Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
What was the best performer (in whatever terms youchoose) of the old
analogue receivers, and receivers in rigs? My money is on the Eddystone EA12 for optimum haptic interface, and narrow on the nose CW filter with its single Xtal, followed in short order by the receiver in the Trio 830S (pace that the EA12 preceded WARC 83 by nearly 20 years and lacks the new bands) |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The only experience I had with the older tube type stuff was with the Collins, Hammurlund, Viking Valiant, Drake. My money would be put on a Drake 3C........
__________________
No Kings, no queens, no jacks, no long talking washer women... |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, gareth wrote:
What was the best performer (in whatever terms youchoose) of the old analogue receivers, and receivers in rigs? My money is on the Eddystone EA12 for optimum haptic interface, and narrow on the nose CW filter with its single Xtal, followed in short order by the receiver in the Trio 830S (pace that the EA12 preceded WARC 83 by nearly 20 years and lacks the new bands) I think you have to clarify. "Receivers that we wished for" and "receivers that we could actually afford". I knew someone who had both a R388 and Hammarlund SP-600 in 1972 (and a KWM-2 complete with the 6 and 2 metre transverter). You kind of needed both of those receivers since since the R388 tuned in 500KHz (or was it 1MHz) bands, so get to the top of one and you'd have to get down to the bottom of the next band, while the SP-600 could get across the band with a few spins of the knob, it had a great flywheel. The R388 was the better receiver of the two, which I guess is why I had the use of that SP-600 for a decade. You look at people now, and those receivers, and the R390, are still considered pretty high up on, solid state receivers are a whole lot lighter and have more features and are easier to tune, but most never reached the level of those top end tube receivers. But people are willing to spend a lot to get those top end receivers now, which leaves me wondering how someone I knew could afford both the R388 and the SP600 in the late sixties. Michael |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/6/2016 3:20 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, gareth wrote: What was the best performer (in whatever terms youchoose) of the old analogue receivers, and receivers in rigs? My money is on the Eddystone EA12 for optimum haptic interface, and narrow on the nose CW filter with its single Xtal, followed in short order by the receiver in the Trio 830S (pace that the EA12 preceded WARC 83 by nearly 20 years and lacks the new bands) I think you have to clarify. "Receivers that we wished for" and "receivers that we could actually afford". I knew someone who had both a R388 and Hammarlund SP-600 in 1972 (and a KWM-2 complete with the 6 and 2 metre transverter). You kind of needed both of those receivers since since the R388 tuned in 500KHz (or was it 1MHz) bands, so get to the top of one and you'd have to get down to the bottom of the next band, while the SP-600 could get across the band with a few spins of the knob, it had a great flywheel. The R388 was the better receiver of the two, which I guess is why I had the use of that SP-600 for a decade. You look at people now, and those receivers, and the R390, are still considered pretty high up on, solid state receivers are a whole lot lighter and have more features and are easier to tune, but most never reached the level of those top end tube receivers. But people are willing to spend a lot to get those top end receivers now, which leaves me wondering how someone I knew could afford both the R388 and the SP600 in the late sixties. Michael Michael, I agree - the R388 and R390 were great rigs. I was in Civil Air Patrol back in the 70's, and we got some R390's through surplus channels. An absolutely super receiver (although it was a bear to realign) - nothing like it available commercially short of maybe a Collins 32S-3b. In in an emergency, you could use it to anchor the QE-II. ![]() -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Michael Black" wrote in message
xample.org... On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, gareth wrote: What was the best performer (in whatever terms youchoose) of the old analogue receivers, and receivers in rigs? My money is on the Eddystone EA12 for optimum haptic interface, and narrow on the nose CW filter with its single Xtal, followed in short order by the receiver in the Trio 830S But people are willing to spend a lot to get those top end receivers now I'd love an Eddystone 830/7 to accompany my EA12 and as we speak, there is one advertised on ebay UK, and already the bidding is at £595 !!!!! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|