Tubes vs. Solid State for SW Receivers
Jon Noring
not have a clear-cut answer. And answers may likely include
the phrase "Depends on...".
Nevertheless, let me pose it:
"In terms of shortwave reception performance, which type of
electronics are inherently, and in actual real-world
receivers, better: tubes or solid-state?"
When I refer to "shortwave reception", I mean all forms of
reception (AM, sideband) from the 500khz to 30mhz, and for
all forms/types of broadcasts (ham, international broadcast,
etc.)
When I refer to "performance", I mean the ability to pull in
very weak signals and to reduce interference from adjacent
stronger signals. E.g., sensitivity and selectivity. Also,
delivered sound quality is important for understandability,
and comes under this question if it can't be separated from
the receiving circuitry. There may be other benchmarks as
well which are important but I haven't mentioned.
Of course, there's the possibility of hybrid circuits, using
a combination of vacuum tubes and solid state devices (such
as transistors).
I'd like to know what makes/models of radio(s) throughout
radio history up to the present are representative of this
'best', or close to it. Also, I and others would like to
know which "budget" radios of today come closest to the
'best' performance.
I look forward to the discussion and to learn a lot from it.
Thanks.
Jon Noring
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana (ebook) *** http://www.blueglasspublishing.com/
redrum
compared to modern day solid state equipment, they fall short. In the
old days, you basically had to guess where to tune on the dial for a
station. Thanks to PLL and digital tuning, you don't have to anymore.
Although you conceivably COULD add a digital freq readout to your old
tube set. Miniaturization adds a lot of stuff that the old tube sets
couldn't have. If 1 tube =1 transistor, then just the amount of
transistors in a modern set gives it an edge, not counting the
microchips in there too. The bad part is that concievably a modern rx
could have more trouble with power spikes and such, but that is
outweighed by the pluses.
In article <9rq1ae$la4$1...@og1.olagrande.net>, nor...@olagrande.net
says...
Jon Noring
>Not again! Well, IMO, tubes allow for a greater audio range. But
>compared to modern day solid state equipment, they fall short. In the
>old days, you basically had to guess where to tune on the dial for a
>station. Thanks to PLL and digital tuning, you don't have to anymore.
In my question I specifically focused on shortwave reception
performance, not on the obvious plus of PLL and digital
tuning, which makes for a lot more convenience and knowing the
exact frequency.
Can modern state-of-the-art solid state designs have
comparable if not better sensitivity and selectivity than
state-of-the-art tube designs? (There may be other measures
of reception performance, but sensitivity/selectivity are
the two I know of.)
Jon Noring
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Nelson
signal doesn't care whether it's amplified in a tube or a transistor, etc.
People like me collect tube boatanchors because they are historically
interesting and, well, cool, not because they have some intrinsic advantage
over solid-state gear. There is much discussion of tubes vs solid-state in
audiophile circles; I think most of it is hooey (please no flames, this is
just my $0.02 :-).
You may get a lot of opinions on what receiver is "best," since there's no
agreed definition. For example, if you discount audio, then I'd consider my
Hallicrafters SX-42 and Hammarlund HQ-180AC roughly equal. But the
Hallicrafters has a superior (i.e., push-pull) audio section, so I guess
it's "better" if audio quality counts. On the other hand, the HQ-180AC was
made about 20 years later than the SX-42, so how should that be factored in?
And should appearance count? The SX-42 has a distinctive, widely praised
design, while the HQ-180 looks more like a piece of lab equipment. And so on
. . .
That being said, the best boatanchor that I own is a Hallicrafters SX-88.
(See http://antiqueradio.org/comm.htm .) Many people think the military
R-390/A is one of the finest tube receivers ever made. There are many other
good ones out there.
Regarding today's radios, wouldn't you expect a lot of them to perform
better than equipment designed fifty or sixty years ago? Science marches on,
and I think electronics has been no exception. When I got a cheap (around
$100 used) Grundig YB400 a few years ago, I discovered that it seemed to
pull in anything I could get on my favorite boatanchors, using only its
built-in whip antenna. This bummed me out a little at first, but then I
decided I was happy there had been some progress in electronics during my
lifetime :-)
You can read many reviews and comparisons of current shortwave equipment at
the Radio Netherlands website:
http://www.rnw.nl/realradio/rx_index.html
Regards,
Phil Nelson
philn...@antiqueradio.org
Phil's Old Radios
http://antiqueradio.org/index.html
phil
good question, unfortunately i do not know the answer; however, i too have
wondered how an older set such as a Drake 1A would stack up against a Drake
R8B. surfing the link below is what got me wondering...
http://www.qsl.net/wa9wfa/ha00033.htm
phil :)
starman
Perhaps there shouldn't be a difference but in the real world there is.
A tube receiver tends to have better front-end dynamic range because of
the operating characteristics of vacuum tubes. It's therefore generally
easier to overload the front-end (producing spurious signals) of a solid
state receiver with a strong signal, unless it's well designed. Most
portables aren't.
I don't think anyone would argue that tube receivers are also much more
robust when it comes to being damaged by static electricity or even
close lightning strikes.
*****
Phil Nelson wrote:
>
> There should be no inherent difference between tubes and solid-state. A
> signal doesn't care whether it's amplified in a tube or a transistor, etc.
> People like me collect tube boatanchors because they are historically
> interesting and, well, cool, not because they have some intrinsic advantage
> over solid-state gear. There is much discussion of tubes vs solid-state in
> audiophile circles; I think most of it is hooey (please no flames, this is
> just my $0.02 :-).
snip
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John Siegel
Phil Nelson wrote:
>
> There should be no inherent difference between tubes and solid-state. A
> signal doesn't care whether it's amplified in a tube or a transistor, etc.
>
>
This answer makes sense in the context of the question being HF
reception. However it is not true as one goes up in frequency. At UHF
frequencies, a modern solid state RF amplifier first stage (GaAs FET for
example) is inexpensive and has a better noise figure than any available
tube amplifier.
John
Your friend Bill
Not much contest, but the 1A was quite a good receiver in its day. Its
value nowadays is more its rarity.
Something like a R4-C, apart from the difference in coverage is likely a
better performer than the R8B in many respects.
-Bill
phil
its not hooey that there are performance differences between specific tubes
and specific transistors; however, as you said when people have to define
what is best it might all start sounding like hooey. 'your Drake R8B can't
match my sangean portable when it comes to strong hissing noises' :p. btw,
nice name :).
phil :)
Nobody You Know
>
>I don't think anyone would argue that tube receivers are also much more
>robust when it comes to being damaged by static electricity or even
>close lightning strikes.
>
Or EMP from a somewhat distant nuclear explosion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
redrum
says...
>
>In article redrum <na...@na.da> wrote:
>
>>Not again! Well, IMO, tubes allow for a greater audio range. But
>>compared to modern day solid state equipment, they fall short. In the
>>old days, you basically had to guess where to tune on the dial for a
>>station. Thanks to PLL and digital tuning, you don't have to anymore.
>
>In my question I specifically focused on shortwave reception
>performance, not on the obvious plus of PLL and digital
>tuning, which makes for a lot more convenience and knowing the
>exact frequency.
>
>Can modern state-of-the-art solid state designs have
>comparable if not better sensitivity and selectivity than
>state-of-the-art tube designs? (There may be other measures
>of reception performance, but sensitivity/selectivity are
>the two I know of.)
Oh. Ok, here's what I know: I had a Hallicrafters that had a knob for
"selectivity". I guess this was a crude attenuator. All I know is that
it never seemed to make much of a difference in the actual
sensitivity/selectivity of the reciever except to slightly tone down
stations that used big kilowattage like the Euros. You have to consider
too that tube stuff will have paper caps that have gone bad and
resistors out of value and such that will reduce the effectiveness of
the reciever. Solid state stuff is much less likely to have such
problems, probably because the quality of the components were better to
start with. Also a lot depends on your antenna, and THAT is more an art
than a science. Now if you want a debate on "which were better new,
tubes or transistors?" then you'll have to talk to some of the old tube
guys on here.
redrum
>
>10/31/01
>
>Perhaps there shouldn't be a difference but in the real world there is.
>A tube receiver tends to have better front-end dynamic range because of
>the operating characteristics of vacuum tubes. It's therefore generally
>easier to overload the front-end (producing spurious signals) of a
solid
>state receiver with a strong signal, unless it's well designed. Most
>portables aren't.
>I don't think anyone would argue that tube receivers are also much more
>robust when it comes to being damaged by static electricity or even
>close lightning strikes.
I mentioned the same things, only to have Mr. Noring tell me "no, it's
all about selectivity and sensitivity". So in that respect, I think that
today's attenuators are more sophisticated than the "sensitivity" knobs
on BAs. Also, a lot depends on antennas. As for audio range, that's
probably the biggest positive of tubes, and why true audiophiles love
tube equipment. (In the same vein, they prefer records to CDs, again for
the greater audio range of vinyl.) But audio quality isn't big for SW
like it is for say broadcast band FM.
Bob Camp
Well like anything the answer depends a lot on what you call similar
radios. If you compare an R-390 to a modern radio costing the same
dollars new you will get one comparison. If you adjust 1952 dollars to
2001 dollars you will get another comparison. If cost is no object the
comparison will be different as well.
Assuming you have a lot of money to spend then solid state wins every
time. Most of us don't have radio budgets that start at $250K and go
up from there. Not many of us ever see such radios let alone get a
chance to use them.
Enjoy!
Bob Camp
KB8TQ
"Jon Noring" <nor...@olagrande.net> wrote in message
news:9rq1ae$la4$1...@og1.olagrande.net...
Henry Kolesnik
i'll bet none of the ham dx or ontest winners use a tube rx..
just like fuel injection replaced carburetors, solid state has replaced
hollow state..
if i'm wrong i sure would like to know..
but for your own satisfaction you can take the best tube rx you can find
such as a Drake R4C or Collins 75S3C or any other tube rx and put it up
against a Rx in a ham xcvr such as an IC 765 or Kenwood 940 and you'll have
the answer..
tubes like buggy whips and carburetors served their purpose and except for
very unique cases are of historical interest..
just as the best mechanical watch that costs thousands can't compare to a $5
quartz in keeping time..
but it has snob appeal, the rolex not the timex...
good luck
hank
good luck..
"Your friend Bill" <"See the reply to address and take out NO"@coqui.net>
wrote in message news:3BE09B84...@coqui.net...
Your friend Bill
> Can modern state-of-the-art solid state designs have
> comparable if not better sensitivity and selectivity than
> state-of-the-art tube designs? (There may be other measures
> of reception performance, but sensitivity/selectivity are
> the two I know of.)
>
> Jon Noring
>
>
The usable sensitivity 'floor' was reached probably back in the 1940s.
As for selectivity, yes, the 'digital bandwidth' designs defintely offer
specs in selectivity that were not possible in the tube era. The
question remains as to how much of the improvement is actually usable.
Much of the solid-state gadgetry finds new limitations in regard to
synthesizer garbage and strong signal handling capability.
It makes it real different to compare...there were high-end tube
receivers and there were junk tube receivers.
If you were to take a R-390 and put it side-by-side with say a RX-340
(or plug in your favorite modern high-end rig) I think you would find
the R-390 able to pull-in and slice out weak crowded signals just as
well...and each would probably have situations where circumstances gave
an edge to one above the other.
On the cheap end of the scale, a simple little DX-375 will run rings
around any equivalent low-end tube receiver.
The worst of the whole lot were some of the early solid-state designs of
the early 70s.
-Bill
Pete Gianakopoulos
tube units. I've had several of the tube jobs, and my all time favorite is
the Collins 51J series of receivers. I had a 51S-1 for awhile, and it
wasn't a bad receiver. Its shortcomings were lack of preselection below
2MHz, and a problematic bandswitch. Of course, mine came from the labs at
Rockwell, so this unit had quite a bit of wear, but 51J series of receivers
were also used in those labs, and they held up much better. As far as
sensitivity, as long as you have an 8 to 10dB noise figure, you are doing
ok.
Pete Gianakopoulos KE9OA
Chicago, Il.
Phil Nelson <philn...@antiqueradio.org> wrote in message
news:Vo0E7.89987$aW5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
Pete Gianakopoulos
receivers are the HF8050 series, and the 851S-1, which is an HF8050 with an
optical encoder for tuning, instead of those thumbwheel switches. I picked
up several of those 8050s at Rockwell's surplus sale for 5 dollars each,
although they were incomplete. Before I moved back to Chicago, I let one of
the old timers back in Iowa have them, and he was able to piece one or two
complete units together. I had an HF2050 for awhile, and I do have a Racal
6790/GM in my collection. While they are nice to have, they are BIG. When
I can build a receiver for aroung 150 dollars that has the same type of
performance as these giants, I figured, "why bother". Probably my favorite
receivers of today are the AOR7030, the Icom R75, the Palstar R30, and the
Yaesu FRG100. They do fine, for household listening. Now, if you were
going to use them in a shipboard installation, with several co-located
transmitters......................well, that is quite a different story. I
used to once look at the ads, where one manufacturer would say "mine is
better than the others", or "Yaesu did it again!" I made sensitivity
measurements on these different receivers, and the MDS would range from
.07uV to .1uV or so. These are good figures! As far as selectivity, the
Palstar R30, with its CFJ series of 11 element filters, the Icom R75, and
the AOR7030 are pretty much in the same league. As far as overload
rejection, these units are similar. One receiver I didn't care for was the
AOR3030. I can't believe that company had the nerve to charge over 800
dollars for that unit. As it comes out of the box, it has the worst 2nd
order IM rejection that I have ever seen. In order to make the 3030
acceptable, you need to change the switching diodes in the front end, the
AGC diodes, and the I.F. filter switching diodes. After you do these
mods,the 3030 is pretty good. Also, the sensitivity is pretty flat over the
tuning range.
One final note; if any of you have purchased the Icom R75, feel free to
e-mail me directly, and I will be glad to inform you on how to properly
remove that MW attenuator. Simply jumpering that CP pair of pads does not
remove it; you still have the shunt elements remaining. Thanks for taking
the time to read this post folks; this is a great group, and there are some
pretty sharp folks on it!
Pete KE9OA
Bob Camp <b...@cq.nu> wrote in message
news:wK1E7.65394$C7.17...@news02.optonline.net...
starman
What is the best diode (part #) to using for switching applications like
this?
*****
Pete Gianakopoulos wrote:
snip
> One receiver I didn't care for was the AOR3030. I can't believe that > company had the nerve to charge over 800 dollars for that unit. As it > comes out of the box, it has the worst 2nd order IM rejection that I > have ever seen. In order to make the 3030 acceptable, you need to change > the switching diodes in the front end, the AGC diodes, and the I.F. > filter switching diodes. After you do these mods, the 3030 is pretty > good.
starman
In that case I wouldn't be worrying about my radios.
*****
Nobody You Know wrote:
>
> sta...@tech.net wrote:
>
> >
> >I don't think anyone would argue that tube receivers are also much more
> >robust when it comes to being damaged by static electricity or even
> >close lightning strikes.
> >
>
> Or EMP from a somewhat distant nuclear explosion.
Jerry Simpson
worth is that I have been using
both tube and solid state rigs for many years. I like both. The newer rigs
have many ways of elimating noise
and seperation of stations that are very close together. For just regular
short wave listening they both are
equal in many ways and both very enjoyable to use. The major differences
that I see is that the newer solid
state rigs just will not keep my ham shack as nice and warm doing the winter
months as the tube units will. In
the other case, the solid state rigs help to keep my ham shack cool doing
the summer months. So I guess the
real answer is to have both and instead of calling them the tube unit or
sold state unit, we as hams should relabel
them to being our summer or winter rigs. I for some reason, still enjoy
listening to the shortwave broadcast over
my tube units more than I do my newer rigs. The old tube units just don't
have birdie effects when tuning the bands so
if you here something on a tube unit it is usually a station or some nose
coming thru the antenna, but not noise generated by
the rig itself. On the tube units, if a tube goes out, easy replace, if one
can be found, on the solid state unit, it most likely will
have to be sent back to the factory due to specialize compentents except in
a few cases. I have tube units that are at least over
40 years old and working about as good as when they were new and also have
some sold state shortwave receivers that are around
30 years old and they too are still working. I would say that the solid
state units will most likely out last the usefullness over the
tube units mainly due to parts not as easy to be found for the tube units.
One thing for sure is that the tube unit will continue to
operate if there comes a time when there is an electromatic explosion, of
course may not be anything to listen to as most of the
transmitting stations would more than likely be solid state and be effected
by the explosion, but you can at least stay warm listening
to electrial noise....good luck with your question and answer. I just had to
add my 2 cent worth along with some humor.
73's
Jerry
Jon Noring <nor...@olagrande.net> wrote in message
news:9rq1ae$la4$1...@og1.olagrande.net...
G. Beat
"orphaned" ICs
This may change with time -- guess we will wait and see !
The explosion you are referring to is actually an EMP (ElectroMagnetic
Pulse). An EMP occurs with a nuclear explosion and may be created by an
asteroid or comet impacting the earth.
Solid state components can be design for "radiation hardening" and tolerance
to EMP, but as you pointed out 1) Who will be around to broadcast? 2) Who
will be around to listen?
G. Beat
w9gb
"Jerry Simpson" <jerrys...@home.com> wrote in message
news:7c4E7.146869$Pr1.38...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
G. Beat
Picked up 25 mechanical filters for $ 30 back in 1983, sold them within the
year - wish I had kept them. Then there was the offer from the old store
manager to take 6 brand new 7 foot Bud equipment cabinets off of his hands
for $ 100 bucks if I could get them out by Friday !
G. Beat
w9gb
PS Also became an ace repair person for WTCP Weller stations !
"Pete Gianakopoulos" <n.giana...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hY2E7.151331$3d2.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Dan Robinson
doran platt
severe problem overcoming, that being, 3rd order intercept point and dynamic
range. The solid state circuits (mixers and amps) simply could handle the
wide range of levels. I don't believe that sensitivity, per se, was an
issue. A number of years back, a group of us hams at our lab did some tests
with currently available radio sets; namely, Collins 75S-3C, a couple of
Icoms (735?) etc., an SX-100, a RadShak, a Racal RA-17C.. you get the idea.
In virtually all cases, the vintage (read: tube) sets did far better than
the solid state equipment.
I contrast this with the more current crop of equipment such as my FT-1000D,
and FT-990, etc. These sets do a much better job than their solid-state
predecessors. The only thing I do still see is the ultimate dynamic range.
One still has to use attenuators and/or resort to turning on/off RF preamps
to get the full available dynamic range and to offset the inherent problems,
thereof. Problem? In reality, probably not. Its just something one has to
factor in. Now... if one wants to get into the Ford/Chevy-type shortwave
argument, then I'll go for my R-390A, maybe my SX-28, or if I get really
nostalgic, my old (but fully restored) HQ-120X..... hi hi!! 73 and pass me
another 6SK7....please!
Wes Stewart
wrote:
[snip]
|
|Can modern state-of-the-art solid state designs have
|comparable if not better sensitivity and selectivity than
|state-of-the-art tube designs? (There may be other measures
|of reception performance, but sensitivity/selectivity are
|the two I know of.)
At the frequencies involved, sensitivity is almost a non-issue. Atmospheric
noise is the limiting factor. On 10 meters with a directional antenna, external
noise might be low enough to tax the "sensitivity" of a not so good receiver,
but there is not inherent superiority of one amplifying device over another at
these levels.
In spite of the foregoing, by using solid state devices rather than tubes, it is
"easier" to achieve low noise amplification. If you consider even higher
frequencies, then there is absolutely no contest; stick a fork in your vacuum
tube, it's done.
Likewise, selectivity is not a function of the type of amplifying device used.
There may be (are) issues related to impedance levels, agc characteristics,
overload performance, etc. that dictate how the selectivity is achieved and
these are a function of the device type. Selectivity is achieved with tuned
circuits; capacitors and inductors, or their mechanical equivalents.
If you limit your receiver "figure-of-merit" to only sensitivity and
selectivity, you make a mistake. In today's crowded bands, the various
performance parameters dealing with overload characteristics are very important.
Wes Stewart N7WS
Your friend Bill
>
> tube design has not advanced like solid state..
> i'll bet none of the ham dx or ontest winners use a tube rx..
You may be more accurately comparing tranceivers against rcvr+xmtr. If
you could make the relays click fast enough, an HT-32B/SX-115/HT-33
wouldn't embarrass itself in a contest.
-WX4A
Mark Dulcey
> In article redrum <na...@na.da> wrote:
>
>
>>Not again! Well, IMO, tubes allow for a greater audio range. But
>>compared to modern day solid state equipment, they fall short. In the
>>old days, you basically had to guess where to tune on the dial for a
>>station. Thanks to PLL and digital tuning, you don't have to anymore.
>>
>
> In my question I specifically focused on shortwave reception
> performance, not on the obvious plus of PLL and digital
> tuning, which makes for a lot more convenience and knowing the
> exact frequency.
>
> Can modern state-of-the-art solid state designs have
> comparable if not better sensitivity and selectivity than
> state-of-the-art tube designs? (There may be other measures
> of reception performance, but sensitivity/selectivity are
> the two I know of.)
Sensitivity and selectivity are relatively easy. Even relatively early
solid state designs (good ones from the 60s and early 70s) were the
equal or better of tube designs. It's easy to get lots of gain with
transistors, and their noise figure is lower than that of tubes, so
sensitivity is no problem at all. The old tube designs mostly used low
final IF frequencies and L-C filters for selectivity; the crystal
filters used in good modern designs are superior in most ways.
More difficult is strong-signal handling. The aforementioned solid state
receivers were terrible at it; one strong signal could make the things
fold pretty badly. It was made even worse by the lack of front end
selectivity, which was taken out in the interest of size and cost
reduction. (Those multi-gang tuning capacitors are large and expensive.)
However, the state of the art has improved since then; a good modern
solid state design is at least the equal of a tube receiver in that way
as well.
And, of course, modern designs give you the conveniences of synthesized
tuning, memories, and so forth. On the other hand, no modern design
matches the feel of the big weighted tuning knobs of the boat anchor
era. So it goes.
The popular portable receivers, however, are still likely to be lacking
in strong-signal performance when compared to a good boat-anchor. High
receiver dynamic range generally means receiver circuits that use a lot
of power; portable receivers are optimized for low power consumption,
not the ultimate in performance.
Frank Dresser
>
>I admit that the question I will pose is open-ended and may
>not have a clear-cut answer. And answers may likely include
>the phrase "Depends on...".
>
>Nevertheless, let me pose it:
>
>"In terms of shortwave reception performance, which type of
>electronics are inherently, and in actual real-world
>receivers, better: tubes or solid-state?"
>
>
I'd say the passive components make more difference than the active ones. A
couple of years ago, I was playing around with a sweep generator and some old
IF transformers and modern ceramic filters at 455kc. The IF transformers gave
the classic broad smooth curve, just like the textbooks show. The ceramic
filters showed a jagged rippled asymmetric curve, although they had far better
attenuation at the high and low frequency edges. This is consistent with my
experience. My radios with ceramic filters generally have better adjacent
channel separation and poorer audio than the older radios with IF transformers.
Also, there's an important design difference between analog and digital radios.
Analog radios almost always have one or more tuned circuits between the
antenna and the mixer. Digital radios may not have any RF tuned circuits and
are more prone to mixing in out of band signals.
>When I refer to "shortwave reception", I mean all forms of
>reception (AM, sideband) from the 500khz to 30mhz, and for
>all forms/types of broadcasts (ham, international broadcast,
>etc.)
>
Can't beat digital for stability, but I prefer the older radios for good sound.
>When I refer to "performance", I mean the ability to pull in
>very weak signals and to reduce interference from adjacent
>stronger signals. E.g., sensitivity and selectivity. Also,
>delivered sound quality is important for understandability,
>and comes under this question if it can't be separated from
>the receiving circuitry. There may be other benchmarks as
>well which are important but I haven't mentioned.
>
Selectivity is determined by passive components. Filters with excellent
characteristics were available in the tube era.
Radios with enough sensitivity to hear down to low levels of atmospheric noise
have been around since the thirties.
>Of course, there's the possibility of hybrid circuits, using
>a combination of vacuum tubes and solid state devices (such
>as transistors).
>
>I'd like to know what makes/models of radio(s) throughout
>radio history up to the present are representative of this
>'best', or close to it. Also, I and others would like to
>know which "budget" radios of today come closest to the
>'best' performance.
>
I sure haven't heard that many radios, but my favorite is the Hallicrafters
SX-62. Excellent sensitivity, very good selectivity, and superb sound. Much
the same can be said for the early GE World Monitor transistor radio.
>I look forward to the discussion and to learn a lot from it.
>
Same here!
>Thanks.
>
>Jon Noring
>
>
Frank Dresser
Jake Brodsky
Noring) wrote:
>"In terms of shortwave reception performance, which type of
>electronics are inherently, and in actual real-world
>receivers, better: tubes or solid-state?"
Define "Better."
Romance: Tube receivers have it. I like big heavy chassis filled with
warm glowing tubes. They look neat.
Dynamic Range: You can achieve better performance if you spend
equivalent inflation adjusted cash on solid state receivers compared
to the tube receivers of yesteryear. One feature often overlooked is
that because tubes are inherently high impedance devices, they often
had some pretty effective stage to stage coupling selectivity. Thus
dynamic range of tube gear is good, not because the active device is
good, but because the tuned circuits from stage to stage were good.
Modern wide-band solid state gear can better the performance of the
tube gear with less distortion and no tuning adjustments are needed.
Audio: Tube audio amplifiers have a sound all of their own. This is
because when they distort, they do so in a pleasant way that is
actually sought out by musicians. Modern solid state gear often lacks
decent audio amplifiers because they're usually afterthoughts. Some
solid state radios are trying hard to rectify this image. Grundig's
YB-400 design is one such example, but they have a long way to go...
Sensitivity: Solid state gear can have a lower noise than a tube front
end. Not that this matters much on SW...
Stability: Tube gear is not nearly as stable as today's high tech
solid state receivers.
Frequency coverage: With solid state gear, just tune right to the
frequency and there it is. With Tube gear you may need to change a
band module or re-peak a front end somewhere...
As you can see, there are positive and negative aspects to this
argument. I could go on like this and so can many others. Define
what "Better" means and then you can make up your own mind.
73,
Jake Brodsky, AB3A mailto:fru...@erols.com
"Beware of the massive impossible!"
Laura Halliday
> I admit that the question I will pose is open-ended and may
> not have a clear-cut answer. And answers may likely include
> the phrase "Depends on...".
>
> Nevertheless, let me pose it:
>
> electronics are inherently, and in actual real-world
> receivers, better: tubes or solid-state?"
There is no inherent performance difference, except in
the minds (if that's the right word) of a certain circle
of incurable luddites who never quite figured out the 20th
century, and are terrified of the 21st.
The problem with such a comparison is that you're comparing
apples and oranges. A good tube radio is a good radio indeed.
As is a good solid state radio. The solid state radio
benefits from several decades of additional development,
whereas tube radio performance peaked in the 1950s. If any
performance difference is to be had, it is on the side of
solid state - and please spare me the garbage about "warm
tube sound" and similar nonsense. I don't care if my radios
glow in the dark. I care how well they work.
The problem comes when you start comparing specific models.
The best receiver in my home is a Collins 51J-4, which does
indeed run rings around my Realistic DX-394. However, the
Collins cost as much as a car when it was new. If you were
to compare a solid state receiver that cost as much as a
car *now*, it would blow the Collins away in every measurement.
You can get very good radios now. Rather than misguided
self-indulgent nostalgic nonsense, why not use one and listen?
Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89lg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.57 N 123 0.24 W - Hospital/Shafte
tcrpe
redrum wrote in message ...
>Not again! Well, IMO, tubes allow for a greater audio range.
Audio quality is hardly consderation in SW reception.
> But
>compared to modern day solid state equipment, they fall short.
In what ways?
> In the
>old days, you basically had to guess where to tune on the dial for a
>station.
We had digital readout on many receivers, like the r390 and r390a, and
calibrators. And one could always hang a solid state digital readout on the
thing.
> Thanks to PLL and digital tuning,
Again these things have litttle to do with RF amps, local ocsillators, IF
amps, converters and the like.
I prefer that tubes in the RF circuits.
Hands down.
> you don't have to anymore.
>Although you conceivably COULD add a digital freq readout to your old
>tube set.
Many have and still do.
And retain those low noise rf sections.
> Miniaturization adds a lot of stuff that the old tube sets
>couldn't have.
Like noise.
>If 1 tube =1 transistor, then just the amount of
>transistors in a modern set gives it an edge, not counting the
>microchips in there too.
I don't see any reality in this argument. Plus a lot of this circuitry has
to do with non-rf sections of the receiver.
And nothing like those mechanical filters!
> The bad part is that concievably a modern rx
>could have more trouble with power spikes and such, but that is
>outweighed by the pluses.
>
>
>In article <9rq1ae$la4$1...@og1.olagrande.net>, nor...@olagrande.net
>says...
>>
>>I admit that the question I will pose is open-ended and may
>>not have a clear-cut answer. And answers may likely include
>>the phrase "Depends on...".
>>
>>Nevertheless, let me pose it:
>>
>>"In terms of shortwave reception performance, which type of
>>electronics are inherently, and in actual real-world
>>receivers, better: tubes or solid-state?"
>>
>>
>>When I refer to "shortwave reception", I mean all forms of
>>reception (AM, sideband) from the 500khz to 30mhz, and for
>>all forms/types of broadcasts (ham, international broadcast,
>>etc.)
>>
>>When I refer to "performance", I mean the ability to pull in
>>very weak signals and to reduce interference from adjacent
>>stronger signals. E.g., sensitivity and selectivity. Also,
>>delivered sound quality is important for understandability,
>>and comes under this question if it can't be separated from
>>the receiving circuitry. There may be other benchmarks as
>>well which are important but I haven't mentioned.
>>
>>Of course, there's the possibility of hybrid circuits, using
>>a combination of vacuum tubes and solid state devices (such
>>as transistors).
>>
>>I'd like to know what makes/models of radio(s) throughout
>>radio history up to the present are representative of this
>>'best', or close to it. Also, I and others would like to
>>know which "budget" radios of today come closest to the
>>'best' performance.
>>
>>I look forward to the discussion and to learn a lot from it.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Jon Noring
>>
>>
>>--
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
JLB
> Not again! Well, IMO, tubes allow for a greater audio range. But
> compared to modern day solid state equipment, they fall short. In the
> couldn't have. If 1 tube =1 transistor, then just the amount of
> outweighed by the pluses.
>
...and from what I have seen most modern receivers have lousy specs.
They would rather mention the number of memory channels than
IMD/overload performance. Perhaps they don't mention what really
matters because they are lousy? I would rather have a well designed
clean tube design than a typical transistor receiver. Just because
you can receive from DC to X-Rays with a built in Pentium IV doesn't
make it a good radio! One of the best receivers ever built was the
R390, all tubes, and was used by the CIA up into the '80s (in fact,
won't suprise me if they still use them).
As far as those microchips are concerned, they generate spurs and
other squirrelys.
Jim
N8EE
GREY FOX
wrote:
> Jon Noring wrote:
>
>> In article redrum <na...@na.da> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not again! Well, IMO, tubes allow for a greater audio range. But
>>>compared to modern day solid state equipment, they fall short. In the
>>>old days, you basically had to guess where to tune on the dial for a
>>>station. Thanks to PLL and digital tuning, you don't have to anymore.
>>>
>>
>> In my question I specifically focused on shortwave reception
>> performance, not on the obvious plus of PLL and digital
>> tuning, which makes for a lot more convenience and knowing the
>> exact frequency.
>>
>> Can modern state-of-the-art solid state designs have
>> comparable if not better sensitivity and selectivity than
>> state-of-the-art tube designs? (There may be other measures
>> of reception performance, but sensitivity/selectivity are
>> the two I know of.)
>
> Sensitivity and selectivity are relatively easy. Even relatively early
> solid state designs (good ones from the 60s and early 70s) were the
> equal or better of tube designs. It's easy to get lots of gain with
> transistors, and their noise figure is lower than that of tubes, so
> sensitivity is no problem at all. The old tube designs mostly used low
> final IF frequencies and L-C filters for selectivity; the crystal
> filters used in good modern designs are superior in most ways.
>
GUESS YOU NEVER SAW AN AR88---CRYSTAL FILTER
OR THE BC348,BC312,BC318,BC324-----ALL USED XTAL FILTERS
> More difficult is strong-signal handling. The aforementioned solid state
> receivers were terrible at it; one strong signal could make the things
> fold pretty badly. It was made even worse by the lack of front end
> selectivity, which was taken out in the interest of size and cost
> reduction. (Those multi-gang tuning capacitors are large and expensive.)
> However, the state of the art has improved since then; a good modern
> solid state design is at least the equal of a tube receiver in that way
> as well.
>
> And, of course, modern designs give you the conveniences of synthesized
> tuning, memories, and so forth. On the other hand, no modern design
> matches the feel of the big weighted tuning knobs of the boat anchor
> era. So it goes.
> The popular portable receivers, however, are still likely to be lacking
> in strong-signal performance when compared to a good boat-anchor. High
> receiver dynamic range generally means receiver circuits that use a lot
> of power; portable receivers are optimized for low power consumption,
> not the ultimate in performance.
>
--
Wes Stewart
|In article <3BE1652C...@buttery.org> , Mark Dulcey <ma...@buttery.org>
|wrote:
[snip]
|> Sensitivity and selectivity are relatively easy. Even relatively early
|> solid state designs (good ones from the 60s and early 70s) were the
|> equal or better of tube designs. It's easy to get lots of gain with
|> transistors, and their noise figure is lower than that of tubes, so
|> sensitivity is no problem at all. The old tube designs mostly used low
|> final IF frequencies and L-C filters for selectivity; the crystal
|> filters used in good modern designs are superior in most ways.
|>
|GUESS YOU NEVER SAW AN AR88---CRYSTAL FILTER
|OR THE BC348,BC312,BC318,BC324-----ALL USED XTAL FILTERS
Golly, Mark said, "Mostly used".
A BC-342 was my first radio, circa 1955. A friend talked me into trading the
'342 for a '348. Big mistake on my part. I since have reacquired three
BC-342s. I also once had an AR-88, several BC-348s and a Collins 75A-1. All of
them used single crystals in a bridge arrangement to offer decent CW selectivity
and the ability to null an interfering carrier on phone.
The skirt selectivity was abysmal, as was the ultimate rejection. The Collins
crystal case leaked and I was constantly taking the crystal out and cleaning off
the contaminants to get the Q back.
The crystal filters in those receivers were nothing like the modern lattice,
half-lattice or monolithic crystal filters. Not even close.
Wes Stewart N7WS
quasar
J'm Sm'th <mailto:smith...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3BE1D273...@sbcglobal.net....
know
| the 390 has an additional RF amplification stage, while the 390/A has
| mechanical filters. There are afficianados of both.
A simple solution.
Then one should own both.
| To the initial question, there are so many variables to design, that it
is a
| difficult question to answer. What might be really interesting is to have
a
| contest: someone build a state-of-the-art solid state rig, and someone
else
| build one with tubes. Keep the basic radio design the same:
single-conversion
| superhet. Design them to cover 49m SWBC band. Don't need fancy bells and
| whistles, just good basic receiver performance. Stick them in the lab and
test
| them. Stick aerials on them and *really* test them.
|
| This could be fun. . .
| --
| J'm
|
|
| To Reply Direct, Remove Clothes.
| ...-.-
|
Joe
Making these modern day radio sound gronky.
In the case of the R-390 it had L/C IF filter's, it's a totally different
sounding radio then the A model
Perhaps both SS and tube may be a good idea:
I believe it should have tube IF with L/C filters and class A push pull
audio with notch and EQ
Joe
JLB
> The problem with such a comparison is that you're comparing
> apples and oranges. A good tube radio is a good radio indeed.
> As is a good solid state radio. The solid state radio
> benefits from several decades of additional development,
> whereas tube radio performance peaked in the 1950s. If any
> performance difference is to be had, it is on the side of
> solid state - and please spare me the garbage about "warm
> tube sound" and similar nonsense. I don't care if my radios
> glow in the dark. I care how well they work.
>
I fully agree, Laura.
This has been an interesting thread, but I have noticed that most
people miss the main point. They are comparing technologies, not
proper receiver designs! You can build a good receiver with either.
My main point, which nobody has responded to yet, is that companies
seem to put more emphasis into dual VFOs, memory channels, computer
interfaces, etc. when they should be putting it into good solid RF
design.
Jim
N8EE
moe
be nice to have in one place and one continuous document, please email for
the MSWord document.
Regards to the group,
John Morris - WB0RLD
Mark Dulcey
>> The old tube designs mostly used low
>>final IF frequencies and L-C filters for selectivity; the crystal
>>filters used in good modern designs are superior in most ways.
>>
> GUESS YOU NEVER SAW AN AR88---CRYSTAL FILTER
> OR THE BC348,BC312,BC318,BC324-----ALL USED XTAL FILTERS
I said "mostly". I am aware that there are tube designs with crystal
filters, as well as the Collins radios with excellent mechanical
filters. And there are modern solid state radios with inferior solutions
such as ceramic filters. Still, the best of now is better than the best
of then - the state of the art of filter design has improved. (And the
worst of any era is terrible indeed.)
I also said "in most ways" advisedly. Many modern crystal filters have
poor time-domain response. This makes the radios sound bad in ways that
are hard to define, as well as potentially muddying high-speed data modes.
Bis Wichy
Non-military Hammarlund's HQ-180, SP-600, HQ-140X, HQ-129
> Still, the best of now is better than the best
> of then - the state of the art of filter design has improved. (And the
> worst of any era is terrible indeed.)
I disagree - I have a few of the "modern" good radios and I am NOT
impressed. I have replaced many of them with the above Hammarlunds.
Solid State is wonderful for a battery powered porta-ghetto SW sound
blaster... which is OK for most young people who don't know any better. Sony
2010 is good example - check out those tuning sounds!...chuff-chuff-chuff
DSP is only as good as the software in the chip (and some is pretty bad).
Tube equipment is hand assembled.
Solid state is robotically assembled on moving belt. "Techs" paid minimum
wage have 10 to 20 seconds to align and checkout each unit.
I could go on and on... but many of us already KNOW all this...
> I also said "in most ways" advisedly. Many modern crystal filters have
> poor time-domain response. This makes the radios sound bad in ways that
> are hard to define, as well as potentially muddying high-speed data modes.
I'll define it - the words "cheap" and "crappy" come immediately to mind.
That goes for the "Top End" equipment as well.
My HQ-120 runs rings around any Grundig or SONY SWBC RCVR I had in the past
4 years and it was made 64 years ago! I doubt if any of today's new solid
state rigs will be around 64 years from now. Which is YET another reason to
go tube!
I sold all my solid state stuff and went back to tubes...
Sign me...
Been there done that - got the solid state T-shirt... and gave it back.
Larry Gamache
wrote:
Another thing about modern radios that has nothing to do with
technology but might be important to some is the fact that they all
look like bedside clock radios. Not much styling in any of the modern
stuff.
--
Larry Gamache N2YMJ
Wes Stewart
|
|Solid state is robotically assembled on moving belt. "Techs" paid minimum
|wage have 10 to 20 seconds to align and checkout each unit.
|
Do you realize that all of those "smart weapons" that we are using in Afganistan
were all "robotically assembled" on a moving belt.
phil
the most places... tube or solid state.
phil :)
Pete Gianakopoulos
building now. Hours are Wednesdays from noon to five. I haven't been there
for around 6 months, but I hear it isn't too bad.
Pete
Dan Robinson <dar...@his.com> wrote in message
news:B80649FB.7158%dar...@his.com...
Pete Gianakopoulos
Pete
JLB <jim.bo...@lintek.aeroflex.com> wrote in message
news:8d5ec8a2.01110...@posting.google.com...
Your friend Bill
You may find this interesting...and a bit humourous.
http://www.clarion.org.au/crystalset/
and this...
http://personal.palouse.net/rfoltz/arci/arcitst.htm (although its
2-way, you gotta hear 'em to work 'em)
-Bill
Ted Peterson
technologies.
As just a general thing, I pretty much use SW for news, nothing
fancy.-- BBC, Deutsch Welle, Radio Netherlands, stuff like that. So
my requirements are basic and easily met with a bunch of radios. The
audio quality though, with some of the old sets is superior, with
large speakers and wooden cabinets and such.
Also, the basic tuning differences between analog and digital is
crucial --- I like analog tuning; simply that I can tune down into the
noise floor and hear weaker stations. That isn't possible with many
of the popular modern digital units.
I have a panasonic sw about the size of a pack of cards, clever. I
never seemed to use it much at all though, but my boatanchor gets a
workout daily. I disagree with the idea that sound quality doesn't
matter for short wave listening, with a good radio, fidelity is
actually pretty decent.
.
John Bartley
have an SX28, or an HQ170 / 180, or a Yaesu or Icom, but, IMHO, the best
sounding and best operating radio is the one which:::::
- we are happiest operating ourselves and
- we can afford without bankrupting our families and
- fits our personal application.
When I'm travelling, I take my Grundig YB400 with the windup antenna and
when I'm working in the basement, I use an RCA CR91A with a long wire, in
the garage I have a Howard model 430 with a long wire. All of them give me
pleasure, and I don't really care about someone elses lab measurements. The
radios are paid for and fit the applications I bought them for perfectly.
Just remember - unless it's a competition, it's only personal opinion -
there's no prize!
(just my .02)
--
*
Regards from ::
John Bartley
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada
http://nkacedsl.gta.igs.net:83
*
"Bis Wichy" <wd0...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:B808BA64.4649%wd0...@ev1.net...
> How about:
>
> Non-military Hammarlund's HQ-180, SP-600, HQ-140X, HQ-129
>
> > Still, the best of now is better than the best
> > of then - the state of the art of filter design has improved. (And the
> > worst of any era is terrible indeed.)
>
> I disagree - I have a few of the "modern" good radios and I am NOT
> impressed. I have replaced many of them with the above Hammarlunds.
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John Bartley
electronics is probably not up to that standard yet - but I'd try!!
--
*
Regards from ::
John Bartley
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada
http://nkacedsl.gta.igs.net:83
*
"phil" <ph...@phil.com> wrote in message
news:tu73nse...@corp.supernews.com...
Jimmy
I have had Solid State and tube, Heathkit, Hallicrafters etc. I don't
see any difference in reception except the solid state has more "bells
and whistles". I suppose if anyone has to ask the questions if they
had owned both it's a mute point. If you can't tell the difference by
ear..does'nt matter..
Telamon
tedpet...@aol.com (Ted Peterson) wrote:
Fidelity is important to me. I'm very happy with my Drake R8 and a
outboard speaker or the Sony studio monitor headphones I use with it.
--
Telamon
matt weber
>How about:
>
>Non-military Hammarlund's HQ-180, SP-600, HQ-140X, HQ-129
>
>> Still, the best of now is better than the best
>> of then - the state of the art of filter design has improved. (And the
>> worst of any era is terrible indeed.)
>
>I disagree - I have a few of the "modern" good radios and I am NOT
>impressed. I have replaced many of them with the above Hammarlunds.
>
ACtually there are a number of very good vacuum tube receivers, the
limitations on receivers from the early 1950's onward was atmospheric
noise, not electronics. Tube types that can hold their own agains the
best of the transistor units..
Drake 2 and 4 series, Collins A and S line products , the HQ180 just
to name a few. These receivers tended to have very large dynamic
range, excellent image rejection, a wide range of bandwidths and sharp
skirts.
The reality is most solid state receivers today are modeled after the
Drake 2 series.
These sets do have one other important advantage. They could take a
real beating at the antenna input and damage nothing.
Maximo Lachman
"Joe" (joe...@NOSPAMverizon.net) writes:
> Perhaps both SS and tube may be a good idea:
> I believe it should have tube IF with L/C filters and class A push pull
> audio with notch and EQ
> Joe
I'd rather have this the other way around: use a solid state autodyne
mixer (which needs no filtering) to feed a tube audio amplifier (with very
good filtering). Which should be as close as analog technology will ever
approach DSP receivers.
phil
thanks for the links friend :). especially interesting site at clarion.
phil :)
Joe
>Non-military Hammarlund's HQ-180, SP-600, HQ-140X, HQ-129
signals need tweaking every 5 minutes at best
Bis Wichy wrote in message ...
Wes Stewart
|Do you realize that only 12% hit their intended targets and of those barely
|50% are detonating?
Where do you get these numbers, from the Taliban?
For example, the TOW missile has been used by the US Army (and many foreign
governments) since 1970. The 100,000th missile was delivered in 1975. Since
that time at least another 250,000 have been built. Trust me, they were not
totally hand-soldered by master technicians. Tape-on-reel components and auto
insertion have been used almost from the beginning. Much of the hand assembly
was done by hourly laborers that were in some of the lower labor grades in the
factory. (This is not to disparage them, it's just the way it was)
A sample of missiles built 20 years ago and stored in a bunker without any
maintenance could be taken out and fired today and still exceed 95% success.
Mass produced, solid-state, no skilled technicians tweaking them. Guaranteed.
If you don't think this is possible, you pick a missile, any one you want and
you get in the tank and I'll shoot the missile. (I've seen them fired, but
never have done one before).
According to your numbers, you have a 94% chance of living. I think you have a
94% chance of dying. Want to take that chance?
I didn't think so.
Phil Nelson
news:bRXE7.13276$fc4.3068512465@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Fidelity is important to me.
Audio quality is important to me, too. That's why my "higher-fi" boatanchors
get used regularly, while others with roughly equal sensitivity/selectivity
gather dust. This has little to do with the original tube-vs-solid-state
question, however. If I pipe the output of my Grundig YB400 through a hi-fi
amp, the audio is plenty juicy.
Phil
phil
now comeon, you're being a little harsh on our beloved M-16... no wait its
jammed... that damn weak magazine spring... no the tube is fouled... this
&%!# unit doesn't have bolt assist. actually they fixed many of the
problems; however, i'd take a galil over one anyday.
phil :)
Jon Noring
>I'm not talking about TOW missiles (which we haven't used in Afghanistan
>yet). I'm talking about air and sea launched cruise missiles (42 out of 85
>failed to detonate when Clinton attacked Bin Laden's training camp. Two
>were intact enough to be sold to the Chinese for a GREAT deal of money)and
>laser guided bombs.
>
>[rest snipped]
Interesting as this topic is, what does this have to do with
tubes versus solid state for SW receivers? A prior poster in
this thread seemed to imply that solid state circuitry was
the reason that so many cruise missiles failed to detonate!
(which is ludicrous, bordering on the bizarre.)
I guess we need to replace all that solid-state circuitry
with vacuum tubes. Maybe our computers will run better if we
replaced the Pentium 4 with the equivalent number of vacuum
tubes? :^)
Tubes have their place, and solid state circuitry has its
place. I wish to know their respective places in high-end
SW receivers, not cruise missiles.
Jon Noring
>
>The GAO determined that only 12% of the guided bombs used in Desert Storm
>hit close enough to have ANY effect on their target. They didn't show those
>on the nightly network dog and pony shows. There hasn't been a whole lot of
>serious redesign done on these weapons during the Clinton years.
>
>They also determined that Patriot missiles were totally ineffective against
>SCUDS and only caused a slight increase in their targeting error. Not one
>of them detonated a SCUD warhead in flight or even deflected it's
>trajectory more than a few degrees. In fact, the Patriot missiles probably
>were responsible for the SCUDS causing greater "collateral damage" than the
>Iragis intended.
>
>The U.S. Government has always delivered shitty weapons systems (M-16 and
>M-60 for two good examples) to soldiers in the field who then had to make
>do with them as best they could. I'm a combat veteran and I know what I'm
>talking about here.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana (ebook) *** http://www.blueglasspublishing.com/
Peter Gottlieb
"Jon Noring" <nor...@olagrande.net> wrote in message
news:9s4ef5$2n7$1...@og1.olagrande.net...
>
> I guess we need to replace all that solid-state circuitry
> with vacuum tubes. Maybe our computers will run better if we
> replaced the Pentium 4 with the equivalent number of vacuum
> tubes? :^)
>
Then you don't need explosives, just dropping one of those would cause
severe damage!
Peter J. Bertini
provide a reasonable degree of image rejection at the higher frequencies for
most single-conversion designs.
Pete
"Jake Brodsky" <fru...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:u233utghrt16ikj70...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:26:06 +0000 (UTC), nor...@olagrande.net (Jon
> Noring) wrote:
>
> >"In terms of shortwave reception performance, which type of
> >electronics are inherently, and in actual real-world
> >receivers, better: tubes or solid-state?"
>
> Define "Better."
>
> Romance: Tube receivers have it. I like big heavy chassis filled with
> warm glowing tubes. They look neat.
>
> Dynamic Range: . One feature often overlooked is
> that because tubes are inherently high impedance devices, they often
> had some pretty effective stage to stage coupling selectivity. Thus
> dynamic range of tube gear is good, not because the active device is
> good, but because the tuned circuits from stage to stage were good.
>
> Jake Brodsky, AB3A mailto:fru...@erols.com
> "Beware of the massive impossible!"
GREY FOX
<wd5...@oklahoma.net> wrote:
> tube design has not advanced like solid state..
>
henry. tube design was very advanced--long before sorry state was thought
of
i'll bet none of the ham dx or ontest winners use a tube rx..
> just like fuel injection replaced carburetors, solid state has replaced
> hollow state..
> if i'm wrong i sure would like to know..
> but for your own satisfaction you can take the best tube rx you can find
> such as a Drake R4C or Collins 75S3C or any other tube rx and put it up
> against a Rx in a ham xcvr such as an IC 765 or Kenwood 940 and you'll have
> the answer..
> tubes like buggy whips and carburetors served their purpose and except for
> very unique cases are of historical interest..
> just as the best mechanical watch that costs thousands can't compare to a $5
> quartz in keeping time..
> but it has snob appeal, the rolex not the timex...
> good luck
> hank
> good luck..
> "Your friend Bill" <"See the reply to address and take out NO"@coqui.net>
> wrote in message news:3BE09B84...@coqui.net...
>> phil wrote:
>> >
>> > Jon:
>> >
>> > good question, unfortunately i do not know the answer; however, i too
> have
>> > wondered how an older set such as a Drake 1A would stack up against a
> Drake
>> > R8B. surfing the link below is what got me wondering...
>> > http://www.qsl.net/wa9wfa/ha00033.htm
>> >
>> > phil :)
>>
>> Not much contest, but the 1A was quite a good receiver in its day. Its
>> value nowadays is more its rarity.
>> Something like a R4-C, apart from the difference in coverage is likely a
>> better performer than the R8B in many respects.
>> -Bill
>>
>
>
--
Doug Smith
> i'll bet none of the ham dx or ontest winners use a tube rx..
I'm afraid you'd be wrong about that - while there are still a few
contesters using tube receivers (almost all the Drake R4C which is indeed an
excellent receiver) most are using solid-state gear.
In large part this is due to the convenience factor. There are no tube
receivers available which will automatically control the frequency of a
solid-state transmitter. Keeping the number of controls necessary to change
frequency to a minimum is critical in a contest station. Having separate
frequency-control knobs for receiver and transmitter is not acceptable. Nor
is having to re-resonate the tank circuits when changing bands - something
that's required with tube transmitters. Also, computer control of frequency
is quite important, a feature not available in tube sets.
There is no good reason someone couldn't *build* a solid-state transmitter
which could be controlled by a tube receiver, or add a frequency counter
with RS-232 interface to a tube receiver. Except that with the high cost of
small lots of parts, it's way too expensive. Even if one did have the time
and tools to do it.
Modern solid-state receivers do have very good performance, IMHO nearly as
good as the best tube sets. Factor in the operating advantages and the
tubes really don't have much of a chance.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
phil
detonated high in the atmosphere, one single nuclear explosion could take
out all IC electronics in this continent. vacuum tubes are /much/ more
resistant to EMP. wire plus radio wave equals induced current; however, when
that wire is the internal leads in an IC (very thin) and that radio wave is
from a nuclear explosion (very big) those leads act no different than fuses.
in '76 when the US found vacuum tubes in a defected Russian MIG 25 Foxbat
interceptor they were probably laughing... but they didn't laugh for long.
phil :)
Frank Dresser
>
http://www.fas.org/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/search/?db=db1&query=emp
Frank Dresser
phil
Jon's question appears to be whether there is a
sensitivity/selectivity/audio (as a package) advantage of tubes or
transistor in shortwave receiver design. since he is not talking about
memories, digital tuners (etc.), i would be inclined to say they were
INHERENTLY very similar. An EE could design similar units looking at the
basic receiver sections (rf amp, mixer (rf oscillator), if amp, detector,
and audio amp). now if we go on to talk about signal amplification via tubes
versus op amps (operational amplifier IC's) that is another story.
Jon also asked which was better in the REAL-WORLD: there i would have to say
solid-state because of SIZE. small size means more amplification units: for
example you would need over a dozen for even simple AGC designs... not to
mention hundreds of thousands of switching transistors for digital memories
etc.
Jon went on to ask which models were representative of these 'best' units...
a good start may be to look at the best Drake tube units of yester-year and
compare them to the best Drake solid-state units of today. here is a link
for the Drake museum:
http://www.dproducts.be/drake_museum/
Jon also wanted to know about current radios which have a good cost relative
to their performance, for this i provide this link:
http://www.rnw.nl/realradio/rx_current.html
my 5 cents (inflation),
phil :)
phil
much thanks for the link... its been a while since i read anything current
about it.
phil :)
Maximo Lachman
> Jon's question appears to be whether there is a
> sensitivity/selectivity/audio (as a package) advantage of tubes or
> transistor in shortwave receiver design. since he is not talking about
> memories, digital tuners (etc.), i would be inclined to say they were
> INHERENTLY very similar. An EE could design similar units looking at the
> basic receiver sections (rf amp, mixer (rf oscillator), if amp, detector,
An EE could design an autodyne mixer w/no filtering, directly producing
audio by using solid state, such as a PLL tuned to the carrier frequency,
that would not drift. It would be like exalted carrier SSB. Or are you
going to say that this could also be practical with tubes? Were there any
tube receivers with decent AFC?
> and audio amp). now if we go on to talk about signal amplification via tubes
> versus op amps (operational amplifier IC's) that is another story.
While solid state allows for inherently dissimilar alternative designs
not realistic for tubes, I'd rather not use solid state for amplification.
> Jon also asked which was better in the REAL-WORLD: there i would have to say
> solid-state because of SIZE. small size means more amplification units: for
> example you would need over a dozen for even simple AGC designs... not to
> mention hundreds of thousands of switching transistors for digital memories
> etc.
The etc. being DSP no doubt.
John Siegel
Doug Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 11:27:24 -0500, GREY FOX <parrfoo.@sympatico-ca> wrote:
> > i'll bet none of the ham dx or ontest winners use a tube rx..
>
> I'm afraid you'd be wrong about that - while there are still a few
> contesters using tube receivers (almost all the Drake R4C which is indeed an
> excellent receiver) most are using solid-state gear.
>
> In large part this is due to the convenience factor. There are no tube
> receivers available which will automatically control the frequency of a
> solid-state transmitter.
Too sweeping a statement. Certainly a tube receiver is not about to
control a modern synthesized rig. But what about older geat where a
common VFO frequency of 5-5.5MC was used?
Keeping the number of controls necessary to change
> frequency to a minimum is critical in a contest station. Having separate
> frequency-control knobs for receiver and transmitter is not acceptable. Nor
> is having to re-resonate the tank circuits when changing bands - something
> that's required with tube transmitters. Also, computer control of frequency
> is quite important, a feature not available in tube sets.
>
The above is again over generalized. For example, the CE200V was a
tube set that required no tuning.
The only tube in any of my gear is the CRT for the PC monitor.
73
John
phil
i was saying that amplification could be done with tubes or transistors with
basic designs; however, like you say its a matter of being practical because
of the size, power, etc. requirements.
you stated you would rather use tubes for amplification... a hybrid unit? it
appears the problem with some DSP units is that they rely too much on the
DSP as a fix for a poor front end or the DSP does not have good enough
resolution (bits).
phil :)
Jim Hall
wrote:
>"phil" (ph...@phil.com) writes:
>> Jon's question appears to be whether there is a
>> sensitivity/selectivity/audio (as a package) advantage of tubes or
>> transistor in shortwave receiver design. since he is not talking about
>> memories, digital tuners (etc.), i would be inclined to say they were
>> INHERENTLY very similar. An EE could design similar units looking at the
>> basic receiver sections (rf amp, mixer (rf oscillator), if amp, detector,
>
>An EE could design an autodyne mixer w/no filtering, directly producing
>audio by using solid state, such as a PLL tuned to the carrier frequency,
>that would not drift. It would be like exalted carrier SSB. Or are you
>going to say that this could also be practical with tubes? Were there any
>tube receivers with decent AFC?
I just restored a Philco 38-116 console for my Dad. I was surprised to
find it had a form of AFC that worked very well when aligned
correctly.
Maximo Lachman
"phil" (ph...@phil.com) writes:
> you stated you would rather use tubes for amplification... a hybrid unit? it
I'd prefer to have separate components, as much as possible, say:
1. computer for database & control
2. solid state autodyne mixer for direct conversion from ECssb to AF
3. tube amplifier w/ good filtering
> appears the problem with some DSP units is that they rely too much on the
> DSP as a fix for a poor front end or the DSP does not have good enough
> resolution (bits).
As for DSP units that simulate autodyne product detection and so are
either not doing a good enough job or wasting silicon, when the job could
be done better or simpler by a PLL providing the exalted carrier.
Dave
On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 14:26:22 -0600, J'm Sm'th
<smith...@sbcglobal.net.> wrote:
>matt weber wrote:
>>
>>
>> The reality is most solid state receivers today are modeled after the
>> Drake 2 series.
>>
>
>Sooooo, the Drake 2 series was upconverting? Sounds more like the TR7/R7.
>--
>J'm
>
>
>To Reply Direct, Remove Clothes.
>...-.-
>
ManKind
etc) followed by a solid state mixer and digital PLL VCO for tuning. Follow
that with solid state IF stages followed by DSP circuits and finally a tube
audio circuit :) That would be optimum.
ManKind
this purpose, If all the solid state stuff gets wiped out they dig up the boat
anchors :)
ManKind
and see what makes it so expensive. I have seen a $25k receiver but that's the
most expensive I've seen.
>
>Assuming you have a lot of money to spend then solid state wins every
>time. Most of us don't have radio budgets that start at $250K and go
>up from there. Not many of us ever see such radios let alone get a
>chance to use them.
ManKind
20 years ago when they were dirt cheap. Today they command a hefty price on
ebay :)
>Man, I miss the Collins surplus store !
>
>Picked up 25 mechanical filters for $ 30 back in 1983, sold them within
>the year - wish I had kept them. Then there was the offer from the old
>store manager to take 6 brand new 7 foot Bud equipment cabinets off of
>his hands for $ 100 bucks if I could get them out by Friday !
Your friend Bill
These things were never a good deal at the time because you could
"always find one cheaper".
-Bill
ManKind
Yup, hinesight is 20/20. Just like the stock market :)
Frank Dresser
>Date: 11/8/01 12:01 AM Central Standard Time
>
>I have heard that the military has a bunch of tube equipment buried just for
>this purpose, If all the solid state stuff gets wiped out they dig up the
>boat
>anchors :)
>
Don't know. They sure don't mind selling the surplus radios and repair parts.
I'm no expert on EMP, but I think the threat is way overstated. It's now well
known the 1962 STARFISH test caused power failures in Hawaii. You might also
think repair shops all around the Pacific would have been inexplicably swamped
with nearly new transistor radios. If this is part of EMP lore, I don't know
about it. Anyway, if EMP can burn out small bits of wire not hooked up to
something that will act as a larger antenna, what would happen to RF and IF
coils? Speakers? Light bulbs? Gotta wonder.
Frank Dresser
Eric F. Richards
> Take a look at where Johnston Atoll is. The only other places that might have
> experienced problems are Palmyra Atoll and maybe Kiribati. From the little
> research I've done on EMP, it is a *real* threat, although an unlikely one.
I don't know... I tend to lean in Frank's direction. From what I've
heard, the problem with Nuclear EMP is that it has a sharp rise time
(much faster than, say, a lightning-induced surge) and that it covers
a broad area all at once.
Following on that, an *isolated* receiver or computer (like your
battery powered rig with a good suppressor on the antenna input
along with your laptop disconnected from the rest of the world)
wouldn't be hurt. BUT, if you are tied to the power grid or the
phone lines, you'll be in a world of hurt.
Consider that if NEMP is like a lightning strike at a single point,
it really isn't all that big a deal; but if it is simultaneously
inducing currents in hundreds or thousands of miles of power and
phone lines, that's a serious spike!
On that note, if you really want to protect against the effects of
NEMP, you can get a suppressor from Polyphaser suitable to doing
so -- the IS-NEMP-C0 covers HF.
I actually bought an IS-NEMP-C1 for my 2m/440 rig in the car, and
it was rather amusing... the IS-NEMP-Cx series comes only with N
connectors unless you special order it. Calling Polyphaser, they
weren't about to do a production run of 1 for me, but had done a
run for a vendor of IS-NEMP-C1s with UHF connectors, and they had
some left over. So I called that vendor, and they tried just
about *everything* to talk me out of buying one!
"Why do you want an NEMP suppressor?"
"I storm spot and occasionally get too close to lightning for
comfort."
"But you really don't need an IS-NEMP-C1. You could use an
IS-B50LU-C1."
"How much is the IS-B50LU-C1?"
"$59.95."
"How much is the IS-NEMP-C1?"
"$99.95."
"I'll take the IS-NEMP-C1."
"...but you really don't *need* an IS-NEMP C1..."
And so on.
As it turns out, I did take a direct lightning strike some years
later. Did no damage to the car or electronics, but did fry the
front end FET on the rig -- nothing else. Yaesu replaced it, and
cleaned up all the splattered solder inside the rig without comment.
So why didn't the suppressor do its job? Instead of tying it directly
to the frame of the car, I used 4 inches of 10 ga. wire, which with
that kind of surge is a great inductor and allowed for thousands of
volts differential momentarily. Moral of the story: Even the best
suppressor won't work if you install it improperly.
(In case you hadn't noticed, I am a real fan of Polyphaser. Properly
installed, these can protect your equipment against direct strikes.
but it only takes a minor mistake to render all that protection
useless.)
Eric
--
Eric F. Richards, efr...@dimensional.com
"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940
Your friend Bill
>
> I have heard that the military has a bunch of tube equipment buried just for
> this purpose, If all the solid state stuff gets wiped out they dig up the boat
> anchors :)
They're buried allright. They plowed under hundreds of Collins KWM-2s
at the Charleston Navy Yard. Gonna be tough to refurb them, tho.
-Bill
matt weber
<smith...@sbcglobal.net.> wrote:
It generally wasn't the wires that got fried. It was PN junctions in
the semiconductor devices. While there isn't a lot of energy in an EMP
induced pulse, as long as the induced voltage exceeds the breakdown
voltage on the junction, the device is TOAST. So in general light
bulbs, speakers and other devices that can easily dissipate WATTS and
are generally low impedance are not going to be damaged, OTOH, device
that are high impedance and can be destroyed by microwatts will be
wiped out.
This is precisely what happened.
The power failures have a much more interesting cause, and in fact the
same mechanism cause the Great North East blackout in the Mid 1970's.
You have a very large transmission line network (effectively a huge
antenna). The EMP induces a large DC component into the network,
which when added to the AC component can take transformers into
saturation, and exceed current ratings on breakers, causing a variety
of trips. In realy very little damage was done to the Electric Grid,
just a lot of breakers had to be reset.
In the case of the Great North East Blackout, it was an Aurora that
induced the large DC component in a Canadian transmission line, which
when added to the AC component, causeda very large breaker to trip,
and the powers that be (pun intended) were so busy arguing about how
to deal with it instead of disconnecting that the overload simply ran
right down the transmission network....
One of the reason the telecom industry went to Fibre Optic, is that it
intrinisically EMP hardened.
>>
>> Frank Dresser
>
>Take a look at where Johnston Atoll is. The only other places that might have
>experienced problems are Palmyra Atoll and maybe Kiribati. From the little
>research I've done on EMP, it is a *real* threat, although an unlikely one.
>One source stated that the Sovs had scenarious drawn up whereby a 10 Megaton
>device would have been detonated 200-300 miles above the geographic center of
>the lower 48, which would have done the big whammy on everything not hardened
>to EMP. After which, they step back and say "Sure, we used a nuke, but nobody
>got hurt by radiation or fallout, so morally you really can't fire one on us".
>
>[yearright]
ManKind
Eric F. Richards
Don't laugh too hard... A friend of mine and I retrieved a military
receiver from similar conditions in a place where we had permission
to go after it... it looked horrible so I let my friend take it,
'cause I didn't have much hope. Well, after hosing it down and
cleaning the air filters, we found the interior to be pristine and
the receiver itself to be in complete working order!
The hardest part was getting the HN adapter to connect a proper
coax to the thing!
Since there are more rigs out there, my friend keeps suggesting
we go after them: "All we need is a case of beer and some shovels.
Some people will do anything for free beer."
Eric
--
Eric F. Richards
efr...@dimensional.com
"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert
Frank Dresser
>
>>Frank Dresser wrote:
>>> >
>>> Don't know. They sure don't mind selling the surplus radios and repair
>parts.
>>> I'm no expert on EMP, but I think the threat is way overstated. It's now
>well
>>> known the 1962 STARFISH test caused power failures in Hawaii. You might
>also
>>> think repair shops all around the Pacific would have been inexplicably
>swamped
>>> with nearly new transistor radios. If this is part of EMP lore, I don't
>know
>>> about it. Anyway, if EMP can burn out small bits of wire not hooked up to
>>> something that will act as a larger antenna, what would happen to RF and
>IF
>>> coils? Speakers? Light bulbs? Gotta wonder.
>It generally wasn't the wires that got fried. It was PN junctions in
>the semiconductor devices. While there isn't a lot of energy in an EMP
>induced pulse, as long as the induced voltage exceeds the breakdown
>voltage on the junction, the device is TOAST. So in general light
>bulbs, speakers and other devices that can easily dissipate WATTS and
>are generally low impedance are not going to be damaged, OTOH, device
>that are high impedance and can be destroyed by microwatts will be
>wiped out.
>
I was sorta replying in an obtuse way to a previous post about the fine wires
in IC's getting fried. I know all about destroyed PN junctions. I have
personally destroyed thousands of 'em :-(.
>This is precisely what happened.
I'm not sure what precisely happened. There must have been a large number of
semiconductor devices in the Pacific area, even back in '62, Were a large
percentage of them damaged? That would be strong evidence for the unaided
semiconductor killing power of EMP. It's my impression you need something to
collect the pulse like an antenna or the power lines.
>
>The power failures have a much more interesting cause, and in fact the
>same mechanism cause the Great North East blackout in the Mid 1970's.
>
>You have a very large transmission line network (effectively a huge
>antenna). The EMP induces a large DC component into the network,
>which when added to the AC component can take transformers into
>saturation, and exceed current ratings on breakers, causing a variety
>of trips. In realy very little damage was done to the Electric Grid,
>just a lot of breakers had to be reset.
>
>In the case of the Great North East Blackout, it was an Aurora that
>induced the large DC component in a Canadian transmission line, which
>when added to the AC component, causeda very large breaker to trip,
>and the powers that be (pun intended) were so busy arguing about how
>to deal with it instead of disconnecting that the overload simply ran
>right down the transmission network....
>
Makes perfect sense. I didn't make the connection between the blackout and the
EMP power failures. Thanks!
>One of the reason the telecom industry went to Fibre Optic, is that it
>intrinisically EMP hardened.
Bet they would ignore EMP if copper was really cheap and had huge bandwidth.
>>>
>>> Frank Dresser
>>
Eric F. Richards
>>
>> I don't know... I tend to lean in Frank's direction. From what I've
>> heard, the problem with Nuclear EMP is that it has a sharp rise time
>> (much faster than, say, a lightning-induced surge) and that it covers
>> a broad area all at once.
>>
>> Following on that, an *isolated* receiver or computer (like your
>> battery powered rig with a good suppressor on the antenna input
>> along with your laptop disconnected from the rest of the world)
>> wouldn't be hurt. BUT, if you are tied to the power grid or the
>> phone lines, you'll be in a world of hurt.
> It's not just the power grids and phone lines. The frequency output of HEMP or
> NEMP is from DC-to-daylight, so *anything* that will act like an antenna in
> that range [even semiconductor junctions] will get cooked.
IF they have a sufficiently long antenna (any conductor) attached. A
portable radio isn't gonna care.
>>
>> Consider that if NEMP is like a lightning strike at a single point,
>> it really isn't all that big a deal; but if it is simultaneously
>> inducing currents in hundreds or thousands of miles of power and
>> phone lines, that's a serious spike!
> I'm thinking a 10 megaton device is more than ". . .like a lightning strike".
A 10 megaton device at 100 miles altitude. Inverse-square law applies
to the energy released, and, frankly, compared to the energy being poured
into the atmosphere by the sun, a 10 megaton device is just a fart in a
hurricane.
The "lightning strike" comparison is valid for a short piece of wire.
For a power line, it's like that "lightning strike" occured near all
parts of the power line simultaneously, which is why NEMP is so deadly.
>>
>> On that note, if you really want to protect against the effects of
>> NEMP, you can get a suppressor from Polyphaser suitable to doing
>> so -- the IS-NEMP-C0 covers HF.
> The one thing you're forgetting here [when specifically talking about
> HEMP/NEMP] is shielding, and shielding is something most consumer electronic
> devices lack. The polyphaser suppresser might prevent things from getting in
> via the SO-239, but if the innards aren't well shielded, they're history, as I
> understand it.
I don't think that's an issue, because of the reasons stated above. If
you are talking about a single radio, it doesn't have enough surface
area to be a big NEMP antenna. Now if you are talking about a large
complex such as FEMA or a military facility operates, then you *do*
want shielding as good as TEMPEST-rated. The IS-NEMP-Cx series have
conductive weatherseal washers so that they can be used in that
environment.
(BUT, I could be completely wrong on all this. I don't claim to be
an expert, and the experts aren't talking. :-))
> --
> J'm
Eric F. Richards
> Um, actually, the experts *are* talking.
> http://www.fas.org/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/search/?db=db1&query=emp&submit=Go
Hmm, well, I've read a number of those sources before, although the
Army's Engineering Pamphlet looks like a good one I should read.
I'm downloading it now.
But you'll note that most of these sources refer to classified
documents when it comes to details of EMP effects. The EP does
as well, but there may be enough info there to keep me reading
and thinking for a while...
Eric F. Richards
> In article <gdpnutsmg9qhcdjfg...@4ax.com>, dated Fri, 09 Nov 2001 07:23:39 -0700, Eric
> F. Richards wrote:
>>Since there are more rigs out there, my friend keeps suggesting
>>we go after them: "All we need is a case of beer and some shovels.
>>Some people will do anything for free beer."
>>
>>Eric
> Hey, I'll bring the beer.
> I don't drink, but I'll do anything for a free Collins!
Alas, that was in the Pre-Sep-11 world, and the rules have changed since
then. Such things may be possible next year, but this year, people
are just too far on edge to let a bunch o' bozos with beer and shovels
head out there.
...just one more thing the bastards took from us...
> 73,
> Jack
> N2HQC
> --
> REAL radios glow in the dark.
G. Beat
readouts !
gb
"tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZahE7.506$aR3....@nntp2.onemain.com...
>
> redrum wrote in message ...
> >Not again! Well, IMO, tubes allow for a greater audio range.
>
> Audio quality is hardly consderation in SW reception.
>
> > But
> >compared to modern day solid state equipment, they fall short.
>
> In what ways?
>
> > In the
> >old days, you basically had to guess where to tune on the dial for a
> >station.
>
> We had digital readout on many receivers, like the r390 and r390a, and
> calibrators. And one could always hang a solid state digital readout on
the
> thing.
>
> > Thanks to PLL and digital tuning,
>
> Again these things have litttle to do with RF amps, local ocsillators, IF
> amps, converters and the like.
>
> I prefer that tubes in the RF circuits.
>
> Hands down.
>
> > you don't have to anymore.
> >Although you conceivably COULD add a digital freq readout to your old
> >tube set.
>
> Many have and still do.
>
> And retain those low noise rf sections.
>
> > Miniaturization adds a lot of stuff that the old tube sets
> >couldn't have.
>
> Like noise.
>
> >If 1 tube =1 transistor, then just the amount of
> >transistors in a modern set gives it an edge, not counting the
> >microchips in there too.
>
> I don't see any reality in this argument. Plus a lot of this circuitry
has
> to do with non-rf sections of the receiver.
>
> And nothing like those mechanical filters!
>
> > The bad part is that concievably a modern rx
> >could have more trouble with power spikes and such, but that is
> >outweighed by the pluses.
> >
> >
> >In article <9rq1ae$la4$1...@og1.olagrande.net>, nor...@olagrande.net
> >says...
> >>
> >>I admit that the question I will pose is open-ended and may
> >>not have a clear-cut answer. And answers may likely include
> >>the phrase "Depends on...".
> >>
> >>Nevertheless, let me pose it:
> >>
> >>"In terms of shortwave reception performance, which type of
> >>electronics are inherently, and in actual real-world
> >>receivers, better: tubes or solid-state?"
> >>
> >>
> >>When I refer to "shortwave reception", I mean all forms of
> >>reception (AM, sideband) from the 500khz to 30mhz, and for
> >>all forms/types of broadcasts (ham, international broadcast,
> >>etc.)
> >>
> >>When I refer to "performance", I mean the ability to pull in
> >>very weak signals and to reduce interference from adjacent
> >>stronger signals. E.g., sensitivity and selectivity. Also,
> >>delivered sound quality is important for understandability,
> >>and comes under this question if it can't be separated from
> >>the receiving circuitry. There may be other benchmarks as
> >>well which are important but I haven't mentioned.
> >>
> >>Of course, there's the possibility of hybrid circuits, using
> >>a combination of vacuum tubes and solid state devices (such
> >>as transistors).
> >>
> >>I'd like to know what makes/models of radio(s) throughout
> >>radio history up to the present are representative of this
> >>'best', or close to it. Also, I and others would like to
> >>know which "budget" radios of today come closest to the
> >>'best' performance.
> >>
> >>I look forward to the discussion and to learn a lot from it.
> >>
> >>Thanks.
> >>
> >>Jon Noring
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >-
> >>Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana (ebook) ***
> >http://www.blueglasspublishing.com/
> >>
> >
> >
>
>