Mike M. wrote:
Hello,
How do the old tube type receivers such as the
Hammarlund ,Hallicrafter etc compare to the modern solid state
receivers in performance?
I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market.
Thank you,
Mike McManus

Mike,
You ask a couple of interesting questions, but you need to focus a bit more.

To take Hallicrafters as an example, they made a wide range of
receivers, ranging from the entry level S-38 (really mediocre as you
would expect), to their final, top-of -the line SX-115, still able to
hold its own with modern receivers. (I am ignoring all their pre-WWII
radios).

This would hold true for most manufacturers except for Collins -- where
everything they made was "top of the line". ;-)

I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market.

Again, you should clarify a bit. Not sure what you actually mean by
"longevity".

The components in the tube radios are anywhere from 30 to 70 or more
years old. Once components that age have been replaced, the old set's
service life should generally compare favorably with the solid state radios.

My brother in law has a big old boat anchor radio.I don't know what
brand name it is.I saw it a few years ago, sitting on his work bench in
his two story work shop/storage building in his back yard.I don't snoop
around about his things.He is a retired Air Force Colonel, I assume he
bought that radio somewhere when he was in the Air Force.Of course, he
had that radio tuned to the local MISS 103 FM Music station.That is the
Only radio station they listen to over there.
http://www.MISS103.com
cuhulin

Don't let the aging capacitors and tube fears deter you from considering one
of the better pieces made by
National, Hammarlund, Hallicrafters or Collins. Aligned and maintained they
will outpace anything new that
has come along in the last 30 years. The dynamic range is superb and makes
the comparison with new stuff
like comparing the audio of the old well-built Western Electric telephones
with the raucous crappy audio that is found on cell phones.

Stability? Most of the better receivers from that era pose no NOTICEABLE
drift. Nit-picking absurd specifications like saying a new rig is better
than an older one because it only has 10 Hz drift is nonsense. Even on CW or
SSB I doubt most listeners can even detect 100 cycles of instability.

Replacing capacitors is not rocket science. You remove one that says "10 uF"
and you replace it with a new one that says "10 uF." Duh.

Tubes are still plentiful and with careful shopping (not the price gougers
on scum-Bay) you can buy NOS or used-but-verified good inexpensively. I have
restored lots of these receivers and even the worse cases never needed more
than 1 or two tubes.

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Mike M. wrote:
Hello,
How do the old tube type receivers such as the
Hammarlund ,Hallicrafter etc compare to the modern solid state
receivers in performance?
I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market.
Thank you,
Mike McManus

Mike,
You ask a couple of interesting questions, but you need to focus a bit more.

To take Hallicrafters as an example, they made a wide range of receivers,
ranging from the entry level S-38 (really mediocre as you would expect), to
their final, top-of -the line SX-115, still able to hold its own with modern
receivers. (I am ignoring all their pre-WWII radios).

This would hold true for most manufacturers except for Collins -- where
everything they made was "top of the line". ;-)

I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market.

Again, you should clarify a bit. Not sure what you actually mean by
"longevity".

The components in the tube radios are anywhere from 30 to 70 or more years
old. Once components that age have been replaced, the old set's service life
should generally compare favorably with the solid state radios.

Of course, the contradictory thing is that the low end S-38 is so simple
that it's easy to put in new capacitors, while the better old equipment
has so many stages and so much shielding that it can be a lot of trouble.

Thus a cheap tube receiver is likely far easier to repair than a current
tiny solid state receiver, but the latter have better performance
generally. The old tube receivers that match the performance (or better
the performance) of current "average" solid state receivers will be as
difficult to repair, if not more so.

Michael

On 3/7/10 13:17 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Mike M. wrote:
Hello,
How do the old tube type receivers such as the
Hammarlund ,Hallicrafter etc compare to the modern solid state
receivers in performance?
I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market.
Thank you,
Mike McManus

Mike,
You ask a couple of interesting questions, but you need to focus a bit
more.

To take Hallicrafters as an example, they made a wide range of
receivers, ranging from the entry level S-38 (really mediocre as you
would expect), to their final, top-of -the line SX-115, still able to
hold its own with modern receivers. (I am ignoring all their pre-WWII
radios).

This would hold true for most manufacturers except for Collins -- where
everything they made was "top of the line". ;-)

I am curious about the longevity of the tube radios on the market.

Again, you should clarify a bit. Not sure what you actually mean by
"longevity".

The components in the tube radios are anywhere from 30 to 70 or more
years old. Once components that age have been replaced, the old set's
service life should generally compare favorably with the solid state
radios.

Consider also, that components replaced using contemporary
materials and contemporary manufacturing techniques may deliver an
improvement in performance over new specification.

Clive wrote:
Don't let the aging capacitors and tube fears deter you from considering
one of the better pieces made by
National, Hammarlund, Hallicrafters or Collins. Aligned and maintained
they will outpace anything new that
has come along in the last 30 years.

No.

I have a Hallicrafters S-38EB radio.I bought it for about four dollars
about fifteen something years ago at a Goodwill store.
The radio does work and it is in very nice physical and cosmetic
condition.It is a little dusty right now, just like most thingys in my
house.I am not Mr.Clean.The dust helps protect it, you seeeeee,,,,,,,

http://www.shopgoodwill.com

http://www.devilfinder.com
Hallicrafters S-38EB Radios
cuhulin

Bob Dobbs wrote:
Clive wrote:
Even on CW or
SSB I doubt most listeners can even detect 100 cycles of instability.

I can definitely tell when some station is ten or more kcs off where I'm tuned,
and go to the RIT automatically. If they continue to drift, I might chase them
awhile, but usually move on, suggesting they sober up and quit leaning on the
VFO knob.

My receiver is stable to less than a twentieth of a cycle over several months.
(Using WWV as a reference)

100 Hz is a noticeable change in pitch. A 50 Hz step makes listening to
music on SSB very difficult. I do my major DXing through a 250 Hz
filter, so if you drift you go bye-bye.

wrote:
I have a Hallicrafters S-38EB radio.I bought it for about four dollars
about fifteen something years ago at a Goodwill store.
The radio does work and it is in very nice physical and cosmetic
condition.It is a little dusty right now, just like most thingys in my
house.I am not Mr.Clean.The dust helps protect it, you seeeeee,,,,,,,

http://www.shopgoodwill.com

http://www.devilfinder.com
Hallicrafters S-38EB Radios
cuhulin


I have a stereo receiver made by Hallicrafters. Has AM/FM/Shortwave AND
a phono preamp.

You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which the
has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much as
(if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.