I am interested in AM broadcast reception and not familiar with
Hallicrafters equipment.
Can someone compare the Hallicrafters General Coverage Receivers from
later 50's up.
How does the Hallicrafters receivers compare with the Hammarlund
[145/180] for clarity/selectivity/audio?

Thanks

Hard to compare without more specifics! Hammarlund HQ-180(A) gets beat
up in some circles for reduced AM quality audio. That's what you get
when you have good selectivity.

There's so many models from the era that you mention and so many other
features to compare. Hammarlund HQ-180A is going to be at the top of
most people's list.

-Bill


Cadiscase wrote:
I am interested in AM broadcast reception and not familiar with
Hallicrafters equipment.
Can someone compare the Hallicrafters General Coverage Receivers from
later 50's up.
How does the Hallicrafters receivers compare with the Hammarlund
[145/180] for clarity/selectivity/audio?

Thanks

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Cadiscase wrote:

I am interested in AM broadcast reception and not familiar with
Hallicrafters equipment.
Can someone compare the Hallicrafters General Coverage Receivers from
later 50's up.
How does the Hallicrafters receivers compare with the Hammarlund
[145/180] for clarity/selectivity/audio?

Thanks

So what changed since October 29th, when you were asking about specific
Hammarlund receivers, like you were about to buy one that week, and
couldn't decide which of the three models offered to you was the one to
buy?

"Subject: Hammarlund comprison HQ-145X, 170A, 180A

Can someone compare the above receivers or direct me to a site that does?
I am interested in buying one of these and need to make a decision of
which one does what. I did look up the reviews on eham. It was good but
lacked a bit of comparitive info."

There already was discussion about those three receivers here, yet you
never posted after your initial post, until you start another thread and
acting like you didn't ask the first time (and acting like nobody
responded the first time).

Michael

On Nov 13, 4:53*pm, Michael Black wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Cadiscase wrote:
I am interested in AM broadcast reception and not familiar with
Hallicrafters equipment.
Can someone compare the Hallicrafters General Coverage Receivers from
later 50's up.
How does the Hallicrafters receivers compare with the Hammarlund
[145/180] for clarity/selectivity/audio?

Thanks

So what changed since October 29th, when you were asking about specific
Hammarlund receivers, like you were about to buy one that week, and
couldn't decide which of the three models offered to you was the one to
buy?

"Subject: Hammarlund comprison HQ-145X, 170A, 180A

Can someone compare the above receivers or direct me to a site that does?
I am interested in buying one of these and need to make a decision of
which one does what. I did look up the reviews on eham. It was good but
lacked a bit of comparitive info."

There already was discussion about those three receivers here, yet you
never posted after your initial post, until you start another thread and
acting like you didn't ask the first time (and acting like nobody
responded the first time).

* * Michael

I appreciated the feedback on the Hammarlund that I got with the other
post.
It has a lot of good usefull information.
BEFORE I buy I wanted to check and see what was the thoughts on the
Hallicrafters receivers.
Always best to compare and get info on all considerations before you
make a decision.
The last post was specifically about the Hammarlund. This most is
mostly about the Hallicrafters.
All information and opinions are appreciated.
Hope that clarifies my second post.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:31:05 -0800, Cadiscase wrote:

I am interested in AM broadcast reception and not familiar with
Hallicrafters equipment.
Can someone compare the Hallicrafters General Coverage Receivers from
later 50's up.
How does the Hallicrafters receivers compare with the Hammarlund
[145/180] for clarity/selectivity/audio?

Thanks

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I have a Hammarlund HQ-145XC, restored. It is an excellent receiver,
dual conversion above 10MC, great for AM Broadcast Band DX. Its crystal
filters give good selectivity and it is very sensitive. Mine has the
optional clock. I know that it was a "general coverage" receiver, but I
like it. If you have the money, then go for an HQ-180, very expensive if
restored.

Cadiscase wrote:
It has a lot of good usefull information.
BEFORE I buy I wanted to check and see what was the thoughts on the
Hallicrafters receivers.
Always best to compare and get info on all considerations before you
make a decision.
The last post was specifically about the Hammarlund. This most is
mostly about the Hallicrafters.
All information and opinions are appreciated.
Hope that clarifies my second post.

Well, just to let you know... the requirements for general listening to
loud shortwave stations are kind of different than the requirements for picking
flea-powered CW signals out of the mud. So you might want to have made that
point before you asked anything in the first place.

Hallicrafters made a whole line of receivers that were basically consumer
shortwave receivers. They weren't as well-constructed as top of the
line radios, but the audio quality was very good and they were reasonably
sensitive. In fact, the audio quality was better than that of the higher
end communications receivers because they were designed for that.

You can find a Hallicrafters S-38 for $50 at a hamfest still, and they are
fun and easy to rebuild. You would go absolutely insane trying to use it
on 40M CW, but it's a good pick for shortwave listening.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

That's kinda like comparing apples to oranges; Hammarlund is a higher quality receiver in general.

That said, Hallicrafters did make some gems - the SX100A comes to mind - and their audio is very good. I've owned the SX28A and the SX43 and had good listening experiences. I've also owned the Hammarlund HQ145AC and the HQ160 with similar results.

The biggest problem I see with any of them is: They're old. Tubes are getting harder to find and the old capacitors probably will need to be replaced. Why invest so much time and money when you can get a Drake R8 series or an Icom R75, quite possibly for less?

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

You can find a Hallicrafters S-38 for $50 at a hamfest still, and they are
fun and easy to rebuild. You would go absolutely insane trying to use it
on 40M CW, but it's a good pick for shortwave listening.
--scott

Hey, just a minute, Scott! My old S-38 and I had a grand old time on
40M CW.
Crystal controlled 6L6 "tritet" and two crystals could work the world. Of
course one had to be able to copy the third or fourth one down in the pile.
S-38 wasn't
exactly a "single signal" set! That was in the early 1950's when 40CW was
just one howling, screaming mess after dark. Only in the early morning hours
was real DX possible....... the crowd had thinned a little and conditions
got
much better.
When wife and I turned to short-wave AM broadcast listening for a
while, we
found a "cherry" Hallicrafters SX-28A for $75 bucks that could really suck
'em
in! On standard broadcast band it was a marvel. The weaker ones suffered
from
a few "hetrodynes" (remember?) of course, but hey! that was state of the
art.
Today, I doubt if I could lift an SX-28A.

Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ (since 1948)

On Nov 14, 9:36*pm, "coffelt2" wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

...

You can find a Hallicrafters S-38 for $50 at a hamfest still, and they are
fun and easy to rebuild. *You would go absolutely insane trying to use it
on 40M CW, but it's a good pick for shortwave listening.
--scott

* * *Hey, just a minute, Scott! My old S-38 and I had a grand old time on
40M CW.
Crystal controlled 6L6 "tritet" and two crystals could work the world. Of
course one had to be able to copy the third or fourth one down in the pile.
S-38 wasn't
exactly a "single signal" set! That was in the early 1950's when 40CW was
just one howling, screaming mess after dark. Only in the early morning hours
was real DX possible....... *the crowd had thinned a little and conditions
got
much better.
* * *When wife and I turned to short-wave AM broadcast listening for a
while, we
found a "cherry" Hallicrafters SX-28A for $75 bucks that could really suck
'em
in! On standard broadcast band it was a marvel. The weaker ones suffered
from
a few "hetrodynes" (remember?) of course, but hey! that was state of the
art.
Today, I doubt if I could lift an SX-28A.

Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ (since 1948)

So how do the newer or higher model SX models compare with the
SX-28A ?
I am unfamiliar with Hallicraftes Gen Cov receivers so any info is
appreciated,
Cadiscase

"Cadiscase" wrote in message
...
On Nov 14, 9:36 pm, "coffelt2" wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

...

You can find a Hallicrafters S-38 for $50 at a hamfest still, and they
are
fun and easy to rebuild. You would go absolutely insane trying to use it
on 40M CW, but it's a good pick for shortwave listening.
--scott

Hey, just a minute, Scott! My old S-38 and I had a grand old time on
40M CW.
Crystal controlled 6L6 "tritet" and two crystals could work the world. Of
course one had to be able to copy the third or fourth one down in the
pile.
S-38 wasn't
exactly a "single signal" set! That was in the early 1950's when 40CW was
just one howling, screaming mess after dark. Only in the early morning
hours
was real DX possible....... the crowd had thinned a little and conditions
got
much better.
When wife and I turned to short-wave AM broadcast listening for a
while, we
found a "cherry" Hallicrafters SX-28A for $75 bucks that could really suck
'em
in! On standard broadcast band it was a marvel. The weaker ones suffered
from
a few "hetrodynes" (remember?) of course, but hey! that was state of the
art.
Today, I doubt if I could lift an SX-28A.

Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ (since 1948)

So how do the newer or higher model SX models compare with the
SX-28A ?
I am unfamiliar with Hallicraftes Gen Cov receivers so any info is
appreciated,
Cadiscase

Operationally, I really don't know, but the newer ones were lighter!
Old Chief Lynn