NC-300/303 ratings
Gary Pewitt
gpewitt at EXECPC.COM
Sun Nov 23 11:12:45 EST 1997
Having had several requests to share whatever information
I received on this subject and having gotten permission
from the source, I have edited out most exteranious
material and attached the results to this message.
Quite an interesting range of opinions. I hope it's some
help.
73 Gary
-------------------------------------
Name: Gary Pewitt N9ZSV/KT
6120 W. Calumet Rd. Apt 204
Milwaukee, WI 53223
414 355 8147 Home 414 297 4307 Work
E-mail: gpewitt at execpc.com
Date: 11/23/97
Time: 08:12:45
-------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
To: gpewitt at execpc.com
From: Mike Maloney <ac5p at ionet.net>
Subject: Re: NC-300--NC-303
Cc: boatanchors at theporch.com
The 300 had no noise limiter that would work with the BFO on; a
diode clipper is included in the 303. The avc in the 303 features
a fast attack and slow decay, in keeping with SSB requirements.
The oscillator for the 6BE6 converter is xtal controlled in the
303 and is self controlled in the 300. You already know about
the Q-multiplier in lieu of the xtal filter; neither matches a
good multipole xtal bandpass filter w/bandpass tuning which
neither has. Even with the 303, National was still not smart
enough to use a product detector for SSB/CW. There is a review
of the NC-303 in QST for Apr 59 which covers the differences and
"improvements" over the 300 in fine detail. A nice NC300 product
review was done by KD0HG in Electric Radio some yrs back. My copy
does not have the mo/yr on it. Perhaps another list member can
provide the date and other references.
73, Mike
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:03:55 -0800
From: Bob Miller <bmiller at calweb.com>
Reply-To: bmiller at calweb.com
To: gpewitt at execpc.com
Subject: Re: NC-300--NC-303
HI Gary,
Be my guest given that what I put in the posting is from memory and a
long stare across the room at the NC303..the 300 is in the garage. Good luck
on your trades. For what it is worth, I traded a Collins R390A for my
current NC303 and I paid $100 for the NC300 a couple years back--the 300 was
in of work and I had to spend 20 dollars for a set of knobs to get One lousy
pointer knob. Be sure the sets have all the knobs and correct ones. They
are simple designs, but hard to find when you need 'em.
Good luck
Bob
gpewitt at execpc.com wrote:
> Thanks Bob, that's exactly the type of information I was
> looking for. Would you mind if I pass it on? I have had
> several requests to share what information I received on
> this subject. I don't like to publish anyones messages
> without permission.
> 73 Gary
> PS I am hoping to swap my AR-88LF for a nice 300/303.
>
> On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:29:14 -0800 Bob Miller wrote:
> >Hi Gary,
> >
> > I have one of each, and the 303 is somewhat better as
> to general ham
> >use. Both receivers will do a fairly nice job and are
> solidly built and
> >in my opinion are a much better receiver than any of the
> Hammarlund
> >offerings and with few exceptions whip the Hallicrafter
> offerings in a
> >heart beat. After warm up either receiver is stable
> enough for most
> >casual SSB contacts and I used my NC303 for years on RTTY
> narrow shift
> >on 80, 40, and 20 meters without any hitches. Only
> occasionally did I
> >have to trim the tuning on long winded RTTY transmissions
> (30 minutes
> >plus running traffic).
> > The 303 has a scheme to shift the low frequency IF for sideband
> >selection where the 300 requires that you put the BFO on either the high
> >side or the low side of the lower IF for sideband selection. AVC
> >action is supberb on the 303 and I cannot remember how well it works on
> >my 300 as I have yet to do much operating with it. The 303 Q multiplier
> >is functional, but not that great compared to the one on my 51S1. But
> >for my money either receiver is still a bargain in today's super
> >inflated boat anchor receiver market. I do not know what prices you are
> >looking at on these two units, but if the front panels are in good shape
> >and all the knobs are in place, they sould not cost you more than 250
> >bux and that would be high for the 300 and about right for a really nice
> >303. But I have seen 'em for much less. My main station for years was
> >an NC303 and a CE 100V exciter with a home brew final amp with a pair of
> >4-250As in GG. Still have the junk and it is still working fine which
> >is more than I can say about some of the imported junk that I have
> >bought over the years.
> > Let me know how you make out on these rascals and I may have some
> >docs on 'em if you need help in that area.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Bob, KE6F
From: MNHopkins at aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:20:45 -0500 (EST)
To: gpewitt at execpc.com
Subject: Re: NC-300--NC-303
Funny you should ask. I have been thinking of compiling a comparison of
the two, knowing someone would be asking as I take every snide remark
opportunity I see about the '303 which, among other things, seems to be the
nation's first example of the "gold" chrome that is so appealing to pimps and
rock musicians.
The 300, 1955-58, is a great gray box in the old style. Inside is a
double conversin RX with IFs at 2215 and 80 kc. The first is to knock down
images, the second to give selectivity. In that second IF they switch
tightness of coupling to affect degrees of selectivity, AND, they fit a
crystal filter. Crystal filters are dynamite on CW. They exhibit a peaked
response that is near ideal, but not "steep sided and flat toped" as the
choice would be for SSB. Both rigs cover 160-10M and have 5 mc wide slots
for VHF converters.
The 303, 1958-62 drops the crystal filter, for which I will never
forgive them. But I do understand why they did it. A crystal filter
requires a skilled person to install and align and, to some extent, a skilled
person to use. It was replaced with a Q-multiplier, a stable regenerative
stage which is a versitile addition to any RX, but no crystal filter. There
are markings on the dials and such that suggest the '303 is a SSB RX, but I
don't see that it is. The elusive flat top, steep side response does not
come from a Q multiplier, either; it comes from a crystal filter with
multiple poles, usually four or more.
So, what is wrong with a '303? It lacks the crystal filter and it
looks like it belongs in a New Orleans bawdy house. The upgrade, in other
words, is a cheapening for $100 more than the '300's $349.95. In that price
range, the Hammarlund HQ-170 was available for $10 more than the '300 and $90
less than the monstrosity. The Hammarlund had TRIPLE conversion with a last
IF even lower (60 kc) and thus more effective plus a Q multiplier and what we
would soon call RIT too. It is my nominee for best all time v. tube RX, but
I do not extend that to its general coverage cousin, the HQ-180. Triple
conversion is an effective means to an end, but the possibilities of spurs
and other problems become crushing when one tries to apply it to a 0.5 to 30
mc range.
Right after these rigs were designed (mid '50s) the shift to
transceivers, which starts in '57 with the KWM-1, knocked big RXs off the
design boards and they never really came back. A modern upscale RX will have
a first IF above the covered frequencies, often around 45 mc, and jump down
to a crystal filter, or several. Of course, you have to "taylor make" the
modern RX which means you don't get a complete rig unless you ante $800 for
extra filters. The old timers were complete in themselves, as we all try to
be.
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 16:47:06 -0600
From: Stan &/or Pat Muller <pmuller at abeinc.net>
To: gpewitt at EXECPC.COM
Subject: Re: NC-300--NC-303
R
hi Gary, i think its just a matter of personal preference. i remember
years ago, when they first came out, playing with both of them in
friends ham shacks and as i look back the only thing that stands out is
that there was less knob twisting on the nc-300. it seems that the xtal
filter was the better choice in those days.
the next thing is that i just swapped into a nc-300 and am in the
process of the restoration as we speak, so i wanted to pass on a site
that i have found helpful: http://www.accesscom.net/~kk5hy/r&r.html
they have the original cabinet paints for the rigs, as well as they have
the xtal calibrator in both kit and finished. i just the can of paint
and the calibrator yesterday.
if you come up with any info on the nc-300 side, that you think
interesting, i would appreciate it if you would forward me a copy.
i hope this helps, 73's stan KB0MHQ
-
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:24:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Larry Wolken <rhys at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: NC-300--NC-303
Hi Gary --
I guess when I was a kid I had always wanted an NC-300. The massive bank
vault knob and dial really appealed to me. The advertisements were also
very effective at portraying it as the ultimate receiver. When I finally
got one about a year ago, I kept it for a while but could not escape the
conclusion that even though it peaked and spec'ed out, adn worked the way it
was supposed to, it just seemed to be a fairly mediocre performer -- fun to
operate, but not worth my limited desktop space. I sold it to another list
member here in the DC area who also couldn't wait to get his hands on it and
then couldn't wait to sell it.
Granted this is a sample of one, and all the collectors that I talked to
said that the NC's as a rule were a pale imitation of the HRO's. Obviously
the ideal thing would be to somehow get your hands on one or borrow it
before you buy. But in most areas, there aren't too many National showrooms
left. Hope I have not "spoiled" things for you, but I didn't want you to
have the same disappointing experience that I did.
73
Larry N3OJD
================
At 11:59 AM 11/22/97 PST, you wrote:
>OK, you've got me interested. What am I "in for"?
>I've never owned one and had the impression that they
>were pretty good rigs. I like my other National rigs:
>NC-155, NC-183, NC-190, HRO-50, and HRO-60.
>Don't leave me hanging. What's the scoop on the 300/303?
>73 Gary
>
>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:40:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from vna-va14-11.ix.netcom.com(207.223.178.203) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
id rma022574; Sat Nov 22 11:40:01 1997
From: Larry Wolken <rhys at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: NC-300--NC-303
X-UIDL: d1b466802e7f6636805eb8c848463419
Hi Gary ==
Don't want to throw a wet blanket on the search but in my experience the
NC-300 & '303 do not perform as well as they look. But perhaps you've
already had a good experience with one and know exactly what you're in for.
Good luck either way.
Larry Wolken N3OJD
=================
More information about the Boatanchors
mailing list