Hello!
In general, I found the item to be well done and PRETTY well reasoned... but as
you no doubt knew before you set pen to paper (or keyboard to phosphor, as it
were) even broadly based recommendations on receivers are going to get a LOT of
dissenting comments. Consider this the first.
Operators have a close, personal relationship with thier receivers, much more so than
with thier transmitters; since they're usually full of high voltage that'll reach out and
grab ya, or expensive tubes that will go critical mass and melt down before your eyes
if you screw up, it's kind of hard to cozy up to your transmitter! That relationship
is more a matter of mutual respect! While a powerful, reliable transmitter is our on
the air evidence of electronic virility, we spend a lot more QUALITY time with our
receivers!
Besides that, receivers have distinct personalities... i.e., tastes are VERY subjective!
THAT'S where the fertilizer hits the blender with any item of this sort.
Enough of the preliminary stuff. My primary criticism is in these spots...
>> Early solid-state era receivers (say from the early 1960’s to the mid-1980’s) are
generally a poor choice. There are some exceptions, but synthesizers and
semiconductors have come a long way in 40 years, and most of these early
solid-state radios aren’t worth the effort. <<
"Generally" is the saving point here. I've been a ham and SWL for around 50 years
now (Jeeze, what an Old Fart!
), and at one time or another I've probably owned
or operated 200 different receivers of every description. Of late I've become one
of the growing ranks of so-called "Premium Reciever" buffs.
IN GENERAL we can agree with your statement about the solid state rigs of this era,
but if it's taken as gospel Johnny Newbie can overlook a few REAL gems out there.
Of ALL of this never ending parade of receivers thru my shack the absolute BEST of
ALL of them, IMHO, is one that falls squarely in the middle of the 1960s - 1980s
Black Hole that you've defined.
The British Racal RA-1772 (or the US version RA-6772 and Canadian RA-8772) aren't
REAL common out there, but if you overlook one of them in a receiver search you
will REGRET it, big time! The rig is a contemporary of the Collins R-390 / R-390A rigs,
and were mainly in the hands of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and the folks
at Racal REALLY did it RIGHT! These receivers were produced perhaps 1978 - 1981,
and were on the transition line between rigs for human opeartors and the later rigs
meant to be run by a computer interface. IMHO these rigs are the ULTIMATE in
traditional communications receivers, blowing away most everything else out there!
Depending on the IF filters installed, it's a "do it ALL" receiver; both a full blow
"contest combat" rig that's excellent in multiple operator position situations (an
EXCELLENT preselector to keep the other transmitters out of the bulletproof
front end), and quite good audio rendering of AM when an external speaker is used.
If any further endorsement is needed... in my shack the Collins R-390 / R-390A was
king for perhaps 20 years. I just recently sold off the LAST of them, and I'm now in
the latter stages of contemplating disposal of a Collins R-389, the Crown Jewel of
my VLF receivers.
Likewise, a couple of Hammarlund SP-600s have also gone away... and I'm also in the
latter stages of committing to the disposal of an SP-600VLF!
The Racal does it ALL, and in a package that's half the weight and one third of the
power consumption... and does it BETTER besides! End of story!
Now, I'M about to step square in the middle of receiver sensitivities... and I'm now
putting on my flame and flack suit.
The Collins rigs are going away because IMHO life is TOO SHORT to use SECOND
CLASS RECIEVERS!
I am keeping an R-388, but strictly for nostalgia purposes... it's STILL a classy old
box, but these days it just can't keep up with the competition anymore!!!
One other point... When you compile a BEST OF or WORST OF list, you're just
BEGGING for the flame throwers to be lighted and deployed!
>> Hammarlund HQ-170/180. My personal prejudices at work here; many guys love theirs. Incredibly distorted audio with a real JS audio feedback network. Ugly. The BFO and notch filter coils prone to breakage. Chassis prone to corrosion. It is a pretty decent battle-mode receiver with selectable sideband and an effective notch filter. <<
In some areas we're in agreement. I had an HQ-170 that I wouldn't wish on my
worst enemy (or the guy across town who was trying to top my score in the CW
Sweepstakes!), and I'm currently toying with an HQ-180 that needs a LOT of help!
It's one of those Hamfest Orphans that showed up at a price I couldn't refuse!
As far as "Ugly" is concerned, I have to disagree; the Hammarlund design defines the
1960s the same way that the Hallicrafters postwar Lowe inspired designs (SX-42 in
particular) define thier era.
Performancewise... in my experience with them, the whole 1960s HQ series was
inconsistent; you either got a gem or a lemon. There was an HQ-110 I had which I
still mourn the loss of 30 years later... but the aforementioned HQ-170 was SUCH
an irritation that I dumped it at a hamfest at considerable financial loss just to get it
out of my sight!!!
Time for me to step into the Deep Doodoo again here. I'm adding a THIRD list; the
most OVERRATED receivers ever produced!
Some of the legendary radios out
there which, IMHO, belong in museums but NOT on the operator's desk!
-National HRO-500. Bad lock-up problems with the PLLs, HORRIBLE front end
overloading and intermod below 500 KHz without the optional preselector... and not
that great WITH it. Designed around GERMANIUM transistors; these days keeping one
working is an incredible cross to bear!
-Technical Materials Corporation GPR-90. Good looking rig, but mechanically it's a bit
crudely built. The roughness reminds me of Russian radios; the front panel looks like
it was crafted by a blacksmith who used a rubber ruler! Quite good front end, but it's
a wash because of mechanical and electrical instability. Repeated alignment and
tracking attempts never got the bandspread to track in a satisfactory manner.
Well... I've gotten myself in ENOUGH trouble for today. LET THE FLAMES
COMMENCE!!!
73's,
Tom, W9LBB