| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
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 |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
The higher end boat anchors (HRO50/60, R390A, Collins, Drake, et al)
compare quite favorably especially on noise floor. Jay Rusgrove, has compiled (and done his own tests) on quite a few BA receivers (Minimum Discernible Signal, Dynamic Range). You can see the test results he http://www.w1vd.com/BAreceivertest.html and he http://www.w1vd.com/BAdynamicrange.pdf For comparison here are lists of more modern receiver test results: http://www.sherweng.com/table.html On Mar 7, 8:46*am, "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 |
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. Two separate issues. All of the old radios are starting to show their age. Capacaitors are failing. tubes are failing (some of the cheaper ones were not as "airtight" as people thought), and so on. Once they are properly maintained, with replacement capacitors, new tubes if needed, etc, they can perform as well as they did the way they were made. However the chance of finding an old (1930-1940's) rig that has sat on the shelf for 30 years, turning it on, and not seeking smoke and actually hearing anything except hum is pretty small. There are proper ways to bring them back to life, and often they work with few parts needing to be replaced. As for performance, it depends upon the radio. On the lower frequencies (below 15mHz) they should do quite well, some of the 1930's vintage rigs tuned up to 30 or 40mHz, but were quite "deaf" there. Since they do not have sythesizers, they are generally quiet, with low internal noise. What they lack is filtering, although some were made with Collins mechaincal filters (or similar ones) which are as good as or better than their modern equivalent. You also should, IMHO look at some of the lesser rigs too. People sat around for hours listening to them, the way they spend time watching their plasma TVs these days before hitting pause and switching to their email. :-) They won't hold up well on a crowded band, but if you can find a clear signal with little close by stations, they can be a pleasant listen. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
One of the best of the "lesser rigs" is the Hammarlund HQ120/129/140
series. Very well built, easy to work on/recap, excellent performance. You can find nice ones for $150 or so. Also the older Super Pros including the mil. versions (SP200/400, BC779, etc.). The cheaper Hallicrafters, generally speaking, suffered from cheap components & build quality. You also should, IMHO look at some of the lesser rigs too. People sat around for hours listening to them, the way they spend time watching their plasma TVs these days before hitting pause and switching to their email. :-) They won't hold up well on a crowded band, but if you can find a clear signal with little close by stations, they can be a pleasant listen. Geoff. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On 3/7/10 07:46 , 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? Depends on the radio. There is no hard and fast rule about hollow state vs solid state. Each operator may have his or her preferences and prejudices, but it comes down to what you like and how well the circuitry was designed. R-390/R392 still stands in legend as the lowest noise floor of hollow state. While the higher end Ten-Tecs and W-J stand toe to toe with it in solid state. Tube receivers are prized for their audio. Warm, smooth, and pleasing to the ear. And this can be true. Then again, solid state audio can be more precise, almost clinical, and equally pleasing to the ear. It depends on the circuitry, and what attention to detail is paid. And it depends on application. A noisier receiver with a good antenna can easily outperform a better receiver with a mediocre antenna. Now, there have been some very good development in receivers since the end of the tube era. No longer do we have to toy with phasing on a crystal filter for reasonable selectivity. We can now select from a range of filters, shift the passband, and engage synchronous detection to clean up a buried signal. Similarly, performance over a wider range of frequencies with excellent consistency is possible with modern receivers than with vintage boatanchors. In many cases. But certainly not all. Modern receivers can be far more power efficient, present a smaller desktop footprint. But the truth is, that if you select your receiver wisely, and you apply an antenna that will bring the most out of your receiver, you can use, effectively, any receiver you enjoy, and achieve the results you're looking for. Older rigs will take more fiddling, and there will be thermal drift to deal with. Newer rigs will come up quickly, stay put sooner, and will require less fiddling to do the same job. I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market. Thank you, Mike McManus That's going to depend on the availablity of tubes, mostly. Some are getting difficult to come by. Some may still be substituted with more available, or better, tubes. But nearly all tubes are out of print for RF work. You're going to have to scrounge for NOS. And sometimes pay obscene prices from scalpers. (Many of whom frequent these groups.) And some specific components like tuning capacitors and IF cans are getting difficult to find, as well. That's not to say that tube rigs are any worse than solid state in this regard. The most recent generation of AOR rigs is now based on out of print chips for which there are no substitutes. And displays for Drake receivers have been drying up for a number of models. Similarly, many rigs are finding themselves to be of limited serviceability due to discountinued parts of all types. Find an SP-325. Ten-Tec doesn't even acknowledge that they built it. While Fair Radio sells parts and whole subchassis for R-390 and R-392. That said, it is generally easier to modify a point to point wired tube rig for a different tube, or other component, than it is to modify a PCB based solidstate rig for a newer IC. But, too, that's not always the case. So, again, it depends on the radio. And it depends on your commitment to the receiver of your choice. You'll can always build a receiving station to fit your needs and the rig of your choice. And at the same time, you can always find SOMETHING to keep your favorite rig working, if you ensure you have the technical understanding, and the tenacity to keep it working. Once you understand the limitations and the advantages of each, the whole tube vs solid state thing becomes largely a non issue. My Drakes and Ten-Tecs sit next to my Hallicrafters and Hammarlunds. Everyone of them gets a regular workout. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
Watching an old 1937 Mr.Autery movie on the Western channel.
Public Cowboy, No. 1 Gene Autry, Smiley Burnette, Ann Rutherford. Modern day cattle rustlers use a shortwave radio, airplanes and refrigerator trucks to expedite their illegal schemes. Modern day cattle rustling is still happening nowadays. cuhulin |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
If you get to handling old tubes, (vacuum tubes) removing or replacing
them, be very carefull, it is all too easy to wipe the printing off of the outside of those old tubes. cuhulin |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
|
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
|
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
|
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. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
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. Yes. We've noticed that. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On Mar 8, 4:32*am, dave wrote:
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. No kidding. I find even 10 Hz offset uncomfortable to listen to in music. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
And why shouldn't people be picky about their Radios? Ticky Butt!
cuhulin |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On Mar 8, 6:20*am, "Clive" wrote:
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. Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. The stability and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S- AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice. The S-AM on this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds like. Bruce |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:20 am, wrote: 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. Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. The stability and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S- AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice. Did you get the crystal oven on that one? The S-AM on this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds like. I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are still there, but the audio doesn't shatter. If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If not, it's not that big a deal. I use my rigs without sync more than with. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On Mar 8, 7:48*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote: On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote: On Mar 8, 6:20 am, *wrote: 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. Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. *The stability and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S- AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice. * *Did you get the crystal oven on that one? The S-AM on this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds like. * *I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are still there, but the audio doesn't shatter. * *If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If not, it's not that big a deal. * *I use my rigs without sync more than with.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks, Peter - well, that's about what I thought - the Kiwa-modified S-AM on the R75 definitely helps soften the blow of the fades (the distortion disappears for all practical purposes), and the AGC when the RF Gain is turned back a wee bit fills in and remedies all but the deepest fades. I just figured the Drake/AOR/etc. did it better. Not having ever heard one in person (NOBODY sells or demos them around this metropolis), I just don't know for sure. In fact, you can't find any shortwave receiver sales at all anymore except the usual lowball Etons at RS. HRO has nothing but tranceivers anymore. Bruce |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
bpnjensen wrote:
Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. The stability and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S- AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice. The S-AM on this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds like. Bruce When I used my R75 for program listening I used the SSB mode. The SAM is useless without the Kiwa mods, which I don't have. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On 3/8/10 10:07 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:48 am, "D. Peter wrote: On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote: On Mar 8, 6:20 am, wrote: 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. Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. The stability and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S- AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice. Did you get the crystal oven on that one? The S-AM on this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds like. I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are still there, but the audio doesn't shatter. If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If not, it's not that big a deal. I use my rigs without sync more than with.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks, Peter - well, that's about what I thought - the Kiwa-modified S-AM on the R75 definitely helps soften the blow of the fades (the distortion disappears for all practical purposes), and the AGC when the RF Gain is turned back a wee bit fills in and remedies all but the deepest fades. I just figured the Drake/AOR/etc. did it better. Not having ever heard one in person (NOBODY sells or demos them around this metropolis), I just don't know for sure. In fact, you can't find any shortwave receiver sales at all anymore except the usual lowball Etons at RS. HRO has nothing but tranceivers anymore. Bruce It's no better, here. I have to go to a hamfest and look at mfr's rep booths to see, or to play with anything new. I bought my more recent receivers unheard, based on recommendations of users, and reviewers at RNW. Although the R8A I bought at a model train show. It was in like new condition. Not a mark on it. It still smelled like fresh circuit boards when I opened the box. That was a good day. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On Mar 8, 8:26*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote: On 3/8/10 10:07 , bpnjensen wrote: On Mar 8, 7:48 am, "D. Peter wrote: On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote: On Mar 8, 6:20 am, * *wrote: 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. Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. *The stability and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S- AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice. * * Did you get the crystal oven on that one? The S-AM on this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds like. * * I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are still there, but the audio doesn't shatter. * * If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If not, it's not that big a deal. * * I use my rigs without sync more than with.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks, Peter - well, that's about what I thought - the Kiwa-modified S-AM on the R75 definitely helps soften the blow of the fades (the distortion disappears for all practical purposes), and the AGC when the RF Gain is turned back a wee bit fills in and remedies all but the deepest fades. *I just figured the Drake/AOR/etc. did it better. *Not having ever heard one in person (NOBODY sells or demos them around this metropolis), I just don't know for sure. *In fact, you can't find any shortwave receiver sales at all anymore except the usual lowball Etons at RS. *HRO has nothing but tranceivers anymore. Bruce * *It's no better, here. I have to go to a hamfest and look at mfr's rep booths to see, or to play with anything new. I bought my more recent receivers unheard, based on recommendations of users, and reviewers at RNW. * *Although the R8A I bought at a model train show. It was in like new condition. Not a mark on it. It still smelled like fresh circuit boards when I opened the box. * *That was a good day.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Model trains! Me too! :-D All I need is room for a RR...enough for a Challenger to hi-ball across the Utah desert... |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On 3/8/10 10:07 , bpnjensen wrote:
the Kiwa-modified S-AM on the R75 definitely helps soften the blow of the fades (the distortion disappears for all practical purposes), and the AGC when the RF Gain is turned back a wee bit fills in and remedies all but the deepest fades. The sync on R75 was not well implemented. It worked. And it worked according to factory specs. But it was what the techs at Lowe call 'fiddly' dialing it in was a job. And often more trouble than it was worth. I played with R75 at the ICOM booth at the local hamfest. Sync worked as described. But it took a lot of attention to keep it in place. The complaints did not go unheard. The rep I spoke to several months after the release of R75 told me that ICOM had heard the complaints, were very uhappy, and had made reimplementing the sync a priority. Trouble was, that the firmware for the rig wasn't readily upgradeable, and hardware modifications were going to be time consuming and expensive. R&D costs would have been a significant issue. And considering what ICOM went through with PBT on R71, they were not eager to step on technology that may produce another expensive and damaging legal skirmish. This at a time when SW was in sharp decline among broadcasters, and most users applying sync for broadcast listening, ICOM put the reimplementation of the sync on a back burner. I spoke to the same ICOM factory rep a couple of years later, and when asked about the sync on R75, shook his head and changed the subject pretty quickly. With KIWA doing the job, there was no motivation for ICOM to reengineer the sync, themselves, and with broadcasters abandoning SW, there was no reason to continue development of receive-only general coverage SW radios. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On 3/8/10 10:34 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:26 am, "D. Peter wrote: On 3/8/10 10:07 , bpnjensen wrote: On Mar 8, 7:48 am, "D. Peter wrote: On 3/8/10 09:20 , bpnjensen wrote: On Mar 8, 6:20 am, wrote: 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. Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. The stability and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S- AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice. Did you get the crystal oven on that one? The S-AM on this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds like. I've got sync on my Drakes, Lowe Ten-Tec and AOR. The difference is in the distortion during fades. There's less of it. The fades are still there, but the audio doesn't shatter. If you know what you're listening for, it's a big difference. If not, it's not that big a deal. I use my rigs without sync more than with.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks, Peter - well, that's about what I thought - the Kiwa-modified S-AM on the R75 definitely helps soften the blow of the fades (the distortion disappears for all practical purposes), and the AGC when the RF Gain is turned back a wee bit fills in and remedies all but the deepest fades. I just figured the Drake/AOR/etc. did it better. Not having ever heard one in person (NOBODY sells or demos them around this metropolis), I just don't know for sure. In fact, you can't find any shortwave receiver sales at all anymore except the usual lowball Etons at RS. HRO has nothing but tranceivers anymore. Bruce It's no better, here. I have to go to a hamfest and look at mfr's rep booths to see, or to play with anything new. I bought my more recent receivers unheard, based on recommendations of users, and reviewers at RNW. Although the R8A I bought at a model train show. It was in like new condition. Not a mark on it. It still smelled like fresh circuit boards when I opened the box. That was a good day.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Model trains! Me too! :-D All I need is room for a RR...enough for a Challenger to hi-ball across the Utah desert... Yeah......um....my trains are a little smaller than that. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
Thread at rec.autos.tech newsgroup.Toyota blocks access to 'black box'
data. Somebody said he sees the Military buying field radios that Icom wont even provide service informtion on.They just pull the modules out and send them to Japan for rework. Lets me gits back to woikin onna mah hoyse now, teh front porch, them four big tall wood posts outch thar.Sanding, with my right angle electric drill with a round pad and round sandpaper.Y'all have seen ah billion uv dem befo. cuhulin |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On Mar 8, 8:42*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote: On 3/8/10 10:34 , bpnjensen wrote: Model trains! *Me too! :-D *All I need is room for a RR...enough for a Challenger to hi-ball across the Utah desert... * *Yeah......um....my trains are a little smaller than that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I was thinking of an HO-scale Challenger racing across a 30-foot strip of Red Rock - maybe you like N or Z? |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On Mar 8, 8:41*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote: On 3/8/10 10:07 , bpnjensen wrote: the Kiwa-modified S-AM on the R75 definitely helps soften the blow of the fades (the distortion disappears for all practical purposes), and the AGC when the RF Gain is turned back a wee bit fills in and remedies all but the deepest fades. * *The sync on R75 was not well implemented. It worked. And it worked according to factory specs. But it was what the techs at Lowe call 'fiddly' dialing it in was a job. And often more trouble than it was worth. I played with R75 at the ICOM booth at the local hamfest. Sync worked as described. But it took a lot of attention to keep it in place. * *The complaints did not go unheard. The rep I spoke to several months after the release of R75 told me that ICOM had heard the complaints, were very uhappy, and had made reimplementing the sync a priority. Trouble was, that the firmware for the rig wasn't readily upgradeable, and hardware modifications were going to be time consuming and expensive. R&D costs would have been a significant issue. And considering what ICOM went through with PBT on R71, they were not eager to step on technology that may produce another expensive and damaging legal skirmish. * *This at a time when SW was in sharp decline among broadcasters, and most users applying sync for broadcast listening, ICOM put the reimplementation of the sync on a back burner. * *I spoke to the same ICOM factory rep a couple of years later, and when asked about the sync on R75, shook his head and changed the subject pretty quickly. With KIWA doing the job, there was no motivation for ICOM to reengineer the sync, themselves, and with broadcasters abandoning SW, there was no reason to continue development of receive-only general coverage SW radios. Thanks - that's roughly the story I have heard. BJ |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On Mar 8, 8:17*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: Clive, I have an Icom R75, and although some will diss this radio, I can tell I enjoy the "bells and whistles" a great deal. *The stability and crispness of the signal (both driftwise and in terms of AGC and S- AM) that can be achieved with this radio is quite nice. *The S-AM on this set is only so-so, from what I understand - I would love to hear what the really good S-AM (on a more recent Drake, for example) sounds like. Bruce When I used my R75 for program listening I used the SSB mode. *The SAM is useless without the Kiwa mods, which I don't have. Bingo. Actually, the Kiwa mods solve quite a few problems (The S-AM is only only one of them; the AGC time constant and the constricted audio are two others). The mods considerably improve the sound and performance on both AM and SSB. Now, I can enjoy Radio New Zealand on Friday nights with good audio and no fading distortion :-) BJ |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On 3/8/10 11:19 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:42 am, "D. Peter wrote: On 3/8/10 10:34 , bpnjensen wrote: Model trains! Me too! :-D All I need is room for a RR...enough for a Challenger to hi-ball across the Utah desert... Yeah......um....my trains are a little smaller than that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I was thinking of an HO-scale Challenger racing across a 30-foot strip of Red Rock - maybe you like N or Z? I've started playing with N. 58 year old eyes find N a bit of a challenge, these days. |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
A couple of my old buddies are Train nuts.They own a lot of old Railroad
related thingys, including some Fairmont Speeders too.Wayyyy back in the olden days/many years ago, Ford built at least one ''Speeder''. Watchinnn WLBT 12:00 PM tv news,,, a hand grenade was found in a trash bag in a waste management garbage truck.Last week, there was an accident in the Jackson area, a garbage truck had turned over, I-20 lanes were closed down for a few hours.Cleanup on I-20! cuhulin |
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
|
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
|
Old "Boat Anchor" tube receivers vs. Solid State receivers?
On Mar 8, 12:28*pm, BDK wrote:
In article , says... On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote: 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. * *Yes. We've noticed that. Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do 99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out cheap? Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18 megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a used car does. -- BDK.. Leader of the nonexistent paid shills. Non Jew Jew Club founding member. Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. Unless you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. I have a 10.1Mp - because that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate. I often find myself reducing it for manageability. As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into decent glass. That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution than doubling your pixel count. Bruce |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com