Sounds like a "keeper" to me!


"David" wrote in message
...
Unless you are a truly hard-core DXer with tube electronics
maintenance skills and equipment, you are asking for trouble.

The things are difficult to tune, require annual tweaks, use parts no
longer made, burn copious amounts of electricity and will ruin any
piece of furniture you put them on top of.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:54:57 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:

This gives someone plenty of time to find one.. :) Course, it will have
to
be shipped in pieces because of the weight limits.

:)

Take care, all, and stay well.

How
could anyone even compare any Collins design/product with a portable?
I am outraged. This is absurd.
The audio reproduction and flexibility of having so many controls is
nothing remotely available on ANY receiver I encountered in solid
state receivers (commercial/milspec/consumer/amateur).

Jim wrote:
Jim wrote:
I bought them just so I could say I had owned them, and sold them both
after about 6 months.**This*was*about*15*years*ago.***Every*"rad io
owner/collector" should own one or the other at some point, just to
see one in action.***They*are*marvels*of*mechanical*complexit y,*but*no
match for even a $150 portable.***My*Radio*Shack*DX-440*is*a*better
radio.

When the R-390 and -390A are up to snuff, they're in that top 1 percent --
in performance -- of the world's receivers of any era.**Regrettably,*not
many people today have the knowledge and inclination to bring them up to
"depot" specifications.**

If your radios were no better than a DX-440, they were sadly in need of
repair/tube replacement/alignment.**

--
John Miller, N4VU, who used to get paid to sit in front a pair of them, but
likes them anyway.**

Receivers, current or past:
Hammarlund HQ-180A
Collins R-390A
RS DX-440
Sangean ATS-909
Icom IC-R75
Drake R8

Indeed, they are unbeatable when properly set-up. But unless you need
that extra 5% of tough signal performance, an R75, for less money, is
just as competent.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:10:03 GMT, John Miller wrote:

Jim wrote:
Jim wrote:
I bought them just so I could say I had owned them, and sold them both
after about 6 months.**This*was*about*15*years*ago.***Every*"rad io
owner/collector" should own one or the other at some point, just to
see one in action.***They*are*marvels*of*mechanical*complexit y,*but*no
match for even a $150 portable.***My*Radio*Shack*DX-440*is*a*better
radio.

When the R-390 and -390A are up to snuff, they're in that top 1 percent --
in performance -- of the world's receivers of any era.**Regrettably,*not
many people today have the knowledge and inclination to bring them up to
"depot" specifications.**

If your radios were no better than a DX-440, they were sadly in need of
repair/tube replacement/alignment.**

"Arthur Pozner" wrote in message
...
How
could anyone even compare any Collins design/product with a portable?
I am outraged. This is absurd.


Is it outrageous or absurd for for some people to prefer crystal
stability, low power consumption, digital readout that's both precise
and accurate, portability and reasonable cost?

If DX-440s were available in 1955 for $250, how many would the
government have bought?


The audio reproduction and flexibility of having so many controls is
nothing remotely available on ANY receiver I encountered in
solid
state receivers (commercial/milspec/consumer/amateur).


Maybe because there's no market for that anymore? Anything they did 50
years ago can be done better today. But only if people want it.

My SX - 62 is certainly capable of hi fi AM reproduction. Maybe even
better than a Collins designed product, if such a thing is possible.
And I hear shrill AM. The AM broadcasters are now preemphising the
trebles and deemphisizing the bass. It wasn't long ago that most
stations had their own individual sound, some better than others. Now
they are processed for the lowest common denominator radio. You just
can't win.

I sure can't see getting outraged at anyone prefering a modern solid
state radio. It's the most practical choice.

Frank Dresser

David wrote:
Indeed, they are unbeatable when properly set-up. But unless you need
that extra 5% of tough signal performance, an R75, for less money, is
just as competent.

It really is. For everyday use, the R75 has some significant advantages
over the R-390A; it's my "daily driver."

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

Only two of my personalities are schizophrenic, but one of them is paranoid
and the other one is out to get him.

"Arthur Pozner" wrote :

About the merits of the R-390

=================================

Somebody else added in a comment about the R-390/R-390A.
However, there is a *world* of difference between the R-390
and R-390A. Anyone who has owned both will know all about
it. Audio quality and filtering are among the most dramatic
differences.

But, as long as we're talking audio .. many will also remember
the Hammarlund SP-600 .. another boat anchor. It was another
analog receiver, but not with the odometer-like frequency
readout like the R-390 & R-390A. Instead, the SP-600
had several bands covering up to 50 MHz, but the "bandspread"
dial was soooo widely indicated, that (e.g. on 60 meters) each
single KHz could be indicated by about 3/8-inch on the large
main tuning knob rim. Pretty derned good for a boat anchor.
But,the audio .... the audio ... could not be matched by anything
either then or now. And, I have owned (literally) every major
performer receiver since the war (WW2).

"Arthur Pozner" wrote in message
...
|
How
| could anyone even compare any Collins design/product with a
portable?
| I am outraged. This is absurd.
| The audio reproduction and flexibility of having so many controls is
| nothing remotely available on ANY receiver I encountered in
solid
| state receivers (commercial/milspec/consumer/amateur).
----

As the poster alluded above, the R-390 was a Collins design, and
they also made some. But, the R-390 was a military specification
number, and it was made by several companies, including:
Stewart-Warner, Motorola, Electronic Assistance Corp, as well
as Collins. There were, indeed, varying points of difference in
quality .. but, all of them met the 'military specs' which did not
necessarily mean that was the best which the receiver could do.
Military Spec was a minimal common denominator all had to meet.|

R-390(non A) does not have the audio output power level of
SP-600. It has 0.5 W vs 2W. The LC filters in wide IF position must
be very similar- 16Kc and 13Kc (slightly more in Collins).
Just for fun I connected Sony 7600 to a Hi-fi stereo not long ago.
Sounded pretty decent for a portable on SW (especially with the synch
on). Did synchronous detectors exist in the
fifties?

How
could anyone even compare any Collins design/product with a portable?
I am outraged. This is absurd.
The audio reproduction and flexibility of having so many controls is
nothing remotely available on ANY receiver I encountered in

solid
state receivers (commercial/milspec/consumer/amateur).

I know. That was a silly statement to say that. It'd be like taking a knife
to a gun fight. Not even a fair comparison.