Barry wrote:
What about the Swan 350C and/or 500C? I never owned one, but they
would certainly qualify as a tube transceiver.


I think the word "Best" would eliminate any Swan gear...

Ron

Well, if you ever get the opportunity....get a nice TR4C!
I have an SB303, 301 and an SB102. They are mint 'keepers', but they are
just light years away from the overall quality and performance of the TR4's
....Dave
wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jul 10, 6:36 pm, "Dave Edwards" wrote:
The last of the tube TR4's had 1 khz readout.....and a WHOLE lot more
repeatable, and end to end accurate then the SB102!!

...Dave

Yes. Good point.

I don't own Drake except for a 2B/2BQ that's been in storage for 35
years. Don't know a lot about them, never operated a TR.

Overall though, the SB-102 package, as part of the Heath SB system
which includes several amps, scopes, etc., was the premier 1960s/1970s
set up. The weakness of the SB's was the mechanical build quality
and the mechanical alignment.

Drake PTO vs. Heath LMO is an interesting comparison. My SB-102 is
not seen bench time yet but I've had an SB-303 (same solid state LMO
albeit without the tubes nearby) on a frequency counter for a week.
The drift measured in the few tens of Hz! This was in an un-
airconditioned room.

On Jul 11, 4:36 pm, Ron in Radio Heaven
wrote:
Barry wrote:
What about the Swan 350C and/or 500C? I never owned one, but they
would certainly qualify as a tube transceiver.

I think the word "Best" would eliminate any Swan gear...

That's very true, as regards ham gear. However later Cubic commercial
gear, from the company Swan evolved into, can be quite good.

Irv Finkleman wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

reseauplate wrote:

Failing that, converting the beasts to a transmitting tube of some
sort seems the only way to go,as sweep tubes are a thing of the past.
Apparently they take a lot of different internals from audio types,
which are the market today.


Yes, I grew up watching folks changing old surplus military gear to
take cheap commercial sweep tubes. Now I am watching people converting
cheap commercial gear to take surplus military sweep tubes....
--scott

I converted my old Hallicrafters SR150 from sweep tubes (6DQ6's if I
recall)
to 6146s. It is still around the local ham community and running fine.
The
nice things about the 6146's was that they are small enough to fit in
almost
any PA subchassis, and all I had to do was rewire the sockets.

Sure wish I still had it. I let it go about 25 years ago!

Irv VE6BP

TV sweep tubes don't like to be run linear. I recall seeing a 16 x 6LQ6
amplifier in the Handbook (or was it QST?) eons ago. I shudder at the
thought of the IMD3 response! 6146s are a bit better than sweep tubes. My
favorite tube in terms of linearity would be the 807/1625, albeit a bit
taller than the others.

I still have my first SSB xcvr, a new-to-me SB102. I would concur with most
of what others have said about the cheesy mechanicals. Even with fresh
tubes in the frontend & IF and aligned, the receiver seemed to fall off in
sensitivity above 20m. 3 elements on 15m at 38' made up for it. I added a
Fox-Tango Club 500Hz CW filter before retiring it.

73,
Bryan WA7PRC

Ron in Radio Heaven wrote:
Barry wrote:
What about the Swan 350C and/or 500C? I never owned one, but they
would certainly qualify as a tube transceiver.

I think the word "Best" would eliminate any Swan gear...

The 350C isn't really a ham band transceiver. I mean, you can tune it
into the ham bands... but it won't stay there... or anywhere else...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

That is true, Scott, but the good thing about the 350C was that you could
then work all the rest of us using EICO 753s.

Didahdidahdit

ZUT

Vern W9STB

On Jul 7, 12:45?am, "Beech Creek" wrote:
I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever
produced and why?

I presume you mean "amateur HF band transceiver", and whether you
allow matched-pair receiver/transmitter setups that allow transceiving
on one or both of the VFOs.

I think it all depends on how you define "best", and whether you allow
mostly-SS hybrids like the TS-520S to be considered "tube".

For example, if the definition is best-performing-on-SSB one-box
transceiver, the KWM-2A is at the top. Yes it's mediocre on CW, has no
RIT and cost the earth in its time, but for performance on SSB it was
tops in its era.

If you want RIT and good CW performance in one box, the Drake TR-4cw
(the latest version) is the one to have.

OTOH, if the definition is most-performance-for-your-money, it's a
close tie between the Heath SB-101 and HW-101. I do agree about the
mechanicals but consider what they cost in their time, compared to
other rigs.

If you allow matched-pair tx/rx, the Collins S-line (meatball 75S-3C/
32S-3) are at the top, followed closely by the Drake 4C twins.

---

Although I haven't tried it, there is allegedly a cure for the cheap
Heath mechanicals in the HW-100/101 and SB series.

What you do is to look around for a junker Tempo One, which is
actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly,
which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz.

Then you remove the Heath LMO/VFO and replace it with the Tempo unit.
Some mods will be needed to get supply voltages and make up for the
loss of the tube in the Heath LMO/VFO, but those aren't hard to do.
The mechanical mods are left as an exercise for the reader - if it
were me, I'd make a new front panel while I was at it. As a bonus, the
Tempo VFO unit has RIT.

The Tempo VFO is solid-state, but more important, has a sweet all-
antibacklash-gear drive and 1 kHz readout. (It's arguably the best
part of the rig).

--

Although it's not really a transceiver, but rather a receiver and
transmitter in one box with a common power supply, the Heath HW-16 has
to win the award for best-HF-amateur-tube-rig-designed-for-a-specific-
purpose. It was meant as a Novice rig for the privileges of its time,
and except for being anemic on 15 did that job very well and at a low
low price.

All IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY

) writes:

Although I haven't tried it, there is allegedly a cure for the cheap
Heath mechanicals in the HW-100/101 and SB series.

What you do is to look around for a junker Tempo One, which is
actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly,
which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz.

If you're going to start doing that, then any external VFO that covers
5 to 5.5MHz is a potential candidate. Even up to something like the
external digital VFO that went with the TS-830, though at the moment
I can't remember if it's a 5MHz VFO.

Or build an external vfo with that variable capacitor from the BC-221
that's been lying around for decades, and put a frequency counter
in the box. That's not even a new idea, there were things like that
over thirty years ago when digital ICs became cheap enough to easily
make frequency counters.

This thing will then work with any rig that needs a 5MHz VFO, and has
the advantage of not requiring dramatic changes to the rig. Many
will even have things in place for an external VFO.

There was a whole article in the September 1972 issue of CQ about
this sort of thing for the SB/HW transceivers, though I don't think
he used a frequency counter.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael Black wrote:
Jim, N2EY writes:

Although I haven't tried it, there is allegedly a cure for the cheap
Heath mechanicals in the HW-100/101 and SB series.

What you do is to look around for a junker Tempo One, which is
actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly,
which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz.

If you're going to start doing that, then any external VFO that covers
5 to 5.5MHz is a potential candidate. Even up to something like the
external digital VFO that went with the TS-830, though at the moment
I can't remember if it's a 5MHz VFO.
Or build an external vfo with that variable capacitor from the BC-221
that's been lying around for decades, and put a frequency counter
in the box. That's not even a new idea, there were things like that
over thirty years ago when digital ICs became cheap enough to easily
make frequency counters.

This thing will then work with any rig that needs a 5MHz VFO, and has
the advantage of not requiring dramatic changes to the rig. Many
will even have things in place for an external VFO.

There was a whole article in the September 1972 issue of CQ about
this sort of thing for the SB/HW transceivers, though I don't think
he used a frequency counter.

Michael VE2BVW

I married a Drake RV4 to my SB102 for split operation (using the SB102's
xtal oscillator as a buffer).
Bryan WA7PRC

On Jul 14, 6:02?pm, (Michael Black) wrote:
) writes:
a junker Tempo One, which is
actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly,
which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz.

If you're going to start doing that, then any external VFO that covers
5 to 5.5MHz is a potential candidate.

Agreed, but the idea (which I didn't state very clearly) is that you
put the Tempo One VFO *inside* the Heath rig, so it's still one-box.

If you're willing to do the external-VFO thing, just mount the LMO in
an external box and make a nice dial drive for it, plus the digital
readout.

Or build an external vfo with that variable capacitor from the BC-221
that's been lying around for decades, and put a frequency counter
in the box.

Or a mechanical dial. I've done that for homebrew rigs.

That's not even a new idea, there were things like that
over thirty years ago when digital ICs became cheap enough to easily
make frequency counters.

I made one in 1975. But it's a lot more than just a counter.

For one thing, the VFO frequency isn't the signal frequency. But the
big deal is that, in the Heathkits, the VFO tunes the wrong way (5 is
the high end of the band and 5.5 is the low end). Both are solved by
use of a presettable down-counter.

This thing will then work with any rig that needs a 5MHz VFO, and has
the advantage of not requiring dramatic changes to the rig. Many
will even have things in place for an external VFO.

Agreed. But if you want a one-box tube transceiver, and you happen
across a junker Tempo One with a good VFO, the result could be pretty
sweet without all the work of building a stable VFO.

73 de Jim, N2EY