Answering the question of "What's the best AM receiver/tuner I can
get" is contingent on your definition as to what "best" means. If you
want the best quality audio from local stations with a good antenna
and ground, the old crystal radio is still the best.
For the uninitiated, a "crystal radio" has nothing to do with a
crystal in the modern sense, the resonant piece of quartz used to
define frequency in RF circuits including most every computer in
existence. Crystal tuning for receivers and transmitters goes back to
the twenties or thirties, but in this context we mean a crystal
detector,i.e., a semiconductor diode, called a "crystal" because in
the old days it consisted of a fine wire poked onto a chunk of lead
pyrite or some other rock so that the wire or needle and rock formed a
semiconducting PN junction. The actual tuning is done with LC
circuits, traditionally made from a coil wound on a Quaker Oats
container or similar. With a good antenna and ground, you could pick
up enough RF so when the modulated signal was detected it would
directly drive a pair of the old high impedance watchcase headphones.
No battery was needed: it worked for free. All the energy used to
drive the diaphragms of the headset came from the transmitter, tens,
hundreds, perhaps under ideal conditions thousands of miles away.
A surprising amount of energy can be had this way. Within a few miles
of a 50 kW daytimer or clear channel station, enough actual power can
be developed-with the right RF and output matching- to light a
flashlight bulb and certainly a LED. In fact, Klipsch used to have a
demonstrator radio that would drive the midrange horn of a Klipschhorn
or similar and provide a surprisingly loud signal in the room. At
night one could listen to several stations in most cities almost as
loudly as a nine-volt-powered transistor portable could play, and with
better fidelity.
Of course, with enough power, an inadvertent crystal set can be
accidentally assembled with humorous consequences-such as the elderly
couple who complained that when Howard Stern was on the local station,
sounds surprisingly resembling penis, vagina, and Baba Booey would
emanate from the tub of their washing machine-or tragic ones such as
the occasional premature dynamite explosion on a road project when
some trucker with a 'foot warmer' keys his trusty CB rig.
A crystal radio, then is a passive, tuned-radio-frequency RF tuner. If
the output were plugged into a good high impedance amplifier, the
result is audio amplified as loud as we want it, just like any other
line level audio source. In the beginning days of high fidelity, the
RF coil houses like Miller introduced passive AM tuners that were
nothing more than the old crystal radio. Because of the gain in a good
preamp and power amplifier, you got good results in many cases with
only a small antenna. Sensitivity and selectivity were not of the
highest order, but with a good local station without much
interference, the fidelity was superb. And, it still is. These passive
AM tuners can still be found fairly cheaply or you can build one
yourself, like generations of boys did in the past.
If on the other hand, you want broadcast band overall DX capability,
you can either buy a serious communications receiver, or the next best
thing-an old car AM radio converted to work at home. By the end of
WWII, car radios were generally better radios than their domestic
counterparts. They had to be, because of the environment they worked
in. This was true until AM functionality came to be regarded as just a
legacy as compared to FM performance around the early 1980s, at which
time they cheapened the AM sections of the radios.
You want an AM only set for best Am performance. Either tube or solid
state sets will work fine, but avoid like monkey plague the GM hybrid
radios with 12 volt plate supply tubes and transistor output. Avoid
Wonderbar or other auto tune radios: in fact a non-push-button set is
best if you can find one made by Delco, Philco Ford or other Big 3
supplier. Avoid most aftermarket or foreign radios: the only ones any
good are Blaupunkts or Beckers worth a lot to VW or Mercedes buffs.
Overall, I think Delcos are the best. YMMV.
Needless to say, avoid ones with tape players, CB radios or the like.
The cheapening started before digital came out, so avoid digital units
entirely. You want either a 1947-1955 tube set or a 1964-1975 or so
solid state one.
In the case of the solid state set you just need a 12.6 volt DC
supply. These can be bought or built. It does not need to be regulated
but it should be pretty quiet.
Tube sets can be run the same way, but it's inefficient. Instead,
remove or disconnect the stock vibrator, power transformer and
rectifier and provide a B+ supply with a conventional HV transformer,
diodes and filter caps. You will also need a 6.3 or 12.6 volt heater
supply of course. Generally, the limiting sonic factor is the stock
output transformer, which you will want to replace with a larger and
heavier one for a single ended amp using whatever tube is in there,
usually a 6V6.
Most of the pure tube sets are for 6 volt supply, meaning they'll have
6 volt heater tubes, but some were 12 volt for the few cars and trucks
that were 12 volt before the hybrid and full transistor sets came in.
Usually those just have a different power transformer and use 12
versus 6 volt heater tubes. In some cases they seriesed the heaters on
the small signal tubes and just used a 12V6, or used other odd
arrangements. Almost always the filaments were run directly off the DC
supply though.
On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The best AM receiver
Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always try and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be cheap). Sincerely,
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:33:41 -0500, J.B. Wood wrote:
> On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The best AM receiver
> Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always try
> and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be
> cheap). Sincerely,
Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:33:41 -0500, J.B. Wood wrote:
>> On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> The best AM receiver
>> Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always try
>> and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be
>> cheap). Sincerely,
> Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
Hello, and it's a very good and veeeery heavy vacuum tube receiver and was the main USN shipboard receiver for many years. Another excellent USN receiver is the later Harris R-2368 (and a lot lighter than the R-390). The W-J line would still be my pick for sensitivity and image rejection and were also used by the USN for special purposes. Sincerely,
> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:33:41 -0500, J.B. Wood wrote:
> >> On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> The best AM receiver
> >> Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always try
> >> and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be
> >> cheap). Sincerely,
> > Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
> Hello, and it's a very good and veeeery heavy vacuum tube receiver and
> was the main USN shipboard receiver for many years. Another excellent
> USN receiver is the later Harris R-2368 (and a lot lighter than the
> R-390). The W-J line would still be my pick for sensitivity and image
> rejection and were also used by the USN for special purposes. Sincerely,
I would put certain Racal sets ahead of either. Actually, for BCB
listening alone, I might even prefer certain prewar EH Scott sets to
the 390.
But I misstated my goal here, first fidelity given excellent signal
strength for which a common crystal set will beat these communication
receivers for distortion and sound quality, or in the case of the car
radio, clearly i DD say "the next best thing" to a good communications
receiver. And the R-390 in stock form is a terrible BCB receiver, as
it is intended to drive RTTY "modems" or controllers and not for audio
fidelity. Modification does improve them drastically though.
rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The best AM receiver
> Answering the question of "What's the best AM receiver/tuner I can
> get" is contingent on your definition as to what "best" means. If you
> want the best quality audio from local stations with a good antenna
> and ground, the old crystal radio is still the best.
> For the uninitiated, a "crystal radio" has nothing to do with a
> crystal in the modern sense, the resonant piece of quartz used to
> define frequency in RF circuits including most every computer in
> existence. Crystal tuning for receivers and transmitters goes back to
> the twenties or thirties, but in this context we mean a crystal
> detector,i.e., a semiconductor diode, called a "crystal" because in
> the old days it consisted of a fine wire poked onto a chunk of lead
> pyrite or some other rock so that the wire or needle and rock formed a
> semiconducting PN junction. The actual tuning is done with LC
> circuits, traditionally made from a coil wound on a Quaker Oats
> container or similar. With a good antenna and ground, you could pick
> up enough RF so when the modulated signal was detected it would
> directly drive a pair of the old high impedance watchcase headphones.
> No battery was needed: it worked for free. All the energy used to
> drive the diaphragms of the headset came from the transmitter, tens,
> hundreds, perhaps under ideal conditions thousands of miles away.
> A surprising amount of energy can be had this way. Within a few miles
> of a 50 kW daytimer or clear channel station, enough actual power can
> be developed-with the right RF and output matching- to light a
> flashlight bulb and certainly a LED. In fact, Klipsch used to have a
> demonstrator radio that would drive the midrange horn of a Klipschhorn
> or similar and provide a surprisingly loud signal in the room. At
> night one could listen to several stations in most cities almost as
> loudly as a nine-volt-powered transistor portable could play, and with
> better fidelity.
> Of course, with enough power, an inadvertent crystal set can be
> accidentally assembled with humorous consequences-such as the elderly
> couple who complained that when Howard Stern was on the local station,
> sounds surprisingly resembling penis, vagina, and Baba Booey would
> emanate from the tub of their washing machine-or tragic ones such as
> the occasional premature dynamite explosion on a road project when
> some trucker with a 'foot warmer' keys his trusty CB rig.
> A crystal radio, then is a passive, tuned-radio-frequency RF tuner. If
> the output were plugged into a good high impedance amplifier, the
> result is audio amplified as loud as we want it, just like any other
> line level audio source. In the beginning days of high fidelity, the
> RF coil houses like Miller introduced passive AM tuners that were
> nothing more than the old crystal radio. Because of the gain in a good
> preamp and power amplifier, you got good results in many cases with
> only a small antenna. Sensitivity and selectivity were not of the
> highest order, but with a good local station without much
> interference, the fidelity was superb. And, it still is. These passive
> AM tuners can still be found fairly cheaply or you can build one
> yourself, like generations of boys did in the past.
Was the fidelity of a crystal set really ³superb²? I have several of the Miller crystal tuners, although I haven't used them in years as there is no longer anything worthwhile on AM, and I no longer have a suitable antenna. There were three or four 50 kW clear channel stations within single digit mileage distance from my old home, and a 1 kW station at the high end of the band 10 or 11 miles distant, and they all came in well with a simple 45 foot wire antenna with a 25 foot vertical run and a 20 foot horizontal piece at the top in the form of an inverted L. I had no complaints abut the fidelity, but I have to wonder how good it actually was? At the signal levels provided by a small wire antenna I would think that the diode would be operating as an exponential detector, not as a switch, leading to what I suspect would be rather high distortion, although the distortion was probably euphonic, but ³superb²?
I know crystal receivers were sometimes used in professional applications, like some of the old British Rediffusion systems in the 1930s, however those systems used rather large receiving antennas, sometimes approximating a smaller AM transmitting antenna. A large antenna would let the diode operating more like a switch improving the fidelity.
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:33:41 -0500, J.B. Wood wrote:
> > On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> The best AM receiver
> > Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always try
> > and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be
> > cheap). Sincerely,
> Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
Any decent 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter' (AKA: 'Wave analyzer')
blows them away. I've owned several Philco/Sierra 'Frequency Selective
Voltmeter'
and another Philco/Sierra that had a digital display that I can't
remember the model number. I got rid of it in the '70s because it was
full of bad RTL ICs in the freqency display. RTL was already obsolete,
and damned expensive on the surplus market for what it needed.
I currently have a HP 312B 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter', and the
ARN-6 DFR was one hell of an AM only reciever, with multiple tuned RF
stages and different IFs depending on the band you selected.
They don't have AGC, but automatic gain control can be added at the
front end if you listen to fading signals.
-- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
> In article <718bb4d3-1d5b-4c6f-b082-4c25f5af2...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The best AM receiver
> > Answering the question of "What's the best AM receiver/tuner I can
> > get" is contingent on your definition as to what "best" means. If you
> > want the best quality audio from local stations with a good antenna
> > and ground, the old crystal radio is still the best.
> > For the uninitiated, a "crystal radio" has nothing to do with a
> > crystal in the modern sense, the resonant piece of quartz used to
> > define frequency in RF circuits including most every computer in
> > existence. Crystal tuning for receivers and transmitters goes back to
> > the twenties or thirties, but in this context we mean a crystal
> > detector,i.e., a semiconductor diode, called a "crystal" because in
> > the old days it consisted of a fine wire poked onto a chunk of lead
> > pyrite or some other rock so that the wire or needle and rock formed a
> > semiconducting PN junction. The actual tuning is done with LC
> > circuits, traditionally made from a coil wound on a Quaker Oats
> > container or similar. With a good antenna and ground, you could pick
> > up enough RF so when the modulated signal was detected it would
> > directly drive a pair of the old high impedance watchcase headphones.
> > No battery was needed: it worked for free. All the energy used to
> > drive the diaphragms of the headset came from the transmitter, tens,
> > hundreds, perhaps under ideal conditions thousands of miles away.
> > A surprising amount of energy can be had this way. Within a few miles
> > of a 50 kW daytimer or clear channel station, enough actual power can
> > be developed-with the right RF and output matching- to light a
> > flashlight bulb and certainly a LED. In fact, Klipsch used to have a
> > demonstrator radio that would drive the midrange horn of a Klipschhorn
> > or similar and provide a surprisingly loud signal in the room. At
> > night one could listen to several stations in most cities almost as
> > loudly as a nine-volt-powered transistor portable could play, and with
> > better fidelity.
> > Of course, with enough power, an inadvertent crystal set can be
> > accidentally assembled with humorous consequences-such as the elderly
> > couple who complained that when Howard Stern was on the local station,
> > sounds surprisingly resembling penis, vagina, and Baba Booey would
> > emanate from the tub of their washing machine-or tragic ones such as
> > the occasional premature dynamite explosion on a road project when
> > some trucker with a 'foot warmer' keys his trusty CB rig.
> > A crystal radio, then is a passive, tuned-radio-frequency RF tuner. If
> > the output were plugged into a good high impedance amplifier, the
> > result is audio amplified as loud as we want it, just like any other
> > line level audio source. In the beginning days of high fidelity, the
> > RF coil houses like Miller introduced passive AM tuners that were
> > nothing more than the old crystal radio. Because of the gain in a good
> > preamp and power amplifier, you got good results in many cases with
> > only a small antenna. Sensitivity and selectivity were not of the
> > highest order, but with a good local station without much
> > interference, the fidelity was superb. And, it still is. These passive
> > AM tuners can still be found fairly cheaply or you can build one
> > yourself, like generations of boys did in the past.
> Was the fidelity of a crystal set really ³superb²? I have several of the Miller
> crystal tuners, although I haven't used them in years as there is no longer
> anything worthwhile on AM, and I no longer have a suitable antenna. There were
> three or four 50 kW clear channel stations within single digit mileage distance
> from my old home, and a 1 kW station at the high end of the band 10 or 11 miles
> distant, and they all came in well with a simple 45 foot wire antenna with a 25
> foot vertical run and a 20 foot horizontal piece at the top in the form of an
> inverted L. I had no complaints abut the fidelity, but I have to wonder how
> good it actually was? At the signal levels provided by a small wire antenna I
> would think that the diode would be operating as an exponential detector, not as
> a switch, leading to what I suspect would be rather high distortion, although
> the distortion was probably euphonic, but ³superb²?
I heard one quite often in the 80s and early 90s. Its owner lived in
a small town. Hooked to an otherwise all tube Marantz system driving
big Altecs (not the VOT's, a home system) it sounded very good indeed,
from a longwire it was picking up St. Louis roughly 120 miles away.
During the day the local daytimer came in with fine fidelity too, but
the programming tended toward the prices of pork bellies and grain and
ads for new combines.
I wanted to test one at work in our receiver screen room but the
owner wasn't letting go of it. Would have been interesting to drive it
with a good HP bench generator and check for distortion at various
levels, but a suitable balun for input would have had to be designed.
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:19:41 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> dave wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:33:41 -0500, J.B. Wood wrote:
>> > On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> The best AM receiver
>> > Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always
>> > try and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be
>> > cheap). Sincerely,
>> Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
> Any decent 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter' (AKA: 'Wave analyzer')
> blows them away. I've owned several Philco/Sierra 'Frequency Selective
> Voltmeter'
> and another Philco/Sierra that had a digital display that I can't
> remember the model number. I got rid of it in the '70s because it was
> full of bad RTL ICs in the freqency display. RTL was already obsolete,
> and damned expensive on the surplus market for what it needed.
> I currently have a HP 312B 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter', and the
> ARN-6 DFR was one hell of an AM only reciever, with multiple tuned RF
> stages and different IFs depending on the band you selected.
> They don't have AGC, but automatic gain control can be added at the
> front end if you listen to fading signals.
AGC is just as important with very strong signals, more so maybe. I have an old Drake SW2 that I use these days. Got tired of powering up the boat anchors.
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:19:41 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > dave wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:33:41 -0500, J.B. Wood wrote:
> >> > On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> The best AM receiver
> >> > Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always
> >> > try and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be
> >> > cheap). Sincerely,
> >> Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
> > Any decent 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter' (AKA: 'Wave analyzer')
> > blows them away. I've owned several Philco/Sierra 'Frequency Selective
> > Voltmeter'
> > and another Philco/Sierra that had a digital display that I can't
> > remember the model number. I got rid of it in the '70s because it was
> > full of bad RTL ICs in the freqency display. RTL was already obsolete,
> > and damned expensive on the surplus market for what it needed.
> > I currently have a HP 312B 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter', and the
> > ARN-6 DFR was one hell of an AM only reciever, with multiple tuned RF
> > stages and different IFs depending on the band you selected.
> > They don't have AGC, but automatic gain control can be added at the
> > front end if you listen to fading signals.
> AGC is just as important with very strong signals, more so maybe. I have
> an old Drake SW2 that I use these days. Got tired of powering up the boat
> anchors.
No, it isn't since strong signals don't fade. The equipment I'm
talking about has a step attenuator on the front end to set the gain
range, and they are calibrated in microvolts. It looks like you've
never seen one, which isn't surprising. They were used in engineering
departments to design receivers, and on some production lines to certify
their products. The units I used are all solid state. They are large,
because they were built to tight specifications that require a lot of
shielding and so that they could be aligned and calibrated.
Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
friends who worked there.
-- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
In article <LbSdnWZTzsNgV67SnZ2dnUVZ_qGdn...@earthlink.com>,
dave <d...@dave.dave> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:19:41 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > I currently have a HP 312B 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter', and the
> > ARN-6 DFR was one hell of an AM only reciever, with multiple tuned RF
> > stages and different IFs depending on the band you selected.
> > They don't have AGC, but automatic gain control can be added at the
> > front end if you listen to fading signals.
> AGC is just as important with very strong signals, more so maybe. I have > an old Drake SW2 that I use these days. Got tired of powering up the boat > anchors.
Why is AGC important with very strong signals? I'm assuming that there is a manual RF/IF gain control.
> Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
> people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
> Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
> friends who worked there.
Not sure of the point you are trying to make, especially about Drake being an "also ran". Also not sure what products or time frame you are referring to; towards the end, they did import some stuff from the Orient.
And yes, I have been to the factory and owned some of their products. Their "4-line" (A, B and C- models) and the TR-7 were superb and IMHO they out-Collinsed Collins. They did more and had more features than Collins and did it for less than half the price.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Carter wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 10:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
>> people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
>> Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
>> friends who worked there.
> Not sure of the point you are trying to make, especially about Drake being an > "also ran". Also not sure what products or time frame you are referring to; > towards the end, they did import some stuff from the Orient.
It seemed clear that "that Drake" was in reference to the mentioned Drake SW2.
It gets garbled. Drake was importing in the early seventies, though unlike some of the competition, didn't move completely over to imports. So the TR-22 portable FM transceiver from about 1971 was an import with the Drake name put on it, it was available from someone else too, and I think it came from Kenwood-Trio.
A year or so later, they had a solid state SW receiver that wasn't in their 4-line, the SSR-1. I think that used the Wadley loop, but there's been garbling about what receivers used it so I'm not certain. That always struck me as a Japanese import, not sure who made it.
There was also the DSR-2, well beyond the means of most of us, but apparently that was Drake designed.
Then before Drake stopped making receivers, they had the R8 line, which was their design, and I thought the SW-2 and the like were derived from that.
What Drake did do is the design for the Grundig Satellite 800, so maybe the SW-2 was a variant of that or something.
> And yes, I have been to the factory and owned some of their products. Their > "4-line" (A, B and C- models) and the TR-7 were superb and IMHO they > out-Collinsed Collins. They did more and had more features than Collins and > did it for less than half the price.
Drake is an interesting company, since they existed from about WWII, but manufacturing accessories until they had the 1A in the late fifties. An SSB receiver when the Big Receiver Manufacturers were just or not even yet adding proper SSB receivers to their lines. Then Drake moved into the ssb transmitter and transceiver business, they were not unlike Swan in starting out with SSB products (Hammarlund, Collins, Hallicrafters were making receivers and/or transmitters well before SSB became common).
And so Drake's shortwave receivers were closer to their SSB receivers than the old style general coverage receivers.
Then there was a lull, Drake gets out of the ham and SW business and spends time in satellite tv, returning with the R8 after some years of absence, then a string of SW receivers, and then stopping that. I guess they still exist, moving into something other than "consumer" products.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 21:41:54 -0800 (PST), rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
>The best AM receiver
>Answering the question of "What's the best AM receiver/tuner I can
>get" is contingent on your definition as to what "best" means. If you
>want the best quality audio from local stations with a good antenna
>and ground, the old crystal radio is still the best.
I'm with you ... In the early 60s I lived a couple of miles from a 50 kW -DA rocker that beamed
right over our area. I used a diode and tunable loop to listen with a 20 watt mono Eico amp; talk
about fidelity! The station's rig was a 1950 Westinghouse blaster. The CE used an audio equalizer to
tweak the audio to sound like a juke box on a good receiver. The local churches had to shield their
PA systems to eliminate interference. Later I went to college in a small northern Minnesota town with one AM station, no FMs within 100
miles. Living in a dorm meant bad AM reception and lots of static from lights and motors. I solved that
problem with a 1955 Ford radio that was modified with a power transformer from a junk Webcor tape
recorder. It fit perfectly... removed the vibrator and transforrmer and the 6X4 rectifier was
retained. Allthat was needed for an antenna was about 6 feet of wire hung from the dorm window. The
blowtorch stations from Chicago, Little Rock, Oklahoma City, NYC, Winnipeg came blasting in. I managed to save that radio, I wonder if it still works?
> Drake is an interesting company, since they existed from about WWII, but
> manufacturing accessories until they had the 1A in the late fifties. An
> SSB receiver when the Big Receiver Manufacturers were just or not even
> yet adding proper SSB receivers to their lines. Then Drake moved into
> the ssb transmitter and transceiver business, they were not unlike Swan
> in starting out with SSB products (Hammarlund, Collins, Hallicrafters
> were making receivers and/or transmitters well before SSB became common).
A limited analogy to Swan, in that they both started in the SSB world. Otherwise, IMHO Drake was far superior to Swan. Drake was the "engineer's radio", the ham radio for true hams -- 160 meters, AM, SSB, CW, very easy to add FSK RTTY, easy to add additional 500 kHz segments for whatever need you had, things that weren't available from Swan or even Collins, at any price.
AFAIK, Swan was noted for only two things: getting a bazillion watts out of TV sweep tubes (but you'd better tune up *really* quickly) and horrible drift (remember the Swan 'Drifty 350'?) Not saying there wasn't a market for Swan, but in my book no comparison between them and Drake.
> > Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
> > people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
> > Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
> > friends who worked there.
> Not sure of the point you are trying to make, especially about Drake
> being an "also ran". Also not sure what products or time frame you are
> referring to; towards the end, they did import some stuff from the Orient.
The model he mentioned, the 2SW.
> And yes, I have been to the factory and owned some of their products.
> Their "4-line" (A, B and C- models) and the TR-7 were superb and IMHO
> they out-Collinsed Collins. They did more and had more features than
> Collins and did it for less than half the price.
The 4 line was in production, but a local ham needed parts for the 2
line. Drake also sold reject cabinets for project boxes. Later, a
freind of mine was working production when the UV3 was introduced.
-- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
I think the Drake was considered the equal of Collins for receive
quality but their transmitters used sweep tubes which were considered
infra-dig by the real buffs. The Collins was somewhat better (more
ruggedly) built.
>> On 2/9/2012 10:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> > Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
>> > people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake >> > in
>> > Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
>> > friends who worked there.
>> Not sure of the point you are trying to make, especially about Drake
>> being an "also ran". Also not sure what products or time frame you are
>> referring to; towards the end, they did import some stuff from the >> Orient.
> The model he mentioned, the 2SW.
>> And yes, I have been to the factory and owned some of their products.
>> Their "4-line" (A, B and C- models) and the TR-7 were superb and IMHO
>> they out-Collinsed Collins. They did more and had more features than
>> Collins and did it for less than half the price.
> The 4 line was in production, but a local ham needed parts for the 2
> line. Drake also sold reject cabinets for project boxes. Later, a
> freind of mine was working production when the UV3 was introduced.
> -- > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Ths issue is what is the best AM receiver TODAY. Is it from C. C. Crane? Or is it the GE Superradio? Or what? I don't think people are going to run out and try to find a pre 1954 auto radio with a vibrator and dead caps to work on to try to fix it up. I admit those pre-1954 radios in cars were nice, especially the 6V6 push-pull output stages. I rebuilt one in my 1954 Buick, but ran into tons of trouble doing so. Not always a good outcome. So what about today's radios?
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:00:57 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> dave wrote:
>> >> Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
>> > Any decent 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter' (AKA: 'Wave analyzer')
>> > blows them away. I've owned several Philco/Sierra 'Frequency
> Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
> people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
> Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
> friends who worked there.
AGC way more important to prevent non linear operation of mixer stage in presence of strong signals, than on weak signal downward expansion. True weak signal DX really should never even move the needle.
The reviews of the SW2 panned it as an SWL receiver but universally said it was great for MWDX, which is what I use it for. The SW2 has synchronous detection and selectable sidebands, and an infrared remote, btw. I also had a Drake R8B, but sold that when I bought my Elecraft K3.
I have seen the selective voltmeters in HP and Tektronix catalogs and did know they were laboratory instruments. I am drawn to Rohde and Schwarz, because they are hams.
The 390s and the RA-*17s both have detector outputs (diode load?) at mic level and +10 dBm (local) line level outs, which nicely drive a speaker with a suitable transformer. The RF performance is on the level of the fine lab gear you mentioned. I have aligned several R390As and they tweak-
up very nicely.
The Elecraft K3 ham transceiver, with a set of general coverage bandpass filters will run you about $2k; that is probably the best AM receiver on the market, dollar for dollar for features and performance.
>>> On 2/9/2012 10:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>> > Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed
>>> > to
>>> > people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L.
>>> > Drake in
>>> > Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also
>>> > had friends who worked there.
>>> Not sure of the point you are trying to make, especially about Drake
>>> being an "also ran". Also not sure what products or time frame you are
>>> referring to; towards the end, they did import some stuff from the
>>> Orient.
>> The model he mentioned, the 2SW.
>>> And yes, I have been to the factory and owned some of their products.
>>> Their "4-line" (A, B and C- models) and the TR-7 were superb and IMHO
>>> they out-Collinsed Collins. They did more and had more features than
>>> Collins and did it for less than half the price.
>> The 4 line was in production, but a local ham needed parts for the 2
>> line. Drake also sold reject cabinets for project boxes. Later, a
>> freind of mine was working production when the UV3 was introduced.
>> --
>> You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
> Ths issue is what is the best AM receiver TODAY. Is it from C. C.
> Crane? Or is it the GE Superradio? Or what? I don't think people are
> going to run out and try to find a pre 1954 auto radio with a vibrator
> and dead caps to work on to try to fix it up. I admit those pre-1954
> radios in cars were nice, especially the 6V6 push-pull output stages. I
> rebuilt one in my 1954 Buick, but ran into tons of trouble doing so. > Not always a good outcome. So what about today's radios?
Vibrators can be bypassed if you have AC power. They were for generating "B+". The permeability tuned oscillators in those old Delcos were works of art.
"George Conklin" <nilknoc...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Ths issue is what is the best AM receiver TODAY. Is it from
> C. C. Crane? Or is it the GE Superradio? Or what?
You'll probably find it interesting to have a look at the reviews that
medium-wave DXers produce, particularly those who use "ultralight"
radios. There are some surprisingly good cheap receivers out there now,
built around chips like the Si4734 that use software-defined radio
techniques internally -- which, if implemented properly, gives you
really good filtering. Try:
I'd expect the bang-per-buck to improve further over the next couple of
years as new generations of chipsets appear.
The "repurpose a car radio" suggestion's still a good idea if you're
after a radio to drive some speakers in your garage, or similar -- old
car radios (even with CD players now) are essentially free these days...
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, George Conklin wrote:
> Ths issue is what is the best AM receiver TODAY. Is it from C. C. Crane?
> Or is it the GE Superradio? Or what? I don't think people are going to run
> out and try to find a pre 1954 auto radio with a vibrator and dead caps to
> work on to try to fix it up. I admit those pre-1954 radios in cars were
> nice, especially the 6V6 push-pull output stages. I rebuilt one in my 1954
> Buick, but ran into tons of trouble doing so. Not always a good outcome.
> So what about today's radios?
Most people don't care, indeed there are all those MP3 players out there that have FM radios but no AM.
But the people who care are much more likely the type to spend money and/or effort on this. They want good sound, or they want good reception.
I've used a Delco digitally tuned car radio as a bedside radio for fifteen years, AM is certainly better than on a lot of radios (especially adjacent signal rejection) but FM is wonderful, good selectivity and lack of overload. There is obviously lots out there that I haven't tried, but it cost me $7.00.
The GE Superradio is often tossed into these discussions, but they are relatively modest radios. It's never clear if they really are that great, or simply a lot of people rush to them before trying what's around, so they have no real benchmark. It almost seems like random people no longer tune up and down the AM band at night, so if suddenly they get the hankering to listen to distant stations, they feel they have to get a "good radio" first. It's also confounded since some people place "good sound" beyond good reception, and for local stations obviously that might be why someone is paying more money for a better radio. But I've seen people dismiss better radios "because they have bad sound" when it's far easier to hook an external speaker to a good radio than to try to improve reception on a bad radio.
I think of Henry Kloss's designs, especially that FM radio from the early seventies with the external speaker (but he obviously went that route earlier too). IN just putting the speaker in a separate but good box, he can vastly improve the sound of the radio. In the old days, shortwave receivers often did not have a speaker inside, but the external speakers were pretty unimportant, matching the receiver in looks but adding nothing much in sound. You can take any radio, add one of those Radio Shack Minimu-7 speakers (or their descendents) and sound-wise, not many portable or clock radios can beat it.
>> Ths issue is what is the best AM receiver TODAY. Is it from
>> C. C. Crane? Or is it the GE Superradio? Or what?
> You'll probably find it interesting to have a look at the reviews that
> medium-wave DXers produce, particularly those who use "ultralight"
> radios. There are some surprisingly good cheap receivers out there now,
> built around chips like the Si4734 that use software-defined radio
> techniques internally -- which, if implemented properly, gives you
> really good filtering. Try:
> I'd expect the bang-per-buck to improve further over the next couple of
> years as new generations of chipsets appear.
> The "repurpose a car radio" suggestion's still a good idea if you're
> after a radio to drive some speakers in your garage, or similar -- old
> car radios (even with CD players now) are essentially free these days...
> What about the C.C. Crane radios? Does anyone here know about them specifically?
There are several different CC radios. I've played with a few at the radio meets, but didn't like the feel, the control layouts, or the needless complexity of operation. They also didn't have the room-filling sound that I would like to have in a radio of their cost.
You can go to Amazon.com, pick a model, and read the reviews. Overall it looks pretty mixed, some love 'em, some hate 'em. Typical of reviews from people that had nothing else to compare them to, or very little experience with quality radio reception. Many note that the CC radios had a lot of failures and needed to be returned. That alone would keep me from buying one.
About the Superadios---
I'm very happy with my GE Superadios I & II. Superadio III does not live up to the first two in feel, sound, or reception. I don't even know if it is available anymore under the GE brand (GE 7-2887), all I've seen for years in the stores is the same radio marketed with the RCA tag (RP-7887). Although I really wouldn't recommend the SR-III, they do retail pretty cheap locally. Fleet Farm usually has them under $55, and on sale now and then as low as $40. You could always buy and try one, and return it if you aren't satisfied with it. You can also do the same with a Crane radio, but you'd have to pay shipping both ways.
I've also had some very good Panasonic and Sony radios in the past, and even a couple of other multi-band GEs, but for overall sound quality, reception strength, and ruggedness, the GE SR-I and GE SR-II get my overall vote. And they are a lot cheaper than most any of the other good ones. I've picked up and flipped several from Goodwill and St. Vincent's over the years, often finding them for under $10.
