My Thoughts

[W9LBB]

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






 

[W7VM]

In general I agree with you but my GPR-90 which, admittedly, is in condition "10" and which I realigned and retubed when I got it two years ago is amazing.  The unsual grounded grid front end is bulletproof and very sensitive and the electrical and mechanical stability is equal to or better then my R-390 and R-390A.  I assume you have adjested the capacitor end play screws, if they are not correct it does have the instabilty you describe.  I have had all the radios you mentioned excet the Racals and the GPR-90 is my favorite with beauatiful audio now that I have replaced all the electrolytics (of which there only 3 or 4 in the entire radio including the can type).

Dave

[N2DTS]

Where did this come from?

I sure like the look of the GPR90, but never had one.

I rate all the old receivers I ever had as poor for AM use, for one reason or another.
Many were very cool looking, some worked very well in some respects, most were very large and heavy (good in the day).

Modern receivers have ecss, sync AM, much better filters, less distortion, better frequency response, are much more accurate, have a spectrum display, have diversity and noise cancellation, auto notch filters, etc.

They do not look good though, and you are not going to have fun working on one!

Old receivers are great to buy at a fest and play around with.


Brett

[Jeff W9GY]

Gotta agree on the HRO-500.  Had one ---- no more!

[W4EWH]

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!   

The Drake 2-B was, IMNSHO, the most under-rated receiver ever made for the Amateur market.

Bill "Asbestos LongJohns" Horne, W1AC

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Must be a slow day.
"LBB" last active here July 4, 2007.

I use my HRO-500 on a regular basis.

[KM1H]

-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!

Considering it was designed starting in 1962 it was far ahead of its time. Thousands were sold for commercial, military and lab use and are high $$ collector items today.  The built in step attenuator, RF Gain control and a bit of common sense from the operator resulted in a pretty decent radio.

Ive had a 500 with the LF-10 preselector for over 25 years and after the initial overhaul its been flawless. I also had a loaner at home that rode in a 64 GTO convertible during the Great Northeast Blackout of 1965 along with a NCX-5 and a local cop.

The Drake 2-B was, IMNSHO, the most under-rated receiver ever made for the Amateur market.

That proves the old saying that one mans junk....etc. It was the most dissapointing POS I ever owned back in parts of 63-64. Horrible SSB audio and overload made it impossible to use on good antennas in a contest, especially 40M. I backed up 8 years to a second hand 75A4 which received plenty of mods and I still use it.

Carl
KM1H
National Radio 1963-69

[k4kyv]

In the 60's and 70's the changeover to solid state usually meant a sacrifice in receiver performance.

I have never owned a receiver that didn't require some modifications to bring it up to acceptable performance. I do try to avoid irreversible mods, drilling holes in the front panel, etc.

The 7360 and similar beam deflection tube mixers offered perhaps the greatest advance in receiver performance yet, but the rush to solid state quinched the technology before its full capability was ever realised.

[w3jn]

Where in the hell did this original post come from?  It's apparently in response to Slab's and my articles on receivers. 

Anyway it's great to hear once again that old receivers aren't worth using 

[W2XR]

In general I agree with you but my GPR-90 which, admittedly, is in condition "10" and which I realigned and retubed when I got it two years ago is amazing.  The unsual grounded grid front end is bulletproof and very sensitive and the electrical and mechanical stability is equal to or better then my R-390 and R-390A.  I assume you have adjested the capacitor end play screws, if they are not correct it does have the instabilty you describe.  I have had all the radios you mentioned excet the Racals and the GPR-90 is my favorite with beauatiful audio now that I have replaced all the electrolytics (of which there only 3 or 4 in the entire radio including the can type).

Dave

Dave, I have had two of these very pretty and extremely well-made, robust receivers, and I'm keeping the one I currently own with the GSB-1 SSB convertor. Like yourself, I've completely gone through the receiver and convertor, having replaced all of the electrolytics, marginal tubes and other parts, and realigned the set to the factory specs using the TMC alignment procedure.

My opinion of the receiver, with or without the GSB-1, is that the GPR-90 is very nice to look at and to have grace the shack, but the performance can be somewhat disappointing. I'm pleased that you are very happy with the performance of yours. One man's meat is another man's poison. By the same token, I really like my 1953 Motorola R-390, and I'm sure there are those out there that would not give me 50 cents for that receiver.

As I've stated in these pages previously, TMC should have stuck to doing what they did best; world-class/best-of-breed HF radio transmitting equipment.

Opinions are like a certain part of the human anatomy; everybody has one.

73,

Bruce

[WQ9E]

Receivers are much like any other tool and best depends upon use.

If conditions are great on AM I really like the sound of some of the wide open vintage gear like an SX-42 or NC-183 or D variant.  But this is a rare condition and almost every net or round table has one or more weak stations mixed in with some QRM.  The earlier Super Pro's with the variable IF selectivity also have wonderful AM audio and do fairly well under rougher conditions but sometimes conditions are truly horrible.  So on to the "industrial" tools:

My favorite radios for these conditions are the HQ-170, the GPR-90 with a Hammarlund HC-10 converter (since I can't afford the matching GSB-1!), and most of the Halli family with the 50 Khz. low IF.  In the more modern category, I like my Drake R-7A and it has all of the filter slots filled so I can choose medium or narrow AM bandwidth and take advantage of its passband tuning system.  Narrow bandwidths, selectable sideband on AM, and some sort  of notch or slot filter are invaluable here and these attributes can make an otherwise miserable contact fairly pleasant-though they do nothing for QSO content so if that is the problem switch back to a broad receiver so you don't have to listen to content.

With all of this, my most used AM receiver is an SX-88 largely because it is tied to the Ranger/Desk KW station and it just looks cool.  Selectivity and audio are excellent but it lacks the switch selectable sideband featured on later family members so you have to rock the tuning control to choose the desired AM sideband and it does not have a notch filter although an outboard Autek QF-1A provides that function.  When conditions are good its excellent audio system and wide bandwidth can be put to use and then progressively narrowed as conditions warrant.  One of my SX-101's would be more convenient but I have the SX-88 and will stubbornly continue to use it.

We all have our favorite receivers and I enjoyed the articles on vintage receivers.

Next up on the argument channel, Ford versus Chevy

[N3DRB The Derb]

been more than a few FB OM necros showing up lately.

read the dates on the posts. If its from a year ago and suddenly shows up, somebody is playing you for a puppet.

[KM1H]

I see several old posts resurrected and take on a new life, nothing wrong with that.

For battle conditions I like the HRO-60, and even stock it is one of the best. Add in a Murata or Kiwa ceramic IF filter and it drops the skirts straight into the basement. Or find one of the Collins or National built mechanical filter adaptors. Can be made to play fine on 6M with the rare AD coil set. Im still looking for one.

Others here that I like for AM:

NBS-1, a custom mod of the NC-183 with variable IF selectivity and a 3rd IF stage. Not many built but Ive seen 2 others on Ebay over a year or so.

NC-183 or 183D with a ceramic filter. Still great without the filter in less than battle conditions.

HRO-50 and 50-1, same comments as the 183/183D. The extra IF stage helps in the later versions of both.

SX-28/28A  Great dual loop AGC makes it near overload proof. Add a filter for battle conditions.

SX-17  Passable with a filter otherwise a daytime radio on uncrowded bands.

75A3 with AM mechanical filter

75A4 with same but I only have cascaded CW/SSB filters in mine.

SX-101A  I like the selectable AM sideband feature and 50kc IF

SP-400X  This will be part of the station once its been restored, only had it since October Nearfest.

51J4  Lots to be said about these after a few mods.

R390A  That subject has been beat to death....love it or hate it. Mine gets minimal use but I may improve the RF stage and park it on 10/12M.

R-388  Great daytime radio unless you can find a 500kc filter pak out of a Racal or add one from a J4

NC-300/303  Dont have either now but the 80 Kc IF had the neeeded selectivity positions. The NC-400 is probably a contender.

Never owned any TMC products but the GPR-90 always gave me a woody

As Don said, they pretty much all need a mod or three to really shine.

I'll leave the SDR sets to those who dont know how to work with their hands or read schematics  

Carl

[k4kyv]

R-388  Great daytime radio unless you can find a 500kc filter pak out of a Racal or add one from a J4

I have often wondered if it would be possible to move the i.f. on one of these to 455kc/s to allow the use of more widely available filters.  I haven't studied the details of these circuits, but I seem to recall hearing that the original 75-A or 75-A1 also used the 500 kc i.f.

It should work if the PTO would reach at least 45 kHz beyond its nominal range before hitting the mechanical end point. Careful, if you decide to experiment.  Once you feel significant internal mechanical binding in one of those PTO's, you may have already damaged the mechanical assembly.  The tuning dial mechanism in the receiver has a stop to prevent running the PTO too far.

If the PTO could be shifted, the BFO would have to be shifted, and the i.f. transformers would have to be modified. 
Probably wouldn't be worth the try unless you have a junker that would be parted out anyway.

Or maybe check to see if a R-390/A/392 PTO would work?

[WD5JKO]

Must be a slow day.
"LBB" last active here July 4, 2007.

  Pete, I love how you welcome back an old member. 

Jim
WD5JKO

[w3jn]

Jim, LBB made the first post in this thread years ago and hasn't been here since 2007.  It/s W7VM that brought this moldy oldie back from the dead.

[K5UJ]

I don't know how LBB is doing now but I enjoyed his review of the Valiant in eHam.

[K5UJ]

I need to keep a lookout for an AM filter for my 75A3.  I've been told they are expensive and hard to find. 

[KB2WIG]

Some people vocalize to clarify their thoughts, others write, some have no thought at all.


http://snltranscripts.jt.org/79/79smono.phtml

[KM1H]

I need to keep a lookout for an AM filter for my 75A3.  I've been told they are expensive and hard to find. 

I almost passed on the A3. I had already bought the 32V2 from the seller on Friday at Nearfest last October and figured it would be fine with the A2 I already had. A GPR-90 from another seller had my eye at the end of the day but he had a "promise" that a looker would be back Saturday with cash.

Saturday 9 AM the looker hadnt showed yet and I committed to be next in line. It was gone in an hour.  The 75A3 was still there with that first seller so I looked a bit harder and saw the filter so that made it a done deal after a little haggling.

Carl

[WA1GFZ]

Tom,
I have to agree with you and will try to weld the past to the future. As a novice I used a GR64 and became addicted to RX performance at 15. I built and used many of the Rohde circuits of the 70s. 80s and 90s. I also built a few receivers.
The Racal 6772 is a cool radio worth hot rodding. The tunable preselector and first mixer are cool. I'm not sure how clean the synthesizer is though. BTW in the 70s WJ had the cleanest of any I played with.
I still want to drop an HP8640B cavity oscillator in my last homebrew.
Looking to the future I think the Preselector will determine how much performance can be had compared to todays up conversion configurations.
It will be interesting to see the measured specs of the FTDX5000 and compare them to the HPSDR, QSR1 specs.
Looking at my Racal RA6830 the performance limits close in are the synthesizer close in noise that limits dynamic range and the roofing filter ability to handle power again limits dynamic range. The Racal beats the Tayloe front end used in the Flex but the HPSDR has an edge under poor conditions. The HPSDR beats the Racal close in. The  Flex software has a very accurate s meter and tracks my  HP8640B. Flex DDS is not great if you look there are close in spurs.
I loved building 4 speed boxes so found myself turning the knobs of the R390s at the flea market to day. Gears are still so cool. I wonder how a QSR1 would play behind a R390 preselector. We will see but an FPGA is going to be like a 6J5 in time and both will have a limited life as they get denser. 

[KM1H]

Toploaders or rock crushers? I stuck to the GM's back then

[K5UJ]

The 75A3 was still there with that first seller so I looked a bit harder and saw the filter so that made it a done deal after a little haggling.

Carl

What did I say one before?   You have the nose for deals Carl!  I need to find you at a fest and follow you around.   

[WA1GFZ]

I never built a top loader all GM.

[KM1H]

I went from flatheads to Y Blocks and then a 57 Chevy and never looked back from GM for decades.  I got pretty good with Muncies and even rebuilt a few piss ant Saginaws.  Got back into flattys and Y's again in the 90's but still have a 68 SS 396 Impala ragtop to make some serious noise.

Going to be thinning out the 4 wheel herd this summer. Need more time to climb the towers and fix the mess

Carl