In the future I would like to set up an AM station for the low bands
(just 160m, 80m, and 40m) and am doing some research as to what
equipment I should be looking for. I am looking to choose a good
quality Receiver and Transmitter to start with and stay with. I don't
have the space for a BoatAnchor collention right now, but would like
to set myself up with a station with nice hi-quality audio for AM
work. I am not looking to DX with them or contest with them. Just
looking to do some high quality domestic AM work.

To start I am looking for a good receiver, preferably with really good
fidelity for AM. From what I have been reading everywhere it seems
that the

Hallicrafters SX-28

is the receiver to have if you are looking for good sound. People say
it has good frequency stability. I was wondering how you would
compare it on these points as well as selectivity and sensitivity with
these other receivers which seem to be quite fine as well:

Collins R-390
Collins 51J-4
Collins 75A-4

Hammarlund SP-600

Or does anyone have any others to suggest as well?

Also, I am completely in the dark as far as transmitters go for the
same kind of work. I am likewise looking for good high fidelity witr
good frequency stability AM. But I don't know where to go (or is
building your own rack the best way to go for this kind of work?)

The transmitter I have come across for hi-fidelity AM work seems to be
the

Johnson Ranger and
Johnson Ranger II (not sure what is the difference between them)

Or is the Valiant or Viking better?
But I am sure there are others out there as well.

Any help with suggesting a good kW linear that would preserve a
hi-fidelity signal would be appreciated as well.

Are there any other things I should be considering as well that I have
missed asking because of my relative newness to this area?

This is a long term project and I am just in the information gathering
phases right now.

Any help would be appreciated.

73

dt
..

In the future I would like to set up an AM station for the low bands
(just 160m, 80m, and 40m) and am doing some research as to what
equipment I should be looking for.

What I use I think is awesome. Heathkit DX-100 (not the B version)
and a Collins R388 housed in a matching DX-100 cabinet. The two
make a 'pair' that way - the R388 fits the DX-100 case exactly, and
they look terrific together. And the AM quality of the plate modulated
DX-100 beats any of the smaller AM rigs out there. Also makes
a fantastic CW setup, and the R388 is a very delightful all-wave SW
receiver to boot.

That's my vote

Dave WB7AWK

In the future I would like to set up an AM station for the low bands
(just 160m, 80m, and 40m) and am doing some research as to what
equipment I should be looking for.

What I use I think is awesome. Heathkit DX-100 (not the B version)
and a Collins R388 housed in a matching DX-100 cabinet. The two
make a 'pair' that way - the R388 fits the DX-100 case exactly, and
they look terrific together. And the AM quality of the plate modulated
DX-100 beats any of the smaller AM rigs out there. Also makes
a fantastic CW setup, and the R388 is a very delightful all-wave SW
receiver to boot.

That's my vote

Dave WB7AWK

Go with the DX-100 B Much better Transmitter
"Dave" wrote in message
news.com...
In the future I would like to set up an AM station for the low bands
(just 160m, 80m, and 40m) and am doing some research as to what
equipment I should be looking for.

What I use I think is awesome. Heathkit DX-100 (not the B version)
and a Collins R388 housed in a matching DX-100 cabinet. The two
make a 'pair' that way - the R388 fits the DX-100 case exactly, and
they look terrific together. And the AM quality of the plate modulated
DX-100 beats any of the smaller AM rigs out there. Also makes
a fantastic CW setup, and the R388 is a very delightful all-wave SW
receiver to boot.

That's my vote

Dave WB7AWK

Go with the DX-100 B Much better Transmitter
"Dave" wrote in message
news.com...
In the future I would like to set up an AM station for the low bands
(just 160m, 80m, and 40m) and am doing some research as to what
equipment I should be looking for.

What I use I think is awesome. Heathkit DX-100 (not the B version)
and a Collins R388 housed in a matching DX-100 cabinet. The two
make a 'pair' that way - the R388 fits the DX-100 case exactly, and
they look terrific together. And the AM quality of the plate modulated
DX-100 beats any of the smaller AM rigs out there. Also makes
a fantastic CW setup, and the R388 is a very delightful all-wave SW
receiver to boot.

That's my vote

Dave WB7AWK

Stay with Johnson products. DX-100 OK but Heath gear was mechanically
inferior in comparison. As to a receiver - go with the HRO-60. Beats any
of the Collins for audio fidelity and output, although not as mechanically
well built. The HRO's superior bandspread is another advantage you'll lose
with a 388. That's my preference.
Roger Brown, KL7Q

"Charles" wrote in message
.. .
Go with the DX-100 B Much better Transmitter
"Dave" wrote in message
news.com...
In the future I would like to set up an AM station for the low bands
(just 160m, 80m, and 40m) and am doing some research as to what
equipment I should be looking for.

What I use I think is awesome. Heathkit DX-100 (not the B version)
and a Collins R388 housed in a matching DX-100 cabinet. The two
make a 'pair' that way - the R388 fits the DX-100 case exactly, and
they look terrific together. And the AM quality of the plate modulated
DX-100 beats any of the smaller AM rigs out there. Also makes
a fantastic CW setup, and the R388 is a very delightful all-wave SW
receiver to boot.

That's my vote

Dave WB7AWK

Stay with Johnson products. DX-100 OK but Heath gear was mechanically
inferior in comparison. As to a receiver - go with the HRO-60. Beats any
of the Collins for audio fidelity and output, although not as mechanically
well built. The HRO's superior bandspread is another advantage you'll lose
with a 388. That's my preference.
Roger Brown, KL7Q

"Charles" wrote in message
.. .
Go with the DX-100 B Much better Transmitter
"Dave" wrote in message
news.com...
In the future I would like to set up an AM station for the low bands
(just 160m, 80m, and 40m) and am doing some research as to what
equipment I should be looking for.

What I use I think is awesome. Heathkit DX-100 (not the B version)
and a Collins R388 housed in a matching DX-100 cabinet. The two
make a 'pair' that way - the R388 fits the DX-100 case exactly, and
they look terrific together. And the AM quality of the plate modulated
DX-100 beats any of the smaller AM rigs out there. Also makes
a fantastic CW setup, and the R388 is a very delightful all-wave SW
receiver to boot.

That's my vote

Dave WB7AWK

In article ,
(David Toepfer) writes:

Hallicrafters SX-28
is the receiver to have if you are looking for good sound.

Lots of good LOUD sound, and plenty of bass, which is great for AM-BC and SWL,
but not for Ham work. Make sure you get a 28 that's been thoroughly rebuilt,
or set aside LOTs of time and eyesight to do the job right.

People say it has good frequency stability.

For 160m thru 40m AM you don't need much stability, and anyway you'll be
constantly tweaking the tuning to dodge the QRM and maximize voice quality --
and besides, you have to have *something* to twiddle while sitting there
listening, right?

I was wondering how you would
compare it on these points as well as selectivity and sensitivity with
these other receivers which seem to be quite fine as well:

Collins R-390
Hard to beat in any sense. The non-A sounds a bit better, with its L-C IF
filtering rather than the A's mech filters. However, while the non-A's audio
is adequate, there's a clean mod to put push-pull audio in the 390-A. I have
it, and it sounds awesome. Of course, you can feed the non-A's output to an
outboard audio amp.

Collins 51J-4
Or the J-3 (R388). Mine sounds very good on AM, plenty of audio. BW is pretty
wide, good for hi-fi AM; 1st xtal filter position on the J-3 is good with
QRM/N.

Collins 75A-4
I had one, and somehow the audio left me less than impressed. A superb SSB/CW
rx, but even there the audio was not crisp. Yes, I had all three filters.
Some else said the A4 was not a good AM rx, period. I wouldn't go that far --
there are mods for the audio. You might look for an A-3, since you won't need
that great passband tuning for AM, and $$ you save will buy more TX.

This is the only Ham-band-only rx you listed. If I were to own just one BA rx
with good audio, I sure as heck would get a general-coverage set.

Hammarlund SP-600
Another hard-to-beat classic. Good single-ended audio. Freq readout isn't
nearly as good as on the linear-tuning radios -- about like on the SX-28.
Front end can overload and give spurious responses, at least on the BC band.
But with its 8 and 13 KC bandwidth settings, the SP-600 can't be beat for hi-fi
reception of AM from the Hams who are frustrated BC engineers and don't cut off
their mikes at 3 KC. For that bandwidth, you'll want the SP-600 (or 400, what
the heck), or the R390.

Also consider some version of the Racal RA-17 with the 1 Watt audio feature and
8 KC BW setting. Whatever you get, enjoy -- 73, Mike K. AA1UK





Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

In article ,
(David Toepfer) writes:

Hallicrafters SX-28
is the receiver to have if you are looking for good sound.

Lots of good LOUD sound, and plenty of bass, which is great for AM-BC and SWL,
but not for Ham work. Make sure you get a 28 that's been thoroughly rebuilt,
or set aside LOTs of time and eyesight to do the job right.

People say it has good frequency stability.

For 160m thru 40m AM you don't need much stability, and anyway you'll be
constantly tweaking the tuning to dodge the QRM and maximize voice quality --
and besides, you have to have *something* to twiddle while sitting there
listening, right?

I was wondering how you would
compare it on these points as well as selectivity and sensitivity with
these other receivers which seem to be quite fine as well:

Collins R-390
Hard to beat in any sense. The non-A sounds a bit better, with its L-C IF
filtering rather than the A's mech filters. However, while the non-A's audio
is adequate, there's a clean mod to put push-pull audio in the 390-A. I have
it, and it sounds awesome. Of course, you can feed the non-A's output to an
outboard audio amp.

Collins 51J-4
Or the J-3 (R388). Mine sounds very good on AM, plenty of audio. BW is pretty
wide, good for hi-fi AM; 1st xtal filter position on the J-3 is good with
QRM/N.

Collins 75A-4
I had one, and somehow the audio left me less than impressed. A superb SSB/CW
rx, but even there the audio was not crisp. Yes, I had all three filters.
Some else said the A4 was not a good AM rx, period. I wouldn't go that far --
there are mods for the audio. You might look for an A-3, since you won't need
that great passband tuning for AM, and $$ you save will buy more TX.

This is the only Ham-band-only rx you listed. If I were to own just one BA rx
with good audio, I sure as heck would get a general-coverage set.

Hammarlund SP-600
Another hard-to-beat classic. Good single-ended audio. Freq readout isn't
nearly as good as on the linear-tuning radios -- about like on the SX-28.
Front end can overload and give spurious responses, at least on the BC band.
But with its 8 and 13 KC bandwidth settings, the SP-600 can't be beat for hi-fi
reception of AM from the Hams who are frustrated BC engineers and don't cut off
their mikes at 3 KC. For that bandwidth, you'll want the SP-600 (or 400, what
the heck), or the R390.

Also consider some version of the Racal RA-17 with the 1 Watt audio feature and
8 KC BW setting. Whatever you get, enjoy -- 73, Mike K. AA1UK





Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

David Toepfer ) writes:

Any help with suggesting a good kW linear that would preserve a
hi-fidelity signal would be appreciated as well.

It was before my time, but I don't think anyone used linears much
for AM. Yes, it could be done, but I don't think it was done much.

What they'd do is take the exciter, and put it in CW mode (maybe pulling
the modulator tubes to decrease current drain and strain on the power
supply) and feed it into a high level stage that was plate modulated.
And of course, there was a really hefty plate modulator to go with it.

Michael VE2BVW