General Coverage Receiver Question (Tube).

[ALLEN HEIBECK]

Hi Group,

Well, OK----my 2-cents worth. Yesy, it's a matter of personal taste.
But------ Some 15 years ago I was in Memphis area and picked-up
a few favors by checking-out trade-ins at Memphis Amateur Supply.
With those units, I noticed::
        The Drakes had sort-of a looseness in the feel, and the audio
was not good--shrill, and always rather distorted. Just not clear.
(I have a Drake 2-B receiver as an auv. RX.  I like it mainly because
in his early days, my late uncle Harry, W6ARP used one. Personally,
I find the audio power weak and "bassy";  precise tuning is difficult.
Proper alignment is really involved. Would rather have an SB-301!).

        The Collins did have a tight, professional feel.  But, the TX
was reluctant to give anywhere near rated power.  (Not Collins
characteristic.  Really needed proper alignment.) Biggest aggrevation
was the 200kc "dial width".

        Frankly, the most pleasureable to use was the Heath equipment.
Esp,  the SB-401 TX.  Loved it so much I bought it!
Yeah, the SB-dials are a weak point.  But I've had the SB-101 and the
SB-102.  Never had the dial mechanism to quit on me.
And---that SB-401 worked as well or better than the Collins TX *that
I personally checked*.

So, Yes!!  I certain believe in the Heathkit SB-series.  That "Poor Man's
Collins" did shine as high (at least) as either of the others.

Allen


Rev. Allen,  KJ6XH
         El Cajon, CA
                   http://home.earthlink.net/~mattall


On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 12:07:23 -0400 john <johnmb at NC.RR.COM> writes:
> And I've always thought of the Drake gear, as the "thinking mans
> Collins"...
> :-)
> John
>
>
> At 10:10 PM 9/29/01 -0400, Dave Edwards wrote:
> >I dunno about the "poor man's Collins"
> >I had an S line with the 75S3B, and I prefer the SB301 because of
> it's
> >AGC, CW filter, transceive ability, and full 500khz coverage per
> band!
> >The dial mech is poor, but useable.
> >....Dave
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Eddy Swynar <gswynar at DURHAM.NET>
> >To: <HEATH at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV>
> >Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 8:07 PM
> >Subject: Re: General Coverage Receiver Question (Tube).
> >
> >
> >> Hi Noel...
> >>
> >> Of course, EVERYONE has his/her personal favourite receiver, for
> WHATEVER
> >> reason(s)...
> >>
> >> But when it comes to Heath, my all-time favourite is the SB-301
> ham band
> >> receiver (and, by default, I guess, its SWL cousin). Where else
> can you
> >get
> >> such superb stability, excellent sensitivity, 1 KHz read-out, and
> all in
> >an
> >> attractive package for considerably LESS than $200.00...?
> >>
> >> The only Achille's heal in this rig is the dial mechanism: I'll
> bet THE
> >most
> >> common thread herein is the slipping dial of the SB-series. Other
> than
> >that,
> >> a poor man's Collins, for my $$$!
> >>
> >> ~73~ Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Noel Page" <noelg.page at sympatico.ca>
> >> To: <HEATH at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV>
> >> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 3:31 PM
> >> Subject: General Coverage Receiver Question (Tube).
> >>
> >>
> >> > I know that Heathkit made general coverage receivers like
> >> > the GR-78 and GC-1A (transistorized).
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering what is the model # of the best "TUBE"
> >> > general coverage receiver that Heathkit made?
> >> >
> >> > Also, if anybody has knowledge of "TUBE" receivers
> >> > made by other manufactures like Eico, Knight etc. .
> >> > I was wondering how their receivers compare to the

-----------------------------------------------------------
This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=HEATH
To post - HEATH at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
Archives - http://interactive.tempe.gov/archives/HEATH.html