Best Tube-Type Transceiver?
Beech Creek
produced and why?
I know there will be lots of different opinions but I am interested in the
reasons behind these opinions.
Thanks!
Cal Barton
WB5CYS
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever
> produced and why?
It'd probably be nice if you'd define "transceiver"... otherwise there
is no contest... The AN/FRR-60 / AN/FRT-39/40 "set" wins hands down.
But then at a couple tons (literally)... and requiring over 60KW
primary power... not exactly your typical "base unit"...
Oh, why? let's see... 2 - 32Mc continuous tuning...
SSB (suppressed carrier)
SSB (with carrier)
DSB (suppressed carrier)
DSB (with carrier)
FSK
FAX
CW
MCW
Pulse modulation
Phase modulation
Receiver "stuff"...
Diversity: frequency or space. (this is the "super" FRR-60 - with two
full receivers paired and interconnected for active diversity).
Can handle 70db signal variation without AGC - 100 db with AGC
usable signal recovery to 150db range
AFC can track signal "drift" at least to 1KC at a slew rate of 10cps/sec.
Active noise limiting
Tunable notch filter +/- 8khz (works at IF frequency rather than audio).
Transmitter "stuff"...
10KW PEP (FRT-39) or 40KW PEP (FRT-40)
Same operating modes as receiver, including independant DSB (ISB) with
or without carrier.
Frequency accuracy to one part in 10 to the 8th. per day. (what drift?).
I'd hate to pay the power bill on the beast - but what a rig!!!!
--
randy guttery
A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
so vital to the United States Silent Service:
http://tendertale.com
Michael Black
> Beech Creek wrote:
>
>> I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever
>> produced and why?
>
> It'd probably be nice if you'd define "transceiver"... otherwise there
> is no contest... The AN/FRR-60 / AN/FRT-39/40 "set" wins hands down.
> But then at a couple tons (literally)... and requiring over 60KW
> primary power... not exactly your typical "base unit"...
>
Not really, but yes "transceiver" is a very wide open term. It can
go from those transmitter and receivers in one box with very little
in common, to an actual SSB transceiver that the poster likely is
asking about.
But I was going to point out that in retrospect (and if we limit
the discussion to amateur radio SSB transceivers), the time span
is about fifteen years or so. It was the late fifties when such
a thing arrived on the market, and it was over by the early seventies,
with solid state taking over. Given it's at least thirty years since
then, it is a finite selection to start with.
Michael VE2BVW
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> Gee, I was thinking something like a Gonset Communicator.
>
> Not really, but yes "transceiver" is a very wide open term. It can
> go from those transmitter and receivers in one box with very little
> in common, to an actual SSB transceiver that the poster likely is
> asking about.
Certainly, and - one could go to the other extreme- handy-talkies, which
are as "absurd" as my first example (which was intended
toungue-in-cheek). As the OP noted - there are bound to be favorites,
and keeping within the likely "bounds" he intended- one of the most
world-worthy was the KWM-2/A.
There have been many tube transceivers over the years with good
reputations for performance, etc. - but only the KWM-2 stood
head-and-shoulders above the others in "field" reputation due to it's
service with the military over the Viet Nam years. First introduced in
the late 1950s, the KWM-2/A was fully mature by the time the military
started looking for a "solution" for it's MARS activities starting in
early 1960s. Collins had the perfect answer: A complete HAM (MARS)
station in a pair of Samsonite Suitcases. One holding the KWM-2/A and
the other the power supply, antenna and other accessories - the Marines
first started shipping these to the troops in January, 1963.
Not only very portable, but tough. Operating in a war, in a climate that
would destroy lesser equipment in weeks, the KWM-2/A earned it's
reputation as a reliable, effective workhorse over the next decade
years. I don't have sales figures on the KWM-2/A - but likely when
combined with it's predecessor the KWM-1 - they likely are the top
selling transceiver of all time.
as always - just my .02
Ron in Radio Heaven
> one of the most world-worthy was the KWM-2/A.
>
Yes, an incredible radio. When I was in the Air National Guard
at the Charlotte airport we had 2 complete KWM-2/A stations.
One with a 30-L1 amp on a full size 80 meter rombic and the
other with a 30-S1 on a tri-band on about 30 ft of tower.
They wouldn't let us have much tower since we were located
right next to the main runway.
The big rombic worked great during the week , but on Guard
drill weekends the field that it was over became a parking lot,
when it was full of cars it got real hard to get the antenna to tune.
I hope to have a KWM-2/A in my shack some day.
If anyone in the group is active on AM maybe we can meet on
the air soon. I bought a Johnson Viking 2 at the Salisbury hamfest
just a few hours ago.
This was about the best Salisbury fest they've had for several years.
There's was a good bit of BA gear there, and got to see a bunch
of old friends.
Besides the Viking I also bought a Diawa CN-800H cross needle
SWR/Watt meter and a couple of Waters coax switches.
I looked all over the fest for a Dow-Key relay so I can hook up
the Viking and my NC-183D for the Am station.
73 and happy 07-07-07
Doug
I'd agree that the Collins KWM2 transceiver is about the best for SSB
service but it came at a high price. However, it was mediocre at best
for CW service.
A transceiver that I believe actually sold in greater numbers than the
KWM2 series was the lowly Heathkit HW101. I know that they sold over
20,000 of them.
For it's price, if you can get one that was well assembled, you can do
no better. The HW101 was almost as stable as the KWM2, was FAR better
on CW with true carrier insertion, sidetone, vox that worked well and
an optional CW filter.
It's more expensive big brother was the Heathkit SB101 or SB102, the
poor mans copy of the Collins KWM2.
Another favorite of mine was the National NCX-5. The first mass
produced ham rig with a digital readout, albeit a mechanical one, that
was actually accurate. It had good audio, good filtering and was
reliable (with the exception of the weird T/R relay that was always
energized in receive mode). It also had a decent sense of style and
used sweep tubes but ran them at a realistic limit. With its companion
NCL2000 2KW linear, it's a real rock cruncher of a station.
73,
Doug/WA1TUT
kh
> A transceiver that I believe actually sold in greater numbers than the
> KWM2 series was the lowly Heathkit HW101. I know that they sold over
> 20,000 of them.
>
> For it's price, if you can get one that was well assembled, you can do
> no better. The HW101 was almost as stable as the KWM2, was FAR better
> on CW with true carrier insertion, sidetone, vox that worked well and
> an optional CW filter.
>
> It's more expensive big brother was the Heathkit SB101 or SB102, the
> poor mans copy of the Collins KWM2.
What a thing to consider! The KWM-2/2A cost between five and ten
times what the HW-101 and SB-100,101,102. did. The prices of all
three lines varied over the years but at the end, the Collins was over
$3,000 and I don't think the SB's ever went over $400. $299 sticks
in my mind for the HW-101.
Nomad
Excellent radios. I've had several of each & they perform well. You
can pick up a TR4 with PS for $250.
The Heath stuff will have variable build quality.
The KWM2's are overpriced (I have the KWM2-A).
Terry
W8EJO.
K3HVG
its a hybrid type radio. It has all the features that one might really
need and they still hold a reasonable value. With the '230 digital VFO
and some after market filters, the radio will provide excellent service.
The radio also can be serviced in the field, like their all-tube brethren.
Scott Dorsey
>I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever
>produced and why?
PRC-8/9/10. There's just something so cute about all those little submini
tubes. And the RF performance isn't half bad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Dave Edwards
very well today....
The KWM2 is useless on CW, and the band segments are broken up in the middle
of the band.
The HW101/SB102 series are great rigs, but age and the home-made aspect
means many of them have problems.
A TS-520,820,830, does not fall in to this category (tube rig)
My vote would be a TR4CW/rit. It has everything, and is solid and reliable.
Runner up would be a Kenwood TS511S
Problem is, that model Drake has had the price ebayed through the roof, and
the Kenwood is hard to find. But....waddya gonna do. They are old, and work
well...so the demand is up!.
....Dave
"Beech Creek" <c...@beechcreekfarm.net> wrote in message
news:BTEji.1033$m%.897@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
Doug
What do you mean by "What a thing to consider"???
My point was exactly that for their prices, a well built
HW101/SB101/SB102 performs almost as well as a Collins KWM2 on SSB
and far better than the Collins on CW.
Thus in terms of their value based on cost versus performance, one can
easily argue they outperform the Collins.
As for the Drake radios, I don't like tube radios that really need
matched pairs or trios of sweep tubes to maintain performance,
especially when the supply of such tubes is rapidly vanishing.
My National NCX3/5's seem to be relatively unfussy about whether the
6GJ5 or other sweep tube used are matched.
Another great thing about Heathkits was that they used 6146 tubes in
their finals, just like the Collins.
As for Heathkit build quality, like most things, you have to try
before you buy. One that is working well on a bench today has
certainly gotten all of its bugs worked out it by this time, with only
normal age related failures to be expected.
I agree with another that the Kenwood TS820/830 series is far more a
solid state than a tube rig. I had a TS-820S - thought it was a rather
poor performer. Its CW semi-breakin operation was miserable. A
transister went bad in one of the mixer oscillators. It's layered,
non-plug-in circuit board construction made service access difficult.
Doug/WA1TUT
resea...@cbgb.net
supply) box in terms of overall usability but...it's a SSB only, ham
band only rig practically speaking.
Drake and Collins separates that intertransceive are fine, but not
really a "transceiver".
Heathkits worked well when properly assembled. Few were. Some can be
straightened out with patience. The use of soldering flux and good
technique can rescue some.
ah...@attglobal.net
>
> What do you mean by "What a thing to consider"???
I mean, "BEST Tube-Type Transceiver" is a strange and difficult
consideration. It's the topic of this thread.
The problem with Heathkit's SB transceivers isn't the soldering.
That's an old-ham's saw. It's not quite up there with the "Acid Core"
urban legend, but it's close.
While I have encountered poor solder jobs, I have only seen one
problem that was clearly solder based and that was in a factory,
machine-made part.
The problem with Heath are the mechanicals. The design is clever;
the parts are mediocre; the mechanical build quality is generally
horrible.
A case in point is the LMO pinch drive and the tension on the rings.
I've spent hours cleaning and adjusting the drive and when it's right,
it's terrific. It's light, smooth, precise, no backlash. I have a
Heath SB tuning knob with lead weights in it. It's a perfect match
for the LMO drive.
Even when you have the pinch drive adjusted right, the 100 kHz
indicator is off. That's a 30 minute trial and error adjustment where
1/64 inch position shift of a piece of metal under a machine screw is
amplified by an articulated arm. After the fine tuning, you're
fighting the play in stamped parts.
Then there's the fiduciary on the LMO. What's with that?
Every fiduciary knob is corroded. I polished one until it shines.
It's still a knob on a 1/8 inch shaft in a hole drilled in plastic, no
fore-aft stop, driving a piece of wobbly plastic with friction.
Another problem with Heath are the thin skirts on the knobs. The
skirts could be thicker and more precise. When I put the knobs back
on a Heath, I use a feeler gauge to space the skirt from the front
panel. That's after I find the low spot on the skirt.
The bezel on the SB's should be more like Collins. That was a bad
place for Heath to cut corners. A thick solid bezel would give the
fiduciary's drive shaft more bearing surface.
How did they get the bezels on the DX-60 and the HW-16 so right and
the SB so wrong?
The phenolic circuit boards are mediocre. The design is fine. Thick
FR4 glass epoxy would have made the Heath's much better.
On sheer performance, the Heath's are up there. Hot receivers, 6 pole
crystal filters, stable, 1 kHz readout, etc. Drake and Halli didn't do
that until they went digital.
-C
Dave Edwards
repeatable, and end to end accurate then the SB102!!
...Dave
<ah...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1184060821.5...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
resea...@cbgb.net
sweep tube replacement. It consisted of two or three transistors an a
potted cast assembly on an octal base, very much like solid state
rectifier tube replacements. A customer claimed he'd busted one apart
and it looked like a horizontal output transistor on a plate, some
small transistors, a resistor and was put in black hard potting
compound with some smppth small rocks for packing. He was not
sufficiently on the ball to have made a schematic.
Failing that, converting the beasts to a transmitting tube of some
sort seems the only way to go,as sweep tubes are a thing of the past.
Apparently they take a lot of different internals from audio types,
which are the market today.
ah...@attglobal.net
> The last of the tube TR4's had 1 khz readout.....and a WHOLE lot more
> repeatable, and end to end accurate then the SB102!!
>
> ...Dave
Yes. Good point.
I don't own Drake except for a 2B/2BQ that's been in storage for 35
years. Don't know a lot about them, never operated a TR.
Overall though, the SB-102 package, as part of the Heath SB system
which includes several amps, scopes, etc., was the premier 1960s/1970s
set up. The weakness of the SB's was the mechanical build quality
and the mechanical alignment.
Drake PTO vs. Heath LMO is an interesting comparison. My SB-102 is
not seen bench time yet but I've had an SB-303 (same solid state LMO
albeit without the tubes nearby) on a frequency counter for a week.
The drift measured in the few tens of Hz! This was in an un-
airconditioned room.
Scott Dorsey
>
> Failing that, converting the beasts to a transmitting tube of some
>sort seems the only way to go,as sweep tubes are a thing of the past.
>Apparently they take a lot of different internals from audio types,
>which are the market today.
Yes, I grew up watching folks changing old surplus military gear to
take cheap commercial sweep tubes. Now I am watching people converting
cheap commercial gear to take surplus military sweep tubes....
Irv Finkleman
> <resea...@cbgb.net> wrote:
>
>>Failing that, converting the beasts to a transmitting tube of some
>>sort seems the only way to go,as sweep tubes are a thing of the past.
>>Apparently they take a lot of different internals from audio types,
>>which are the market today.
>
>
> Yes, I grew up watching folks changing old surplus military gear to
> take cheap commercial sweep tubes. Now I am watching people converting
> cheap commercial gear to take surplus military sweep tubes....
> --scott
I converted my old Hallicrafters SR150 from sweep tubes (6DQ6's if I recall)
to 6146s. It is still around the local ham community and running fine. The
nice things about the 6146's was that they are small enough to fit in almost
any PA subchassis, and all I had to do was rewire the sockets.
Sure wish I still had it. I let it go about 25 years ago!
Irv VE6BP
Barry
What about the Swan 350C and/or 500C? I never owned one, but they
would certainly qualify as a tube transceiver.
Barry - N4BUQ
Ron in Radio Heaven
Barry wrote:
> What about the Swan 350C and/or 500C? I never owned one, but they
> would certainly qualify as a tube transceiver.
>
I think the word "Best" would eliminate any Swan gear...
Ron
Dave Edwards
I have an SB303, 301 and an SB102. They are mint 'keepers', but they are
just light years away from the overall quality and performance of the TR4'snews:1184147773....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
resea...@cbgb.net
wrote:
That's very true, as regards ham gear. However later Cubic commercial
gear, from the company Swan evolved into, can be quite good.
Bryan
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
TV sweep tubes don't like to be run linear. I recall seeing a 16 x 6LQ6
amplifier in the Handbook (or was it QST?) eons ago. I shudder at the
thought of the IMD3 response! 6146s are a bit better than sweep tubes. My
favorite tube in terms of linearity would be the 807/1625, albeit a bit
taller than the others.
I still have my first SSB xcvr, a new-to-me SB102. I would concur with most
of what others have said about the cheesy mechanicals. Even with fresh
tubes in the frontend & IF and aligned, the receiver seemed to fall off in
sensitivity above 20m. 3 elements on 15m at 38' made up for it. I added a
Fox-Tango Club 500Hz CW filter before retiring it.
73,
Bryan WA7PRC
Scott Dorsey
The 350C isn't really a ham band transceiver. I mean, you can tune it
into the ham bands... but it won't stay there... or anywhere else...
Smokey
then work all the rest of us using EICO 753s. :)
Didahdidahdit
ZUT
Vern W9STB
N2...@aol.com
> I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever
> produced and why?
I presume you mean "amateur HF band transceiver", and whether you
allow matched-pair receiver/transmitter setups that allow transceiving
on one or both of the VFOs.
I think it all depends on how you define "best", and whether you allow
mostly-SS hybrids like the TS-520S to be considered "tube".
For example, if the definition is best-performing-on-SSB one-box
transceiver, the KWM-2A is at the top. Yes it's mediocre on CW, has no
RIT and cost the earth in its time, but for performance on SSB it was
tops in its era.
If you want RIT and good CW performance in one box, the Drake TR-4cw
(the latest version) is the one to have.
OTOH, if the definition is most-performance-for-your-money, it's a
close tie between the Heath SB-101 and HW-101. I do agree about the
mechanicals but consider what they cost in their time, compared to
other rigs.
If you allow matched-pair tx/rx, the Collins S-line (meatball 75S-3C/
32S-3) are at the top, followed closely by the Drake 4C twins.
---
Although I haven't tried it, there is allegedly a cure for the cheap
Heath mechanicals in the HW-100/101 and SB series.
What you do is to look around for a junker Tempo One, which is
actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly,
which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz.
Then you remove the Heath LMO/VFO and replace it with the Tempo unit.
Some mods will be needed to get supply voltages and make up for the
loss of the tube in the Heath LMO/VFO, but those aren't hard to do.
The mechanical mods are left as an exercise for the reader - if it
were me, I'd make a new front panel while I was at it. As a bonus, the
Tempo VFO unit has RIT.
The Tempo VFO is solid-state, but more important, has a sweet all-
antibacklash-gear drive and 1 kHz readout. (It's arguably the best
part of the rig).
--
Although it's not really a transceiver, but rather a receiver and
transmitter in one box with a common power supply, the Heath HW-16 has
to win the award for best-HF-amateur-tube-rig-designed-for-a-specific-
purpose. It was meant as a Novice rig for the privileges of its time,
and except for being anemic on 15 did that job very well and at a low
low price.
All IMHO
73 de Jim, N2EY
Michael Black
> Although I haven't tried it, there is allegedly a cure for the cheap
> Heath mechanicals in the HW-100/101 and SB series.
>
> What you do is to look around for a junker Tempo One, which is
> actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly,
> which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz.
>
If you're going to start doing that, then any external VFO that covers
5 to 5.5MHz is a potential candidate. Even up to something like the
external digital VFO that went with the TS-830, though at the moment
I can't remember if it's a 5MHz VFO.
Or build an external vfo with that variable capacitor from the BC-221
that's been lying around for decades, and put a frequency counter
in the box. That's not even a new idea, there were things like that
over thirty years ago when digital ICs became cheap enough to easily
make frequency counters.
This thing will then work with any rig that needs a 5MHz VFO, and has
the advantage of not requiring dramatic changes to the rig. Many
will even have things in place for an external VFO.
There was a whole article in the September 1972 issue of CQ about
this sort of thing for the SB/HW transceivers, though I don't think
he used a frequency counter.
Michael VE2BVW
N2...@aol.com
> (N...@AOL.COM) writes:
> > a junker Tempo One, which is
> > actually a Yaesu FT-200. All you need from it is the VFO assembly,
> > which covers the same range as the Heath LMO - 5 to 5.5 MHz.
>
> If you're going to start doing that, then any external VFO that covers
> 5 to 5.5MHz is a potential candidate.
Agreed, but the idea (which I didn't state very clearly) is that you
put the Tempo One VFO *inside* the Heath rig, so it's still one-box.
If you're willing to do the external-VFO thing, just mount the LMO in
an external box and make a nice dial drive for it, plus the digital
readout.
> Or build an external vfo with that variable capacitor from the BC-221
> that's been lying around for decades, and put a frequency counter
> in the box.
Or a mechanical dial. I've done that for homebrew rigs.
> That's not even a new idea, there were things like that
> over thirty years ago when digital ICs became cheap enough to easily
> make frequency counters.
I made one in 1975. But it's a lot more than just a counter.
For one thing, the VFO frequency isn't the signal frequency. But the
big deal is that, in the Heathkits, the VFO tunes the wrong way (5 is
the high end of the band and 5.5 is the low end). Both are solved by
use of a presettable down-counter.
>
> This thing will then work with any rig that needs a 5MHz VFO, and has
> the advantage of not requiring dramatic changes to the rig. Many
> will even have things in place for an external VFO.
Agreed. But if you want a one-box tube transceiver, and you happen
across a junker Tempo One with a good VFO, the result could be pretty
sweet without all the work of building a stable VFO.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Bryan
I married a Drake RV4 to my SB102 for split operation (using the SB102's
xtal oscillator as a buffer).
Bryan WA7PRC
Roger (K8RI)
>On Jul 7, 12:45?am, "Beech Creek" <c...@beechcreekfarm.net> wrote:
>> I am interested in opinions as to the best tube-type transceiver ever
>> produced and why?
>
>I presume you mean "amateur HF band transceiver", and whether you
>allow matched-pair receiver/transmitter setups that allow transceiving
>on one or both of the VFOs.
>
>I think it all depends on how you define "best", and whether you allow
>mostly-SS hybrids like the TS-520S to be considered "tube".
I had an 820 which I liked and preferred to the 520.
>
>For example, if the definition is best-performing-on-SSB one-box
>transceiver, the KWM-2A is at the top. Yes it's mediocre on CW, has no
>RIT and cost the earth in its time, but for performance on SSB it was
>tops in its era.
>
Back in the 70s I had a KWM-2 and a 2A as well as the separate 32S3
and 75S3 and other incarnations. Although the Collins had the looks
and feel, I think my TR4C was the best of the lot as an all around
transceiver. It lacked looks and feel but it worked well.
I also had the Drake B and C line twins, but was not really fond of
them.
My favorite tube rig was the KWS1 with a 75A4 which worked well and
sounded good. You could also heat the ham shack with it in the winter.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/boat1.htm
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/boat2.htm
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/boat3.htm
I also liked the old Hallicrafters seperates SX101A although the 115
was a better receiver, HT32B transmitter, and HT33B amp. I'm
currently restoring two complete sets (A and B series) although the
photo only shows one set...
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/boat8.htm
>If you want RIT and good CW performance in one box, the Drake TR-4cw
>(the latest version) is the one to have.
>
>OTOH, if the definition is most-performance-for-your-money, it's a
>close tie between the Heath SB-101 and HW-101. I do agree about the
>mechanicals but consider what they cost in their time, compared to
>other rigs.
>
>If you allow matched-pair tx/rx, the Collins S-line (meatball 75S-3C/
>32S-3) are at the top, followed closely by the Drake 4C twins.
Again I'd place the Drake transceiver ahead of the Collins seperates
having had both. I really didn't care for the Drake twins in the B and
C line. I will admit that was a longgg time ago and time does dim
my memory from that far back.
Roger (K8RI).
Roger (K8RI)
Tim Shoppa
> How did they get the bezels on the DX-60 and the HW-16 so right and
> the SB so wrong?
The HW-16 is a really really sweet CW transceiver. With a couple mods
the break in completely seamless - it honestly feels like I can even
hear the band with the key down!
> The phenolic circuit boards are mediocre. The design is fine. Thick
> FR4 glass epoxy would have made the Heath's much better.
I had many, many problems with intermittent cracked traces in HW-100's
and HW-101's. They'd be fine when cold, but when the set began to warm
up the opens could happen just about anywhere. Usual situation was
that receive signal goes away, or transmit power does, and it's
remedied by a couple sharp knocks on the chassis.
Tim.
Michael A. Terrell
I rebuilt an RCA TTU-25B 25 KW UHF TV transmitter about 18 years
ago. It had 17 6146 tubes in the video modulator. What a pain in the
ass to match 16 6146 tubes for the output stage. :(
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida