"Uncle Peter" ) writes:
"K3HVG" wrote in message
news
that they didn't use many (if at all) paper capacitors. Finally, FYI,
Heath never made an upscale general coverage receiver. Good hunting.



Hi Jeep

The SB-310 was perhaps the best SW receiver they made.
Albiet limited coverage... It did a PD if I recall...

Pete


One of the ones I always wondered about came in the sixties and I'm
pretty sure was still in the catalog in 1971 when I would have seen
my first Heath catalog. It was a general coverage receiver, and looked
a lot like the average low end receiver. But it used an IF in the 1600KHz
range, using a two-crystal lattice filter. I've always been curious
about it because of that high IF which obviously would make an improvement
for the highest band in terms of image rejection compared to the usual
cheap SW receiver. But I've never really seen anything about how the
receiver was generally. A higher IF suggests something better, but
it might have just been as bad as the usual low end SW receiver.

Micahel VE2BVW

"Michael Black" wrote in message
One of the ones I always wondered about came in the sixties and I'm
pretty sure was still in the catalog in 1971 when I would have seen
my first Heath catalog. It was a general coverage receiver, and looked
a lot like the average low end receiver. But it used an IF in the 1600KHz
range, using a two-crystal lattice filter. I've always been curious
about it because of that high IF which obviously would make an improvement
for the highest band in terms of image rejection compared to the usual
cheap SW receiver. But I've never really seen anything about how the
receiver was generally. A higher IF suggests something better, but
it might have just been as bad as the usual low end SW receiver.

Micahel VE2BVW



Michael

I believe my old HR-10 used an IF of 1680 kc with a simple
2-pole lattice filter. Of course that was ham coverage only..

Pete

"Rick" wrote in message
news

Well, I am beginning to have some doubts about the likelihood of finding
an excellent-quality Hammarlund HQ-180 at a price I can afford.



Any suggestions, places where I should start looking?


Drake R-4 with the outboard synthesizer for general coverage.

Pete

My vote would go to the Drake R4A or R4B.

I've used many of the radios discussed here & many modern rigs as
well. The Drakes are excellent performers.

Crystal them up for your SW freq.'s of interest or add a freq.
synthesizer if you don't want to bother with crystals. There were
construction articles in June 2004 QST & ELECTRIC RADIO Dec 2005 to
build your own freq. synthesizer.

I've got the R4A & it's one of my favorite radios. Great on SSB & CW
as well as AM.
Four selectivity positions , .4 kc, 1.2 kc, 2.4 kc and 4.8 kc ; pass
band tuning, etc.

The copper chassis are prone to tarnish but it doesn't effect
performanace.

I currently own the following tube type receivers/transceivers: R4-A,
R390A, HRO-50, HQ-160, KWM2-A, Hammarlund Super-Pro SP-200.

I have owned over the years Collins R-388 & 75A-3, National HRO-60,
Drake R4-C, RCA AR-88, Hallicrafters SX-100, SX-101, SX-115, SX-117,
SX-122, SX-42, Drake TR-3 & TR-4.


I've also owned or used much modern equipment including many rice
boxes & Ten-Tec gear.

Terry
W8EJO







On Mar 25, 9:50 am, "Uncle Peter" wro


"K3HVG" wrote in message

news
that they didn't use many (if at all) paper capacitors. Finally, FYI,
Heath never made an upscale general coverage receiver. Good hunting.

Hi Jeep

The SB-310 was perhaps the best SW receiver they made.
Albiet limited coverage... It did a PD if I recall...

Pete

"Uncle Peter" ) writes:
"Michael Black" wrote in message
One of the ones I always wondered about came in the sixties and I'm
pretty sure was still in the catalog in 1971 when I would have seen
my first Heath catalog. It was a general coverage receiver, and looked
a lot like the average low end receiver. But it used an IF in the 1600KHz
range, using a two-crystal lattice filter. I've always been curious
about it because of that high IF which obviously would make an improvement
for the highest band in terms of image rejection compared to the usual
cheap SW receiver. But I've never really seen anything about how the
receiver was generally. A higher IF suggests something better, but
it might have just been as bad as the usual low end SW receiver.

Micahel VE2BVW



Michael

I believe my old HR-10 used an IF of 1680 kc with a simple
2-pole lattice filter. Of course that was ham coverage only..

Pete


Yes it did. I was even going to say that the shortwave receiver I
was talking about might have been a variant of that ham band only
receiver.

Michael VE2BVW

Nomad wrote:
My vote would go to the Drake R4A or R4B.

I've used many of the radios discussed here & many modern rigs as
well. The Drakes are excellent performers.

Crystal them up for your SW freq.'s of interest or add a freq.
synthesizer if you don't want to bother with crystals. There were
construction articles in June 2004 QST & ELECTRIC RADIO Dec 2005 to
build your own freq. synthesizer.

I've got the R4A & it's one of my favorite radios. Great on SSB & CW
as well as AM.
Four selectivity positions , .4 kc, 1.2 kc, 2.4 kc and 4.8 kc ; pass
band tuning, etc.

The copper chassis are prone to tarnish but it doesn't effect
performanace.

I currently own the following tube type receivers/transceivers: R4-A,
R390A, HRO-50, HQ-160, KWM2-A, Hammarlund Super-Pro SP-200.

I have owned over the years Collins R-388 & 75A-3, National HRO-60,
Drake R4-C, RCA AR-88, Hallicrafters SX-100, SX-101, SX-115, SX-117,
SX-122, SX-42, Drake TR-3 & TR-4.


I've also owned or used much modern equipment including many rice
boxes & Ten-Tec gear.

Terry
W8EJO


Terry,

I'll ask you to do the same thing for Drake as I asked another poster to
do for Hammarlund: please post a list of the Drake units, with a summary
of the advantages/disadvantages of each.

TIA.

William

(Filter noise from my address for direct replies)

Early Hammarlund Receivers:

The pre-war HQ-120 was a modern bandswitching general coverage receiver.
They are not bad. 455 kc (pre kHz) if and rf amplifier. They were fairly
good. The problem with Hammarlund was that they continued on with design
for the next 20 years and while others went to dual conversion, more
selectivity and product detectors, Hammarlund continued onward with the same
design.

These designs were the HQ-129X, the HQ-140 and even the HQ-150. They all
work well for a 1938 design. Later, the HQ-100 continued on with pretty
much the same design, in a more modern package. They are not bad
receivers - but they are simply in a different league compared to the Drake
R-4 series. The HQ=100 replaced the semi-useful crystal filter with a next
to worthless Q multiplier.

None of the Hammarlunds mentioned are in the same league as the HQ-180 or
the SP-600.

You may want to get a copy of "Shortwave Receivers Past and Present" by Fred
Osterman. It is excellent.

Some inexpensive sleepers might be some of the National receivers. The
NC-2-40 C and D are quite good. They, along with other National receivers,
have push-pull audio and are good on broadcast stations. Some of the later
National receivers have not impressed me. National also made some WW II
receivers which are under appreciated - the RAO series. Many of the older
receivers require replacement of the paper caps, but are mechanically
stable. They were used shipboard 24 hours a day. Dependable workhorses.

73, Colin K7FM

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
"Uncle Peter" ) writes:
"K3HVG" wrote in message
news
that they didn't use many (if at all) paper capacitors. Finally, FYI,
Heath never made an upscale general coverage receiver. Good hunting.


snip

One of the ones I always wondered about came in the sixties and I'm
pretty sure was still in the catalog in 1971 when I would have seen
my first Heath catalog. It was a general coverage receiver, and looked
a lot like the average low end receiver. But it used an IF in the 1600KHz
range, using a two-crystal lattice filter. I've always been curious
about it because of that high IF which obviously would make an improvement
for the highest band in terms of image rejection compared to the usual
cheap SW receiver. But I've never really seen anything about how the
receiver was generally. A higher IF suggests something better, but
it might have just been as bad as the usual low end SW receiver.

Micahel VE2BVW



You're thinking of the GR-54 model which has a 1682 KHz IF frequency.
Tuning range is 180-420 & 550-1550 KHz and 2-30 MHz (notice the
coverage gap between 1.55 and 2 MHz). I bought one in the fall of
1966; price was about $85 US + shipping.

Quite sensitive and, with the high IF frequency, images are a non-issue
unlike the
typical low-end 455 KHz receivers so definitely a step up.

Mine still works but sits on a shelf in a closet. With no digital readout
it's
just too hard to find anything on the not-too accurate slide rule dial.

Regards,
John

Rick wrote:

I need something that is all tubes, and works well on SSB. I plan to use
it mostly on CW but I need decent SSB performance. AM is relatively less
important (it should work on AM but doesn't need to be a spectacular
performer).

It does need to be general coverage 500 KHz to 30 MHz.

Hallicrafters SX-122 or SX-122A. Nice 50 KHz last IF
with selectable sideband and appropriate AGC.

OTOH, It's not that hard to do single-signal CW and SSB
with an R-390/391/392 on the 2 KHz bandwidth setting.

--
P Joshua Rovero KK1D Boatanchor radio afficionado,
ABC #9277 1985 R80RT Oceanographer, Meteorologist,
Curmudgeon at Large
http://www.roveroresearch.com

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
Rick ) writes:
Well, I am beginning to have some doubts about the
likelihood of finding
an excellent-quality Hammarlund HQ-180 at a price I can
afford.

Certainly I am going to keep looking, but meanwhile I
guess I need to come
up with a few alternatives that I can "settle" for if, as
seems likely,
the HQ-180's have priced themselves out of my reach.

I need something that is all tubes, and works well on
SSB. I plan to use
it mostly on CW but I need decent SSB performance. AM is
relatively less
important (it should work on AM but doesn't need to be a
spectacular
performer).

It does need to be general coverage 500 KHz to 30 MHz.

R390's and 51J4's would be good (but of course, more
expensive than the
HQ-180) but none comes with a product detector and so
performance on SSB
is likely to be marginal at best, right?

This is mostly a myth. I had an SP-600 for years, and
never had problems
receiving SSB. You just turn down the RF gain, turn up
the audio gain
to compensate, turn on the BFO and tune away. The issues
of using
such receivers for SSB date from the very early days, when
people didn't
understand how to do it, and so they were disappointed.
Obviously, some
cheap receivers did have problems, because even with the
gain turned
way down, the BFO wasn't strong enough. But that's not
likely the case
for the better receivers.

The limitations would be in whether the dial allows for
fine enough
tuning (which will likely be fine in those receivers) or
lack of selectivity
(which won't be a factor with those receivers, and doesn't
actually affect
SSB reception, just affects how much other clutter you do
receive).

Having a product detector did make it easier to tune in
SSB signals, making
the process less cumbersome.

Michael VE2BVW

Many receivers without product detectors will do OK on
SSB but the problem is having to run at low RF gain and
having no AVC. My SP-600 does OK but I got better results
with my old BC-779 (SP-200 Super Pro) because the BFO
injection is isolated from the AVC and is greater. I don't
know why Hammarlund did not adapt this method to the SP-600
but it is only one of several puzzles about the design.
BTW, I have never understood the need for adjustable BFO
injection on most SP-600 models. The books suggest running
it at maximum but that results in tube overheating of the
buffer and some oscillator pulling. I set mine so that the
tube bias is "normal" for maximum amplification, 1 volt
measured at the cathode with the BFO off. The JXZ-17, which
has fixed injection, runs at this bias level.
There are many approaches to building an SSB adaptor. In
many cases they can be made to be plug-in with no
modification to the receiver. A great many designs were
published in QST and CQ magazines beginning in the mid 1950s
when SSB was becoming popular.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com