern solid state receivers in performance? I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market. Thank you, Mike McManus Mike, You ask a couple of interesting questions, but you need to focus a bit more. To take Hallicrafters as an example, they made a wide range of receivers, ranging from the entry level S-38 (really mediocre as you would expect), to their final, top-of -the line SX-115, still able to hold its own with modern receivers. (I am ignoring all their pre-WWII radios). This would hold true for most manufacturers except for Collins -- where everything they made was "top of the line". ;-) I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market. Again, you should clarify a bit. Not sure what you actually mean by "longevity". The components in the tube radios are anywhere from 30 to 70 or more years old. Once components that age have been replaced, the old set's service life should generally compare favorably with the solid state radios. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
My brother in law has a big old boat anchor radio.I don't know what
brand name it is.I saw it a few years ago, sitting on his work bench in his two story work shop/storage building in his back yard.I don't snoop around about his things.He is a retired Air Force Colonel, I assume he bought that radio somewhere when he was in the Air Force.Of course, he had that radio tuned to the local MISS 103 FM Music station.That is the Only radio station they listen to over there. http://www.MISS103.com cuhulin |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
Don't let the aging capacitors and tube fears deter you from considering one
of the better pieces made by National, Hammarlund, Hallicrafters or Collins. Aligned and maintained they will outpace anything new that has come along in the last 30 years. The dynamic range is superb and makes the comparison with new stuff like comparing the audio of the old well-built Western Electric telephones with the raucous crappy audio that is found on cell phones. Stability? Most of the better receivers from that era pose no NOTICEABLE drift. Nit-picking absurd specifications like saying a new rig is better than an older one because it only has 10 Hz drift is nonsense. Even on CW or SSB I doubt most listeners can even detect 100 cycles of instability. Replacing capacitors is not rocket science. You remove one that says "10 uF" and you replace it with a new one that says "10 uF." Duh. Tubes are still plentiful and with careful shopping (not the price gougers on scum-Bay) you can buy NOS or used-but-verified good inexpensively. I have restored lots of these receivers and even the worse cases never needed more than 1 or two tubes. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Mike M. wrote: Hello, How do the old tube type receivers such as the Hammarlund ,Hallicrafter etc compare to the modern solid state receivers in performance? I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market. Thank you, Mike McManus Mike, You ask a couple of interesting questions, but you need to focus a bit more. To take Hallicrafters as an example, they made a wide range of receivers, ranging from the entry level S-38 (really mediocre as you would expect), to their final, top-of -the line SX-115, still able to hold its own with modern receivers. (I am ignoring all their pre-WWII radios). This would hold true for most manufacturers except for Collins -- where everything they made was "top of the line". ;-) I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market. Again, you should clarify a bit. Not sure what you actually mean by "longevity". The components in the tube radios are anywhere from 30 to 70 or more years old. Once components that age have been replaced, the old set's service life should generally compare favorably with the solid state radios. Of course, the contradictory thing is that the low end S-38 is so simple that it's easy to put in new capacitors, while the better old equipment has so many stages and so much shielding that it can be a lot of trouble. Thus a cheap tube receiver is likely far easier to repair than a current tiny solid state receiver, but the latter have better performance generally. The old tube receivers that match the performance (or better the performance) of current "average" solid state receivers will be as difficult to repair, if not more so. Michael |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On 3/7/10 13:17 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Mike M. wrote: Hello, How do the old tube type receivers such as the Hammarlund ,Hallicrafter etc compare to the modern solid state receivers in performance? I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market. Thank you, Mike McManus Mike, You ask a couple of interesting questions, but you need to focus a bit more. To take Hallicrafters as an example, they made a wide range of receivers, ranging from the entry level S-38 (really mediocre as you would expect), to their final, top-of -the line SX-115, still able to hold its own with modern receivers. (I am ignoring all their pre-WWII radios). This would hold true for most manufacturers except for Collins -- where everything they made was "top of the line". ;-) I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market. Again, you should clarify a bit. Not sure what you actually mean by "longevity". The components in the tube radios are anywhere from 30 to 70 or more years old. Once components that age have been replaced, the old set's service life should generally compare favorably with the solid state radios. Consider also, that components replaced using contemporary materials and contemporary manufacturing techniques may deliver an improvement in performance over new specification. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
Clive wrote:
Don't let the aging capacitors and tube fears deter you from considering one of the better pieces made by National, Hammarlund, Hallicrafters or Collins. Aligned and maintained they will outpace anything new that has come along in the last 30 years. No. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
I have a Hallicrafters S-38EB radio.I bought it for about four dollars
about fifteen something years ago at a Goodwill store. The radio does work and it is in very nice physical and cosmetic condition.It is a little dusty right now, just like most thingys in my house.I am not Mr.Clean.The dust helps protect it, you seeeeee,,,,,,, http://www.shopgoodwill.com http://www.devilfinder.com Hallicrafters S-38EB Radios cuhulin |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
Bob Dobbs wrote:
Clive wrote: Even on CW or SSB I doubt most listeners can even detect 100 cycles of instability. I can definitely tell when some station is ten or more kcs off where I'm tuned, and go to the RIT automatically. If they continue to drift, I might chase them awhile, but usually move on, suggesting they sober up and quit leaning on the VFO knob. My receiver is stable to less than a twentieth of a cycle over several months. (Using WWV as a reference) 100 Hz is a noticeable change in pitch. A 50 Hz step makes listening to music on SSB very difficult. I do my major DXing through a 250 Hz filter, so if you drift you go bye-bye. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug companies to sell their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which the has come from manufacturers of modern day radios. Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much as (if not more than) the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications that are patently unnecessary. And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman pinschers with keen hearing. What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies are on here. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com