|
Allied A-2515 rcvr
Anyone know the difference between the 2515 and the 2515A?
I wonder who built this rcvr? Trio maybe? Thanks |
I believe that this was a Trio unit. It used one of the Toko ceramic
filter/I.F. transformer combinations in the 455kHz I.F. strip. It wasn't a bad unit. Pete "Michael" wrote in message ... Anyone know the difference between the 2515 and the 2515A? I wonder who built this rcvr? Trio maybe? Thanks |
Michael wrote: Anyone know the difference between the 2515 and the 2515A? I wonder who built this rcvr? Trio maybe? Thanks The main difference is in the IF strip. The 2515 uses 4 of the filters in the IF while the "A" only uses 2. I believe one stage IF amp stage was dropped in the "A" model as well. Another minor difference is in the RF amp. In the 2515 the bias on gate 2 of the dual gate MOSFET is fixed with a voltage divider, while in the "A" a variable resistor is added into the network, so as to be able to vary the bias over a small range. I remember using the 2515 as a SWL rx back in the late 60's and finding the 4 IF filters to be too much selectivity for AM broadcasts, and not quite enough for CW/SSB. The "A" model having fewer cans fared better with AM. Those cans were a mystery as well. I don't think they were Toko products but I don't know for sure. I opened one up once and found what appears to be a ceramic filter disk and an unusual arrangement of coils. These radio were sold by Allied Radio. I have not been able to determine who actually made them. I once corresponded with a Trio employee who worked there about the time these units were being sold, and he swore they were not one of theirs. Bob |
Those were Toko units................some of the CB radios such as the
Johnson 123 used them. Actually, I've even got a couple of them on hand for upgrades with radios that use the Toko 10mm transformers. Pete "Bob Liesenfeld" wrote in message ... Michael wrote: Anyone know the difference between the 2515 and the 2515A? I wonder who built this rcvr? Trio maybe? Thanks The main difference is in the IF strip. The 2515 uses 4 of the filters in the IF while the "A" only uses 2. I believe one stage IF amp stage was dropped in the "A" model as well. Another minor difference is in the RF amp. In the 2515 the bias on gate 2 of the dual gate MOSFET is fixed with a voltage divider, while in the "A" a variable resistor is added into the network, so as to be able to vary the bias over a small range. I remember using the 2515 as a SWL rx back in the late 60's and finding the 4 IF filters to be too much selectivity for AM broadcasts, and not quite enough for CW/SSB. The "A" model having fewer cans fared better with AM. Those cans were a mystery as well. I don't think they were Toko products but I don't know for sure. I opened one up once and found what appears to be a ceramic filter disk and an unusual arrangement of coils. These radio were sold by Allied Radio. I have not been able to determine who actually made them. I once corresponded with a Trio employee who worked there about the time these units were being sold, and he swore they were not one of theirs. Bob |
What a horrid, miserable radio. I owned one brand new in 1971 as ordered
from Allied radio shortly before their demise. The A-model has a bit more IF bandwidth due to one IF filter stage being eliminated and replaced with a jumper wire on the circuit board. This spoke volumes of the crappy design: imagine, the "improved" A-version actually has less parts due to the fact that an entire stage in the IF was removed! My 2515 model suffered from excessive drift, instability, bandswitch glitching, microphonics, poor sensitivity above 20Megs, scratchy pots.....and that was when the darned thing was NEW! The A-model may be more desirable due to its selectivity being wider than that of a razor blade. AM on my 2515 was absolutely miserable and devoid of any detected audio above 1,500cps. It always sounded like you were listening to a radio with a paper bag over your head. No wonder Allied fizzled. This was the Company's last, dying attempt at marketing a house-brand "communications" receiver. I can see why anyone at TRIO would never admit to desingning the fool thing. "Michael" wrote in message ... Anyone know the difference between the 2515 and the 2515A? I wonder who built this rcvr? Trio maybe? Thanks |
There was a Japanese company that made a smaller version
of the Collins Mechanical fitler and I htink it looked like your discription. Poptronics ran an article int he mid 1960s about how to add one to your existing SW receiver. I Terry |
Reminds me of a Lafayette HA-225 (KT-340) receiver I once owned. They
are fine examples of how far shortwave receivers have come! patgkz wrote: What a horrid, miserable radio. I owned one brand new in 1971 as ordered from Allied radio shortly before their demise. The A-model has a bit more IF bandwidth due to one IF filter stage being eliminated and replaced with a jumper wire on the circuit board. This spoke volumes of the crappy design: imagine, the "improved" A-version actually has less parts due to the fact that an entire stage in the IF was removed! My 2515 model suffered from excessive drift, instability, bandswitch glitching, microphonics, poor sensitivity above 20Megs, scratchy pots.....and that was when the darned thing was NEW! The A-model may be more desirable due to its selectivity being wider than that of a razor blade. AM on my 2515 was absolutely miserable and devoid of any detected audio above 1,500cps. It always sounded like you were listening to a radio with a paper bag over your head. No wonder Allied fizzled. This was the Company's last, dying attempt at marketing a house-brand "communications" receiver. I can see why anyone at TRIO would never admit to desingning the fool thing. "Michael" wrote in message ... Anyone know the difference between the 2515 and the 2515A? I wonder who built this rcvr? Trio maybe? Thanks |
"patgkz" ) writes: What a horrid, miserable radio. I owned one brand new in 1971 as ordered from Allied radio shortly before their demise. The A-model has a bit more IF bandwidth due to one IF filter stage being eliminated and replaced with a jumper wire on the circuit board. This spoke volumes of the crappy design: imagine, the "improved" A-version actually has less parts due to the fact that an entire stage in the IF was removed! My 2515 model suffered from excessive drift, instability, bandswitch glitching, microphonics, poor sensitivity above 20Megs, scratchy pots.....and that was when the darned thing was NEW! The A-model may be more desirable due to its selectivity being wider than that of a razor blade. AM on my 2515 was absolutely miserable and devoid of any detected audio above 1,500cps. It always sounded like you were listening to a radio with a paper bag over your head. No wonder Allied fizzled. This was the Company's last, dying attempt at marketing a house-brand "communications" receiver. I can see why anyone at TRIO would never admit to desingning the fool thing. I don't think it's unique to Allied. At that same period, a lot of the old US companies and manufacturers went to solid state and Japan for their receivers. The art hadn't developed much, and people wanted cheap receivers. So you got a lot of junk, and in many cases it wasn't made by the company, merely labelled with the company name. I've heard it said that the companies were unable or unwilling to adapt to solid state at the time, so rather than invest the needed research and energy in solid state design, it was farmed out. Virtually everyone had a low end solid state receiver at the time of dubious quality. Something like the Hallicrafters S-38 was pretty bad, but it was built with tubes and at least the designers knew tubes well. It took more effort to make a good solid state receiver, and that wasn't happening at the time, at least not at the low end. My Hallicrafter's S-120A was horrible. I suspect that Ameco cheap transistor receiver that tuned to 54MHz was likewise not very good, though that's just a guess based on time an price. Lafayette, Radio Shack, probably even Heathkit had similar receivers. Of course, I'm less certain that such equipment killed the companies. I suspect they were at the end of their long runs, and the fact that things were changing and they didn't change with it helped. Michael |
Those filters were pretty awful................I don't remember the name of
the company name, but it started with the letter K. They were used in the NRD-515 and in the Yaesu FRDX-400. They were filled with some sort of foam substance that turns to a sticky jelly after many years, causing the insertion loss of the filter to degrade. Peter Bertini had an article in Popular Communications a few years ago on how to repair them. I did just that for a friend's FRDX-400. You have to dismantle the filter and clean out all of the goo with alcohol..........I used a product called Flux-Off. Afterwards, you have to replace the foam damping material. I used air conditioner foam strip. Another thing about those filters....there is no other mechanical support for the filter elements themselves. When you remove the goo, you have the filter structure hanging by a few strands of Litz wire. For years, I was looking for an NRD-515 until I discovered those filter problems. I have never seen a Collins mechanical filter fail in that manner, and I have had quite a few of those filters over the years. If any of you ever have the problem with your JRC radios that use that filter, I can give you advice on how to repair them.....................if you don't feel comfortable repairing them yourself, I can repair them for you. I did have one of those 2515 in for repair a couple of years ago, and the unit that I repaired did not have any mechanical filters even though the advertising hype stated that it did. It was definitely one of those slightly oblong I.F. transformers that had the ceramic filter inside the same structure. For a cheap receiver, they weren't bad. Anybody remember the transceiver that matched this unit in style? A friend once told me that it was a Kenwood TS-510 with Allied's label. Pete wrote in message ups.com... There was a Japanese company that made a smaller version of the Collins Mechanical fitler and I htink it looked like your discription. Poptronics ran an article int he mid 1960s about how to add one to your existing SW receiver. I Terry |
There is no excuse for a penny pinching move like that in an expensive
radio. My opinion of Japan Radio just went down a couple of notches. Pete KE9OA wrote: Those filters were pretty awful................I don't remember the name of the company name, but it started with the letter K. They were used in the NRD-515 and in the Yaesu FRDX-400. They were filled with some sort of foam substance that turns to a sticky jelly after many years, causing the insertion loss of the filter to degrade. Peter Bertini had an article in Popular Communications a few years ago on how to repair them. I did just that for a friend's FRDX-400. You have to dismantle the filter and clean out all of the goo with alcohol..........I used a product called Flux-Off. Afterwards, you have to replace the foam damping material. I used air conditioner foam strip. Another thing about those filters....there is no other mechanical support for the filter elements themselves. When you remove the goo, you have the filter structure hanging by a few strands of Litz wire. For years, I was looking for an NRD-515 until I discovered those filter problems. I have never seen a Collins mechanical filter fail in that manner, and I have had quite a few of those filters over the years. If any of you ever have the problem with your JRC radios that use that filter, I can give you advice on how to repair them.....................if you don't feel comfortable repairing them yourself, I can repair them for you. I did have one of those 2515 in for repair a couple of years ago, and the unit that I repaired did not have any mechanical filters even though the advertising hype stated that it did. It was definitely one of those slightly oblong I.F. transformers that had the ceramic filter inside the same structure. For a cheap receiver, they weren't bad. Anybody remember the transceiver that matched this unit in style? A friend once told me that it was a Kenwood TS-510 with Allied's label. Pete wrote in message ups.com... There was a Japanese company that made a smaller version of the Collins Mechanical fitler and I htink it looked like your discription. Poptronics ran an article int he mid 1960s about how to add one to your existing SW receiver. I Terry |
|
patgkz wrote:
What a horrid, miserable radio. I owned one brand new in 1971 as ordered from Allied radio shortly before their demise. The A-model has a bit more IF bandwidth due to one IF filter stage being eliminated and replaced with a jumper wire on the circuit board. This spoke volumes of the crappy design: imagine, the "improved" A-version actually has less parts due to the fact that an entire stage in the IF was removed! My 2515 model suffered from excessive drift, instability, bandswitch glitching, microphonics, poor sensitivity above 20Megs, scratchy pots.....and that was when the darned thing was NEW! The A-model may be more desirable due to its selectivity being wider than that of a razor blade. AM on my 2515 was absolutely miserable and devoid of any detected audio above 1,500cps. It always sounded like you were listening to a radio with a paper bag over your head. No wonder Allied fizzled. This was the Company's last, dying attempt at marketing a house-brand "communications" receiver. I can see why anyone at TRIO would never admit to desingning the fool thing. FYI: Allied made "Knight" tube radios during their heyday in the 1940s. I believe the company is still around as Allied Signal; I think they make Autolite brand spark plugs among other car parts. "Michael" wrote in message ... Anyone know the difference between the 2515 and the 2515A? I wonder who built this rcvr? Trio maybe? Thanks ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Michael Black wrote:
"patgkz" ) writes: What a horrid, miserable radio. I owned one brand new in 1971 as ordered from Allied radio shortly before their demise. The A-model has a bit more IF bandwidth due to one IF filter stage being eliminated and replaced with a jumper wire on the circuit board. This spoke volumes of the crappy design: imagine, the "improved" A-version actually has less parts due to the fact that an entire stage in the IF was removed! My 2515 model suffered from excessive drift, instability, bandswitch glitching, microphonics, poor sensitivity above 20Megs, scratchy pots.....and that was when the darned thing was NEW! The A-model may be more desirable due to its selectivity being wider than that of a razor blade. AM on my 2515 was absolutely miserable and devoid of any detected audio above 1,500cps. It always sounded like you were listening to a radio with a paper bag over your head. No wonder Allied fizzled. This was the Company's last, dying attempt at marketing a house-brand "communications" receiver. I can see why anyone at TRIO would never admit to desingning the fool thing. I don't think it's unique to Allied. At that same period, a lot of the old US companies and manufacturers went to solid state and Japan for their receivers. The art hadn't developed much, and people wanted cheap receivers. So you got a lot of junk, and in many cases it wasn't made by the company, merely labelled with the company name. I've heard it said that the companies were unable or unwilling to adapt to solid state at the time, so rather than invest the needed research and energy in solid state design, it was farmed out. Virtually everyone had a low end solid state receiver at the time of dubious quality. Something like the Hallicrafters S-38 was pretty bad, but it was built with tubes and at least the designers knew tubes well. It took more effort to make a good solid state receiver, and that wasn't happening at the time, at least not at the low end. My Hallicrafter's S-120A was horrible. I suspect that Ameco cheap transistor receiver that tuned to 54MHz was likewise not very good, though that's just a guess based on time an price. Lafayette, Radio Shack, probably even Heathkit had similar receivers. Of course, I'm less certain that such equipment killed the companies. I suspect they were at the end of their long runs, and the fact that things were changing and they didn't change with it helped. By 1971 I suspect that most of the old companies were simply names to be rented out, much like today. Most of the actual manufacturing was done in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong by companies that dared not use their actual Asian names on their equipment. That's why so many of the Japanese companies used non Japanese sounding names on their stuff-the memories of Pearl Harbor were still very fresh at that time, and Americans didn't want to admit that Japan was kicking their asses on consumer electronics. I suspect that the main selling point of the name "Sony" was that is didn't sound like Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo. Same thing with "Panasonic", which is still made by Matsu****a. (Can you imagine the average American trying to pronounce "Matsu****a"? Apparently the suits in Tokyo saw that coming and used the name National at first, then Panasonic.) Horrible quality wasn't a detriment when you were talking about a small, four transistor MW only radio, but once SW got popular in the 60s and the Japanese moved into that field the lack of design and quality really became apparent. On a side note, I heard on World News Tonight that there's virtually NO manufacturing left in America anymore. All the jobs have gone to China. Americans are using debt to prop up their purchase of Chinese stuff. I wonder what will happen when that ends. China and the US need each other-we buy their stuff, and they use our dollars to prop up Bush's spending spree. So basically the two governments are using massive debt to prop each other up, and eventually the whole house of cards will collapse. The Chinese are happy now, but support for the CCP is weak and once the world stops buying their industrial output the commies will REALLY be in trouble. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
I work in the TV elctronics universe, and I had a Sony sales rep tell
me that you are always better off buying a Japanese named product because their NIST required certain minimum standards. And I have seen the same VHS VCR with a Panasonic name tag and RCA and GE that looked the same. However the inside was very different. The USA versions had fewer parts and did not have anywhere near the signal to noise in the video playback. I think the name of the organizaton was JIS. Terry |
"Pete KE9OA" ) writes: Those filters were pretty awful................I don't remember the name of the company name, but it started with the letter K. They were used in the NRD-515 and in the Yaesu FRDX-400. They were filled with some sort of foam substance that turns to a sticky jelly after many years, causing the insertion loss of the filter to degrade. Peter Bertini had an article in Popular Communications a few years ago on how to repair them. I did just that for a friend's FRDX-400. You have to dismantle the filter and clean out all of the goo with alcohol..........I used a product called Flux-Off. Of course, one pays quite a bit for Collins mechanical filters, and that's always been the case. Those Japanese mechanical filters were significantly cheaper, at least back then. Reading the old magazines, I've sometimes wondered if at least some times people were calling ceramic filters the wrong thing. Your description of the insides reminds me that some guy wrote about a homebrew receiver in the early sixties, I think it was in CQ, and he made his own mechanical filter. No, I don't have it handy and can't specify the issue, but every so often I come across the article, and wonder how practical it was to do. It seems like we'd have read more about doing it if it was something easily doable. Michael |
The radio itself was pretty good.................I knew a fellow back in
Iowa that had Collins filters installed and he was pretty happy with the result. I was going to match the impedance of the new filters to the '515 but I lost track of him. It is still my favorite of the JRCs. wrote in message ups.com... There is no excuse for a penny pinching move like that in an expensive radio. My opinion of Japan Radio just went down a couple of notches. Pete KE9OA wrote: Those filters were pretty awful................I don't remember the name of the company name, but it started with the letter K. They were used in the NRD-515 and in the Yaesu FRDX-400. They were filled with some sort of foam substance that turns to a sticky jelly after many years, causing the insertion loss of the filter to degrade. Peter Bertini had an article in Popular Communications a few years ago on how to repair them. I did just that for a friend's FRDX-400. You have to dismantle the filter and clean out all of the goo with alcohol..........I used a product called Flux-Off. Afterwards, you have to replace the foam damping material. I used air conditioner foam strip. Another thing about those filters....there is no other mechanical support for the filter elements themselves. When you remove the goo, you have the filter structure hanging by a few strands of Litz wire. For years, I was looking for an NRD-515 until I discovered those filter problems. I have never seen a Collins mechanical filter fail in that manner, and I have had quite a few of those filters over the years. If any of you ever have the problem with your JRC radios that use that filter, I can give you advice on how to repair them.....................if you don't feel comfortable repairing them yourself, I can repair them for you. I did have one of those 2515 in for repair a couple of years ago, and the unit that I repaired did not have any mechanical filters even though the advertising hype stated that it did. It was definitely one of those slightly oblong I.F. transformers that had the ceramic filter inside the same structure. For a cheap receiver, they weren't bad. Anybody remember the transceiver that matched this unit in style? A friend once told me that it was a Kenwood TS-510 with Allied's label. Pete wrote in message ups.com... There was a Japanese company that made a smaller version of the Collins Mechanical fitler and I htink it looked like your discription. Poptronics ran an article int he mid 1960s about how to add one to your existing SW receiver. I Terry |
Hmm, never heard this before about the 515 filters. My almost 25 year old 515 works great, just needs a little alignment in the PBT circuit. A friend's 20 year old one is fine and dandy too.. BDK You will be able to recognize if it happens if you start experiencing reduced sensitivity in the SSB modes. Not a big deal to clean and repack the filters. About an hour and a half for both the LSB and USB filters. Pete |
Hmm, never heard this before about the 515 filters. My almost 25 year old 515 works great, just needs a little alignment in the PBT circuit. A friend's 20 year old one is fine and dandy too.. BDK Come to think of it...........I wonder if it depends on the user environment..........I just don't know. Pete |
I am not sure how hard they would be to make. I've got an old article that
Mr. Johnson of Rockwell Filter Products forwarded to one of the engineers at Rockwell-Collins. There was a note included with the document saying "after you read this, you will be an expert on Mechanical Filters". I have to dig that up one of these days. I remember the Motorola Permakay filter units that were in the Mocom 70 radios. I dismantled one the filter assemblies one day and found 14 individual ceramic filter elements, with an amplifier embedded in the bundle. They were pretty decent units. There were some pretty cool articles in those old magazines. I remember an old in Ham Radio........the project was kind of a spectrum analyzer for the FM broadcast band using a Bragg Cell Detector. After seeing that article, I became a homebrewer. Pete "Michael Black" wrote in message ... "Pete KE9OA" ) writes: Those filters were pretty awful................I don't remember the name of the company name, but it started with the letter K. They were used in the NRD-515 and in the Yaesu FRDX-400. They were filled with some sort of foam substance that turns to a sticky jelly after many years, causing the insertion loss of the filter to degrade. Peter Bertini had an article in Popular Communications a few years ago on how to repair them. I did just that for a friend's FRDX-400. You have to dismantle the filter and clean out all of the goo with alcohol..........I used a product called Flux-Off. Of course, one pays quite a bit for Collins mechanical filters, and that's always been the case. Those Japanese mechanical filters were significantly cheaper, at least back then. Reading the old magazines, I've sometimes wondered if at least some times people were calling ceramic filters the wrong thing. Your description of the insides reminds me that some guy wrote about a homebrew receiver in the early sixties, I think it was in CQ, and he made his own mechanical filter. No, I don't have it handy and can't specify the issue, but every so often I come across the article, and wonder how practical it was to do. It seems like we'd have read more about doing it if it was something easily doable. Michael |
|
One of these days, if I can find one at a not so insane price............a
couple of years ago, I put out my feelers on the NG for a 515 and some fellow in the Southwest offered me his unit for almost 1000 dollars. A bit high, but I guess either the demand was there or he must have thought I staggered in from the local tavern. Pete "BDK" wrote in message ... In article , says... Hmm, never heard this before about the 515 filters. My almost 25 year old 515 works great, just needs a little alignment in the PBT circuit. A friend's 20 year old one is fine and dandy too.. BDK Come to think of it...........I wonder if it depends on the user environment..........I just don't know. Pete We both bought them around the same time. Mine was made in Nov 81, his in 85, one of the last ones made. His was new, mine was used. Mine has two of the K filters in it, I can't remember what the name is either. It also has a crystal 1.2 K and a ceramic 300hz filter. I checked it last night, and clicked through the bandwiths and the signal strength was the same in all modes, except the 300hz one, it always reads a little lower with that one selected. My friend's is ok too. Both have spent the last 20 or so years in air conditioned houses, maybe that's it. I had a ton of problems with those 5 cent phono plug interconnects over the years. De-oxit took that problem away. BDK |
In article ,
says... One of these days, if I can find one at a not so insane price............a couple of years ago, I put out my feelers on the NG for a 515 and some fellow in the Southwest offered me his unit for almost 1000 dollars. A bit high, but I guess either the demand was there or he must have thought I staggered in from the local tavern. Pete "BDK" wrote in message ... In article , says... Hmm, never heard this before about the 515 filters. My almost 25 year old 515 works great, just needs a little alignment in the PBT circuit. A friend's 20 year old one is fine and dandy too.. BDK Come to think of it...........I wonder if it depends on the user environment..........I just don't know. Pete We both bought them around the same time. Mine was made in Nov 81, his in 85, one of the last ones made. His was new, mine was used. Mine has two of the K filters in it, I can't remember what the name is either. It also has a crystal 1.2 K and a ceramic 300hz filter. I checked it last night, and clicked through the bandwiths and the signal strength was the same in all modes, except the 300hz one, it always reads a little lower with that one selected. My friend's is ok too. Both have spent the last 20 or so years in air conditioned houses, maybe that's it. I had a ton of problems with those 5 cent phono plug interconnects over the years. De-oxit took that problem away. BDK One went on Ebay a year or two ago for $1400+, it was mint, but DAMN! I almost put mine up after that, but the next one, at least as nice looking as mine, but stock (mine has been modded by Gilfer and Universal) with the crappy sounding speaker for about $675. I passed on one that looked absolutely brand new, with the 24 channel mem box, and that worthless speaker, for (I think it was) $750. None of the three pieces had any signs, not the slightest, of use on it. I kick myself for not taking it. Even the box was perfect. Of all the receivers I have owned since I was a kid, the 515 is my favorite. Right now, I have a 525 a Icom R71A, and a Hammarlund Hq 100 that bears little resemblance to the original radio inside (3 extra tubes+ many mods), and works amazingly well for the 58 bucks I paid for it..better than any under $500 (new) receiver I have ever tried. If only it was a tiny bit more stable.. BDK |
BDK wrote: In article , says... One of these days, if I can find one at a not so insane price............a couple of years ago, I put out my feelers on the NG for a 515 and some fellow in the Southwest offered me his unit for almost 1000 dollars. A bit high, but I guess either the demand was there or he must have thought I staggered in from the local tavern. Pete "BDK" wrote in message ... In article , says... Hmm, never heard this before about the 515 filters. My almost 25 year old 515 works great, just needs a little alignment in the PBT circuit. A friend's 20 year old one is fine and dandy too.. BDK Come to think of it...........I wonder if it depends on the user environment..........I just don't know. Pete We both bought them around the same time. Mine was made in Nov 81, his in 85, one of the last ones made. His was new, mine was used. Mine has two of the K filters in it, I can't remember what the name is either. It also has a crystal 1.2 K and a ceramic 300hz filter. I checked it last night, and clicked through the bandwiths and the signal strength was the same in all modes, except the 300hz one, it always reads a little lower with that one selected. My friend's is ok too. Both have spent the last 20 or so years in air conditioned houses, maybe that's it. I had a ton of problems with those 5 cent phono plug interconnects over the years. De-oxit took that problem away. BDK One went on Ebay a year or two ago for $1400+, it was mint, but DAMN! I almost put mine up after that, but the next one, at least as nice looking as mine, but stock (mine has been modded by Gilfer and Universal) with the crappy sounding speaker for about $675. I passed on one that looked absolutely brand new, with the 24 channel mem box, and that worthless speaker, for (I think it was) $750. None of the three pieces had any signs, not the slightest, of use on it. I kick myself for not taking it. Even the box was perfect. Of all the receivers I have owned since I was a kid, the 515 is my favorite. Right now, I have a 525 a Icom R71A, and a Hammarlund Hq 100 that bears little resemblance to the original radio inside (3 extra tubes+ many mods), and works amazingly well for the 58 bucks I paid for it..better than any under $500 (new) receiver I have ever tried. If only it was a tiny bit more stable.. I had a 515 that I bought back in the 90's with the memory, remote controller and speaker for $500. It was mint. It didn't stay here long. The package was split up to several buyers. Pre eBay.... Ham Trader Yellow Sheet days. dxAce Michigan USA |
In article ,
says... BDK wrote: In article , says... One of these days, if I can find one at a not so insane price............a couple of years ago, I put out my feelers on the NG for a 515 and some fellow in the Southwest offered me his unit for almost 1000 dollars. A bit high, but I guess either the demand was there or he must have thought I staggered in from the local tavern. Pete "BDK" wrote in message ... In article , says... Hmm, never heard this before about the 515 filters. My almost 25 year old 515 works great, just needs a little alignment in the PBT circuit. A friend's 20 year old one is fine and dandy too.. BDK Come to think of it...........I wonder if it depends on the user environment..........I just don't know. Pete We both bought them around the same time. Mine was made in Nov 81, his in 85, one of the last ones made. His was new, mine was used. Mine has two of the K filters in it, I can't remember what the name is either. It also has a crystal 1.2 K and a ceramic 300hz filter. I checked it last night, and clicked through the bandwiths and the signal strength was the same in all modes, except the 300hz one, it always reads a little lower with that one selected. My friend's is ok too. Both have spent the last 20 or so years in air conditioned houses, maybe that's it. I had a ton of problems with those 5 cent phono plug interconnects over the years. De-oxit took that problem away. BDK One went on Ebay a year or two ago for $1400+, it was mint, but DAMN! I almost put mine up after that, but the next one, at least as nice looking as mine, but stock (mine has been modded by Gilfer and Universal) with the crappy sounding speaker for about $675. I passed on one that looked absolutely brand new, with the 24 channel mem box, and that worthless speaker, for (I think it was) $750. None of the three pieces had any signs, not the slightest, of use on it. I kick myself for not taking it. Even the box was perfect. Of all the receivers I have owned since I was a kid, the 515 is my favorite. Right now, I have a 525 a Icom R71A, and a Hammarlund Hq 100 that bears little resemblance to the original radio inside (3 extra tubes+ many mods), and works amazingly well for the 58 bucks I paid for it..better than any under $500 (new) receiver I have ever tried. If only it was a tiny bit more stable.. I had a 515 that I bought back in the 90's with the memory, remote controller and speaker for $500. It was mint. It didn't stay here long. The package was split up to several buyers. Pre eBay.... Ham Trader Yellow Sheet days. dxAce Michigan USA I've been looking for a reasonable priced remote, and they don't exist, unless they are totally trashed. The last one I saw was over $200, and it wasn't all that great. I saw some plans on how to make one, but I can't find them, not that I really need it, the 525 is hooked up to the PC anyway. BDK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com