What does being tube or transistor really have to do with how good the
reception of a receiver will be anyway? Nothing, as far as I know.

Nothing really...There are good and bad of both types...
The real deal in hearing something like that is selectivity.
And unfortunately, that usually means more $$$$ for the radio..

If you have the selectivity, you have it half won...
The rest is using the antenna/s, to null unwanted stations.
Now , some tube sets might *sound* better to the ear, than
some solid states, but thats a whole nother thing...
It's the filtering that is the main thing as far as the
audio quality. My icom has real good audio on AM, if you
are using the wide filter.
A R-390 would probably be real good, as I *think* it has
narrow filters for any frequency, including MW.
So yes, it would be great if so...My old Drake R4 would be
good *if* I had the optional low band converter..The drake
has narrow filters available, and they work anywhere.
But having tubes has little to do with anything, except
many the tone of the audio output. Being the Drake needs
the converter to work MW, the icom 706g is my best MW radio
right now. Hands down when it comes to weeding tough ones
out of the muck. It's "narrow" filter for AM is really
narrow..It makes "next door" local stations go on vacation.
I'm sure a lot of bigger modern rigs would be even better.
IE: the various 756/746 pro's, etc, etc...
MK

On 17 Mar 2005 18:09:44 -0800, wrote:

What does being tube or transistor really have to do with how good the
reception of a receiver will be anyway? Nothing, as far as I know.

Nothing really...There are good and bad of both types...
The real deal in hearing something like that is selectivity.
And unfortunately, that usually means more $$$$ for the radio..
Balderdash!

http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/e...ceiver_lrg.jpg

''Probably the most revered receiver from the 1950s and 60s was, and
still is, the Collins-designed R390A/URR. Made by several
manufacturers under contract to the U.S. military, this radio was once
considered "Top Secret" because of its exceptional performance.

Many serious broadcast DXers managed to get their hands on the famed
R390, and the receiver is revered by many as superior to the
solid-state radios produced today. Hundreds of them have been restored
and maintained, and occupy prominent places in the homes of DXers all
over the world.''

''A personal experience which speaks volumes about the performance of
a properly working R390A happened only a few years back. A group of
some of the "heavy hitters" in the SWBC DX community, myself included
went on a DX'pedition to Cape Hatteras, NC. Known for its incredible
radio conditions as early as 1902, Cape Hatteras was the scene of some
of the early research done by radio pioneer, R.A. Fessenden. Today,
this remote location is a top choice for Medium and Shortwave
Broadcast DX'ers.

Quite an array of receivers had been brought along including a Drake
R8 and R8A. A pair of Watkins-Johnson HF-1000's, an R388, R390A and a
JRC NRD-535. It was a particularly good morning with extraordinarily
quiet conditions and a strong opening into the Pacific and Asia.
Around 1130 UTC I checked 3304.8 for the Radio Republic Indonesia
outlet in Dili, once Portuguese Timor. Although it had not been
reliably logged since the late 70's, it was there that morning weakly,
just a het in the R8A.

Everyone quickly tuned to the frequency determined not to miss the
opportunity to log such a rare station. However, even the $4,000
Watkins-Johnson receivers could not extract more that a few words of
copy. Our R390A was equipped with a Sherwood SE-3 synchronous detector
and I quickly tuned to 3304.8.

The R390A and Sherwood SE-3 extracted recordable audio from that
signal when no other receiver we had could. That put the receiver in a
whole new category not only for me but the others in attendance.

Of the R390A's I own, 3 are capable of sensitivity performances in the
..07-.08uv for 10db S/N + N using the 4 kc filter and standard AM
detection. I know of few receivers available today at any price able
to duplicate of that level of performance''

http://www.r390a.com/html/history.htm

You still haven't explained how the tubes fiqure into this...
Of course it's a good receiver. It was pretty much a lab
instrument. But it's the overall attention to detail, rather
than the use of tubes that makes it good. If the one
picking up the het couldn't get the audio, it's due to
poor filter shaping in that radio..
The sensitivity pretty much means nada for him in Fla.
You'd have to be on a frozen desert Isle to have quiet
enough cdx to take advantage of that sensitivity on MW.
Severe overkill for 99%...I'm sorta dubious of how those
numbers were measured also, but thats another story...
Doesn't really matter as even 1 uv for 10 db s/n+n is overkill
in the MW band..
I don't dispute that it's a good radio. It's one of the best.
But the same could be done solid state, if they still built
radios like collins did 50 years ago...
The sensistivity on my icom on MW-AM is way less than those
numbers, and I still have way more sensitivity than I could
ever use, unless I was waaaaayyyy out in the sticks , in the
dead of winter...And even then, I probably have enough..
In his case in Fla, just having a R-390 alone is not the answer.
His location is not quiet enough to take advantage of any
great sensitivity numbers.
The only thing he needs is good selectivity. Any half decent
radio, tube or s/s, will have enough sensitivity if any kind of
decent antenna is used. The station will either be there, or
it won't, due to cdx. If it isn't, nothing he uses will likely help too
much.
On HF, the 706g does .15 uv for 10db.. .12 on six meters.
..11 on vhf/uhf.. Thats overkill for HF and six...I never use
the preamp...It's *too* much sensitivity, so I actually use less
than those numbers ..Those are with the preamp on.
It's reduced on AM mode, how much depending on the band,
but it's still never lacking for sensitivity. Not even close.
And it's a fairly cheap radio, relatively speaking. Much less
than the R-390 when it was new...About 1/20th the size and
weight...:/
BTW, I do have both tube and solid state radios, so it's not
like I've never used a tube rig before to compare...
Receiving wise, there is nothing done with tubes, that can't be
done with solid state. Now audio....That's open to real debate..
I don't deny many tube radios have great audio to the ears.
But so does my 706 if I'm going into the sound card, and to
my kenwood stereo audio amp, good speakers, etc...
It's my best sounding radio for listening to the "rack" crowd,
that run all the transmit audio gear. Way better than my old
all tube Drake R4, which sounds thin in comparison, due
to it's filtering. Not much low end on that radio...
MK

On 18 Mar 2005 22:48:00 -0800, wrote:

You still haven't explained how the tubes fiqure into this...
Of course it's a good receiver. It was pretty much a lab
instrument. But it's the overall attention to detail, rather
than the use of tubes that makes it good. If the one
picking up the het couldn't get the audio, it's due to
poor filter shaping in that radio..
The sensitivity pretty much means nada for him in Fla.
You'd have to be on a frozen desert Isle to have quiet
enough cdx to take advantage of that sensitivity on MW.
Severe overkill for 99%...I'm sorta dubious of how those
numbers were measured also, but thats another story...
Doesn't really matter as even 1 uv for 10 db s/n+n is overkill
in the MW band..
I don't dispute that it's a good radio. It's one of the best.
But the same could be done solid state, if they still built
radios like collins did 50 years ago...
The sensistivity on my icom on MW-AM is way less than those
numbers, and I still have way more sensitivity than I could
ever use, unless I was waaaaayyyy out in the sticks , in the
dead of winter...And even then, I probably have enough..
In his case in Fla, just having a R-390 alone is not the answer.
His location is not quiet enough to take advantage of any
great sensitivity numbers.
The only thing he needs is good selectivity. Any half decent
radio, tube or s/s, will have enough sensitivity if any kind of
decent antenna is used. The station will either be there, or
it won't, due to cdx. If it isn't, nothing he uses will likely help too
much.
On HF, the 706g does .15 uv for 10db.. .12 on six meters.
.11 on vhf/uhf.. Thats overkill for HF and six...I never use
the preamp...It's *too* much sensitivity, so I actually use less
than those numbers ..Those are with the preamp on.
It's reduced on AM mode, how much depending on the band,
but it's still never lacking for sensitivity. Not even close.
And it's a fairly cheap radio, relatively speaking. Much less
than the R-390 when it was new...About 1/20th the size and
weight...:/
BTW, I do have both tube and solid state radios, so it's not
like I've never used a tube rig before to compare...
Receiving wise, there is nothing done with tubes, that can't be
done with solid state. Now audio....That's open to real debate..
I don't deny many tube radios have great audio to the ears.
But so does my 706 if I'm going into the sound card, and to
my kenwood stereo audio amp, good speakers, etc...
It's my best sounding radio for listening to the "rack" crowd,
that run all the transmit audio gear. Way better than my old
all tube Drake R4, which sounds thin in comparison, due
to it's filtering. Not much low end on that radio...
MK

The front end (tracking preselector, RF amp, Mixer) makes abig
difference. As does the absolute silence of the circuitry.

David wrote:

The front end (tracking preselector, RF amp, Mixer) makes abig
difference. As does the absolute silence of the circuitry.

Still, no one mentions where the tubes come into play...
All the above could apply to my old drake R4...Except I
disagree about the absolute silence of the circuitry...
Nothing is absolutely quiet...
The front end (tracking preselector, RF amp, Mixer) of my
kenwood TS-830 is very good, and it has no tubes...
Are you telling me it would be better if I converted those
circuits to tubes? Sorry, I just don't buy it...
The R-390 is a great receiver because it was a *very* expensive,
carefully designed radio made for commercial/lab and gov use.
Not because it has tubes. I can list a whole slew of other
all tube models that are fairly pathetic in performance
compared to the collins.
Why didn't the use of tubes help those models?
MK

On 19 Mar 2005 14:13:51 -0800, wrote:


David wrote:

The front end (tracking preselector, RF amp, Mixer) makes abig
difference. As does the absolute silence of the circuitry.

Still, no one mentions where the tubes come into play...
All the above could apply to my old drake R4...Except I
disagree about the absolute silence of the circuitry...
Nothing is absolutely quiet...
The front end (tracking preselector, RF amp, Mixer) of my
kenwood TS-830 is very good, and it has no tubes...
Are you telling me it would be better if I converted those
circuits to tubes? Sorry, I just don't buy it...
The R-390 is a great receiver because it was a *very* expensive,
carefully designed radio made for commercial/lab and gov use.
Not because it has tubes. I can list a whole slew of other
all tube models that are fairly pathetic in performance
compared to the collins.
Why didn't the use of tubes help those models?
MK

Dynamic range. Overload immunity.