Best HF Receiver

[Token]

Why are people recommending old boat anchor receivers that are well past their prime ? The OP said a portable HF was an option so I would suggest a Tecsun PL-880 or Sangean ATS-909X2.

The OP said "best HF" and "would prefer a desktop". Not all of the desktops being discussed are boat anchors (traditionally, "boat anchor" refers to a tube radio), but even so, a well maintained, good quality, "boat anchor" (of whatever definition) will outperform both of the portables you mention in almost every quantifiable way (and yes, I do own both of them).

Don't get me wrong, several of the current generation of portables punch well above their weight. They bring very good performance, sometimes at moderate pricing. The 909X (when paired with a decent antenna) is my favorite portable. But give me the option of ANY of the current portables on the market vs a good working Kenwood R5000, and I will take the R5000/JRC 5x5/R72/75 any time that an external antenna is available and size / weight are not the primary driving factors.

For that matter, I will take many a true boat anchor (tube type radio) over most portables, if a good external antenna is an option. A Drake R4B (with the right synth VFO), Hammarlund HQ-180A or HQ-200, Hallicrafters SX-100 or SX-122, all of these can be excellent performers, even at 60+ years old. But move into the solid state era, and the field busts wide open.

T!

 

[kc2asb]

The OP said "best HF" and "would prefer a desktop". Not all of the desktops being discussed are boat anchors (traditionally, "boat anchor" refers to a tube radio), but even so, a well maintained, good quality, "boat anchor" (of whatever definition) will outperform both of the portables you mention in almost every quantifiable way (and yes, I do own both of them).

Agreed. The desktop receivers recommended in this thread will certainly outperform the portables that were recommended.

When you see one of these receivers, (and pick one up) it becomes very clear why they are called "boat anchors". When I carried my HQ-129X into the shack, it was a bit of a workout. The HQ-180 (below) is widely considered one of the best "hollow state" receivers.

 

[dlwtrunked]

Agreed. The desktop receivers recommended in this thread will certainly outperform the portables that were recommended.

When you see one of these receivers, (and pick one up) it becomes very clear why they are called "boat anchors". When I carried my HQ-129X into the shack, it was a bit of a workout. The HQ-180 (below) is widely considered one of the best "hollow state" receivers.


View attachment 190213

When one says "outperform" one needs to say in what way, but, in general, I do not disagree with you. although SDR's were eliminated just by being SDRs, they will beat all mentioned in trying to find signals and in many cases measure the frequency more accurately. By the way, I have a R8600 (paid ~$2000), R9500 (paid ~$9000), and Discovery HF+ (paid ~$200, add in PC cost) at the PC and you can guess which I almost always use for HF (hint, I paid the least for it .

 

[RufusDawes]

Yaesuu FRG-7, great receiver, what I like best is that if it breaks parts are still available and easy to fix... lots of mods documented online, I like mine a lot and a lot of fun to use... you actually have to tune in the signal and not let a chip do it for you.

Kenwood R-5000, I own and like as well, and similar thoughts as to the Frog. Similar sensitivity to the FRG-7 but a little better selectivity, although the Frog sounds much better to me.

I recommend and ebay seller bigapple59, very knowlegable ham who backs up his products and radios I have bought from him are always better than described.

JRC made a great radio, but if the display dies you now own a very nice door stop.

 

[Token]

Yaesuu FRG-7, great receiver, what I like best is that if it breaks parts are still available and easy to fix... lots of mods documented online, I like mine a lot and a lot of fun to use... you actually have to tune in the signal and not let a chip do it for you.

Kenwood R-5000, I own and like as well, and similar thoughts as to the Frog. Similar sensitivity to the FRG-7 but a little better selectivity, although the Frog sounds much better to me.

I am going to disagree here on the FRG-7, I do not think it was a "great" receiver. Note that I am not calling it a bad receiver at all, it is quite good, but does not rise to the level of great. I have owned several, including the Summerkamp and Sears versions, and bought one new in 1978. I still own an FRG-7 today, and like using it, but do not consider it one of my better receivers.

Many people do consider this a "great" receiver. And for the day, at the price point, it was good indeed.

But, quantifiably, talking about things that can be measured vs gut feel:

The sensitivity was acceptable, but not particularly good (spec was 0.7 uV on SSB @ 10 dB SN in the HF range). The selectivity (out of the box) was OK, but kind of middle of the road. After market mods helped this a lot. Image rejection was good (triple conversion can do that for you) but not any better than many other radios using similar techniques. Frequency accuracy and granularity were OK, but not great (10 kHz markings, any frequency resolution beyond that was interpolation). Again, the after market could take care of this shortcoming.

So it kind of depended on what you used the radio for. For typical SWL and monitoring SW BC stations it ticked all the boxes. It did not excel at any of them but for a reasonable price it it put them all together in a nice package. But for other uses, utility monitoring or things like that, it came up a little short.

So it is all point of view, and application, on whether the -7 was great or merely just good.

JRC made a great radio, but if the display dies you now own a very nice door stop.

This can be said for almost any early radio with a digital display, or current radios a few years down the line. Most of the earlier digital radios are now very difficult to get the display or display drivers for. Using your R-5000 as an example, if the uPD6300C display driver fails it is a door stop, and that part has not been made for years. You can still find them on the used or NOS market (like the JRC parts). In the case of the uPD7800G CPU not only will you have to find the part, but also an image of the ROM / programming.

It just is an issue with older radios, no matter how good they are. Eventually hey will fail, and they will need parts, and some of those parts may be unobtanium.

T!

 

[kc2asb]

It just is an issue with older radios, no matter how good they are. Eventually hey will fail, and they will need parts, and some of those parts may be unobtanium.

T!

That is another nice aspect of the boat anchor / tube receivers - they can pretty much be repaired/renovated indefinitely with readily available parts. No exotic IC's to source.

 

[RufusDawes]

It just is an issue with older radios, no matter how good they are. Eventually hey will fail, and they will need parts, and some of those parts may be unobtanium.

T!

For me this is the most significant issue today in buying a vintage desktop receiver, can you restore it when it breaks? This year I bought the Kenwood R5000, initially I was going to buy the JRC NRD525... however, after looking into it a lot more, the Kenwood seems to have a better supply of replacement parts than the JRC, so I went with the Kenwood. I am happy with the purchase. It has its issues, like the PLL circuit goop causing failure, or the double key, but there is a lot of research online on how to repair it. The R5000 has a good long term track record. With the JRC not so much, aftermarket parts didnt seem as easy to obtain, and the display failures are much more common than with the R5000, with not many out there floating around the after market. For me, there was too much risk with the JRC.

In this context the Frog is an excellent radio today, replacement parts seem to be abundant, and so far it has been a fairly easy radio to maintain and mod. YMMV. The Frog remains an excellent performer today, despite its lack of higher end selectivity controls. This can be mitigated somewhat in how it is tuned, and modded, and this can narrow that gap somewhat. I haven't done much with the Kenwood yet in terms of restoration, but it seems to be a little more complicated to work on than the Frog. The R5000 works great right now, I did add an external DC connection to it and that was a good mod. There are a handful of other mods I will complete this Winter.

 

[kc2asb]

For me this is the most significant issue today in buying a vintage desktop receiver, can you restore it when it breaks? This year I bought the Kenwood R5000, initially I was going to buy the JRC NRD525... however, after looking into it a lot more, the Kenwood seems to have a better supply of replacement parts than the JRC, so I went with the Kenwood. I am happy with the purchase. It has its issues, like the PLL circuit goop causing failure, or the double key, but there is a lot of research online on how to repair it. The R5000 has a good long term track record. With the JRC not so much, aftermarket parts didnt seem as easy to obtain, and the display failures are much more common than with the R5000, with not many out there floating around the after market. For me, there was too much risk with the JRC.

Knock on wood, occasional keyboard bounce is the only issue I've experienced with my R-5000. So far, no issues with the NRD-525. Granted, I use them like vintage receivers, ie somewhat sparingly/in rotation, opting to use the R-75 and FRG-7 regularly.

In this context the Frog is an excellent radio today, replacement parts seem to be abundant, and so far it has been a fairly easy radio to maintain and mod. YMMV. The Frog remains an excellent performer today, despite its lack of higher end selectivity controls. This can be mitigated somewhat in how it is tuned, and modded, and this can narrow that gap somewhat.

+1 on the FRG-7. Granted, selectivity could be better, but the sensitivity seems as good as any of my other desktop receivers. I purchased my first Frog about 8-9 years ago. The Wadley Loop tuning takes a bit to get used to, but it seems to be resistant to images. The tuning dial precision is excellent for an analog receiver. Reliability on these seems to be excellent.

 

[RufusDawes]

Agreed. The desktop receivers recommended in this thread will certainly outperform the portables that were recommended.

When you see one of these receivers, (and pick one up) it becomes very clear why they are called "boat anchors". When I carried my HQ-129X into the shack, it was a bit of a workout. The HQ-180 (below) is widely considered one of the best "hollow state" receivers.


View attachment 190213

A Hammerlund is next on my list... from what I know the SP600 is highly sought after, but finding one in good condition cost more than I want to pay... in your opinion, what are some of the best Hammerlund receiver models after the SP600?

 

[kg4ehv]

I started out with a HQ-110A, it was nice to put your hands on top of it after working outside in the cold while listening to it.

 

[kc2asb]

A Hammerlund is next on my list... from what I know the SP600 is highly sought after, but finding one in good condition cost more than I want to pay... in your opinion, what are some of the best Hammerlund receiver models after the SP600?

I've only had experience with a couple of Hammarlunds, an HQ-145 and HQ-129X.

After the SP-600 , the HQ-180 is a very highly regarded model. Even well into the 1990's / 2000's, many serious DX'ers were still using them.

I was not impressed by the HQ-145 during the short time I owned one. The sensitivity seemed to be lacking, but it's possible mine needed the electroylytics replaced.

I love my HQ-129X. It's one of the best receivers I have used for MW/AM broadcast DXing, which include a Drake R8/R8B. It's very sensitive, but does not overload, has excellent selectivity from the crystal filter, and can receive SSB using the BFO. Mine is still running on the original electrolytics. I can imagine the performance boost if it was recapped and aligned. My cousin and I played with this radio when we were kids in the late 80's and it has not had any servicing since then, and likely long before that time. It has been in the family since new.

The HQ-129X was introduced in 1946, so the earliest models are pushing 80 years old. The early HQ-129's can be spotted by "Hammarlund" and "HQ-129X" in red lettering.

The HQ-129X seems to sell for reasonable prices on Ebay, around $200 +/-. Expect a fully aligned and recapped receiver to sell for a premium. (image from RigPix.com)

 

[n3tgy]

Old available Ham Transceivers or a 'desktop SDR's might be what you'd like?
....
if you've got tight budget why not get a ham transceiver ? I've got 2 Kenwood TS-850s' , they have all of their filters installed ( filters cost me big bux back when the rigs were new in the early 1990s. I re capped everything and put a new carrier board into the worst of of the two. they both have excellent receivers in them. each is worth only around $300 - the work and parts I put into them cost more than they are physically worth. I rebuilt them out of love for my best friend who became a SK at the age of 49 . we bought these radios new , I gave him mine decades ago, but when he passed , his wife asked if I wanted them. I rebuilt them like new. so they are worth a fortune to me. but what I'm saying is is that older but totally capable radios are out there and are far less money than dedicated desktop receivers.

I totally understand that some folks just like a radio that has knobs and buttons, they are really cool and fun. but me being an old school radio op. I've really embraced SDR's I have several dongle types but , I've recently wanted a 'desktop type' SDR , so saved up and bought two of them, one is a Yaesu FT-710 transceiver and I bought an SDRplay RSPdx-R2 receiver - initially I bought the RSPdx-R2 to run as an ancillary outboard receiver to do panadapter duty on my beloved Yaesu FTdx 3000d because I dislike the scope on the 3k ( being spoiled by the FT 710s scope) wow! that little SDR has made radio fun for me again. since it has 3 antenna ports on it , one is attached to my FTdx3k's RX output port , the others I have a 'snake ' RX antenna slightly elevated from the earth a few half a meter up, and also I have a magnetic loop. all for just RX on ham bands. the two receivers really compliment each other. supercharged that older rig . I also have an experiment set of lines to play around and test different antennas, but I've really enjoyed dabbling around with the UHF stuff as well as the LF and VLF stuff ( something I would have never thought I'd have any interest in) the SDR's have been so versatile and adds a lot of fun.

so, maybe look into some old ham transceivers with a general coverage RX built in or try one of these SDR's , with SDR's my radio bench doesn't have to be cluttered up with different radios etc. I know they don't have the radio look, but they really are a lot of fun. you can have an entire radio room worth of gear with nothing more than a laptop, a box that fits in your hand, and coax and some wire. well under budget . BTW, the dongles can be a bit frustrating to learn and use - at first , but my RSPdx-R2 was less than $250 at HRO and, I run SDRuno and Connect with it -with my cranky I7 windows 11 shack computer without any issues. -- sometime in the future I think SDR's will be built into the antenna and we'll be able to connect via smartphone direct . who knows.

 

[Token]

A Hammerlund is next on my list... from what I know the SP600 is highly sought after, but finding one in good condition cost more than I want to pay... in your opinion, what are some of the best Hammerlund receiver models after the SP600?

The HQ-180.

While not the Cadillac that the SP600 is, the HQ-180 is still very good, and it is much easier to maintain. There are only a few (I think 3 or 4?) electrolytic caps that will at some point need replacing, the rest of the caps, for the most part, are discs and those discs generally last a long time. The HQ-180 has nothing like the turret of the SP600. If you ever have to get into the turret of a -600 that is just a pure pain in the butt.

The HQ-145x is also pretty good, and generally less expensive than the HQ-180. The HQ-100, 110, etc are entry level, and while better than something like the DX-160 they are still entry level, with all the issues that come with lower costs and simpler design. The HQ-129x is "better" entry level, but still on that end of the scale with the other end of the scale (at the time of introduction) being the SPC-400x.

T!

 

[Token]

For me this is the most significant issue today in buying a vintage desktop receiver, can you restore it when it breaks? This year I bought the Kenwood R5000, initially I was going to buy the JRC NRD525... however, after looking into it a lot more, the Kenwood seems to have a better supply of replacement parts than the JRC, so I went with the Kenwood. I am happy with the purchase. It has its issues, like the PLL circuit goop causing failure, or the double key, but there is a lot of research online on how to repair it. The R5000 has a good long term track record. With the JRC not so much, aftermarket parts didnt seem as easy to obtain, and the display failures are much more common than with the R5000, with not many out there floating around the after market. For me, there was too much risk with the JRC.

In this context the Frog is an excellent radio today, replacement parts seem to be abundant, and so far it has been a fairly easy radio to maintain and mod. YMMV. The Frog remains an excellent performer today, despite its lack of higher end selectivity controls. This can be mitigated somewhat in how it is tuned, and modded, and this can narrow that gap somewhat. I haven't done much with the Kenwood yet in terms of restoration, but it seems to be a little more complicated to work on than the Frog. The R5000 works great right now, I did add an external DC connection to it and that was a good mod. There are a handful of other mods I will complete this Winter.

I think a lot of that comes down to market penetration. There were probably just more R5000's sold than NRD5x5's, so NOS and / or used parts are easier to come by. Also I suspect the cost difference in the radios on the used market drives parts availability. An NRD5x5 generally sells for multiples of the price of an equal condition R5000, so I suspect people are slower to part them out.

T!

 

[prcguy]

I've only had experience with a couple of Hammarlunds, an HQ-145 and HQ-129X.

After the SP-600 , the HQ-180 is a very highly regarded model. Even well into the 1990's / 2000's, many serious DX'ers were still using them.

I was not impressed by the HQ-145 during the short time I owned one. The sensitivity seemed to be lacking, but it's possible mine needed the electroylytics replaced.

I love my HQ-129X. It's one of the best receivers I have used for MW/AM broadcast DXing, which include a Drake R8/R8B. It's very sensitive, but does not overload, has excellent selectivity from the crystal filter, and can receive SSB using the BFO. Mine is still running on the original electrolytics. I can imagine the performance boost if it was recapped and aligned. My cousin and I played with this radio when we were kids in the late 80's and it has not had any servicing since then, and likely long before that time. It has been in the family since new.

The HQ-129X was introduced in 1946, so the earliest models are pushing 80 years old. The early HQ-129's can be spotted by "Hammarlund" and "HQ-129X" in red lettering.

The HQ-129X seems to sell for reasonable prices on Ebay, around $200 +/-. Expect a fully aligned and recapped receiver to sell for a premium. (image from RigPix.com)

View attachment 190477

Most of the old tube Hallicrafters and Hammerlund receivers had low frequency IFs with simple LC tuned IF filters. I had an SP600 JX17 and while it was nice its specs are pretty bad compared to a modern receiver with crystal or mechanical IF filters.

If you look on Rob Sherwood's site most of the older Collins, Drake, etc, receivers are near the bottom of the list. One of the few that meet reasonable specs is the R-390 but that is a nightmare of cascaded track tuned circuits in a tube radio.

 

[kc2asb]

Most of the old tube Hallicrafters and Hammerlund receivers had low frequency IFs with simple LC tuned IF filters. I had an SP600 JX17 and while it was nice its specs are pretty bad compared to a modern receiver with crystal or mechanical IF filters.

Thanks for the information. Admittedly, I'm not overly familiar with the design of the HQ-129X. I recall reading on Eham and radio restoration sites that it is equipped with a crystal filter. I will double-check my information.

 

[Token]

Most of the old tube Hallicrafters and Hammerlund receivers had low frequency IFs with simple LC tuned IF filters. I had an SP600 JX17 and while it was nice its specs are pretty bad compared to a modern receiver with crystal or mechanical IF filters.

If you look on Rob Sherwood's site most of the older Collins, Drake, etc, receivers are near the bottom of the list. One of the few that meet reasonable specs is the R-390 but that is a nightmare of cascaded track tuned circuits in a tube radio.

But, it is important to remember that that list is sorted by third order dynamic range narrow spaced. Or, (if I remember right), dynamic range at 2 kHz spacing. So when you say "specs are pretty bad compared to a modern receiver with crystal or mechanical IF filters" you really have to indicate which specs you mean. Sensitivity, phase noise, noise floor, image rejection, etc, can be very good in those older radios.

But yes, anyone who expects a 70 year old radio to keep up with todays top end radios on the bench is going to be disappointed. That does not, however, mean that such radios can not deliver good performance under many conditions. If your goal is contesting, or performance with QRM sources very close to the frequency you are trying to monitor, then a new, probably SDR based, radio is the only way to fly.

Yes, LC based filters were common, especially at the lower price points. But, many Hallicrafters and Hammarlunds (and other brands) did indeed use crystal filters. For example, in the Hallicrafters line if the model starts with "SX" (vs "S") the "X" in the model number indicates a crystal filter. The Hammarlund HQ-180 used a crystal filter in the 3035 kHz IF (with LC filters at the 60 kHz IF). The HQ-145 also used a crystal filter, but I think it was at the 455 kHz IF. I remember there were other Hammarlunds with crystal filters, but don't remember which models those were.

T!

 

[prcguy]

But, it is important to remember that that list is sorted by third order dynamic range narrow spaced. Or, (if I remember right), dynamic range at 2 kHz spacing. So when you say "specs are pretty bad compared to a modern receiver with crystal or mechanical IF filters" you really have to indicate which specs you mean. Sensitivity, phase noise, noise floor, image rejection, etc, can be very good in those older radios.

But yes, anyone who expects a 70 year old radio to keep up with todays top end radios on the bench is going to be disappointed. That does not, however, mean that such radios can not deliver good performance under many conditions. If your goal is contesting, or performance with QRM sources very close to the frequency you are trying to monitor, then a new, probably SDR based, radio is the only way to fly.

Yes, LC based filters were common, especially at the lower price points. But, many Hallicrafters and Hammarlunds (and other brands) did indeed use crystal filters. For example, in the Hallicrafters line if the model starts with "SX" (vs "S") the "X" in the model number indicates a crystal filter. The Hammarlund HQ-180 used a crystal filter in the 3035 kHz IF (with LC filters at the 60 kHz IF). The HQ-145 also used a crystal filter, but I think it was at the 455 kHz IF. I remember there were other Hammarlunds with crystal filters, but don't remember which models those were.

T!

I agree, but most of the older tube receivers were designed for AM reception with a BFO for CW and crude SSB reception. When receiving SSB the IF BW might be 6-10KHz where a modern SSB receiver might have 1.8-3KHz IF BW. I see the older tube receivers ok for casual SSB reception but not ideal on a busy band.

 

[kc2asb]

I agree, but most of the older tube receivers were designed for AM reception with a BFO for CW and crude SSB reception. When receiving SSB the IF BW might be 6-10KHz where a modern SSB receiver might have 1.8-3KHz IF BW. I see the older tube receivers ok for casual SSB reception but not ideal on a busy band.

Agreed. Generally, the pre-SSB tube receivers are not well suited to SSB reception. My HQ-129X has a 5 position switch for the bandpass filter, which is fine for CW and AM. However, the various positions are either too wide or too narrow, but it does work. During a contest weekend when stations are 2 kcs apart, forget it.

I did own a 60's vintage Drake 2-C years ago. It worked quite well on SSB, but it was 60's vintage and designed for SSB reception.

 

[Token]

I agree, but most of the older tube receivers were designed for AM reception with a BFO for CW and crude SSB reception. When receiving SSB the IF BW might be 6-10KHz where a modern SSB receiver might have 1.8-3KHz IF BW. I see the older tube receivers ok for casual SSB reception but not ideal on a busy band.

More directly than that, many of these old radios being discussed were built before SSB was in common use. The BFO is / was there for CW, and after SSB became a thing it happened to work OK for SSB. Although ham radio experimentation with SSB took off in the late 1940's, it remained uncommon for quite a while. Some later tube receivers optimized for SSB, but relatively few (until the early 1960's) were designed with SSB in mind from day one. Hallicrafters did not market its first SSB capable transmitter until the mid 1950's, and SSB was a minority of use until the early / mid 1960's.

The radio makers that were primarily hobby driven were late to the SSB thing, while radio makers that were military / commercial driven embraced it a little earlier, but still not much before the mid / late 1950's.

Especially in the days before transceivers, when sperate transmitters and receivers were the norm, the hobby receiver makers were mostly driven by the ham market and ham technologies. Sure, SWL and basic listening was a thing, and specific ham vs general coverage receivers were also a thing, but radio marketing was largely dual purpose. For the most part even radios targeting the general listening market had ham features, i.e. supporting popular ham modes and a bandspread that was tailored for ham use. A few radios, mostly, but not always, lower end, were SWL / general listening specific, but from a marketing perspective it just made sense to put ham features on everything.

The short of it is, unless you are looking at a communications receiver from the mid / late 1960's and later it probably was not really designed to do SSB, it just happened to be able to do it. So, in regards to hobby oriented (vs professional) tube radios, boat anchors, there are relatively few really good SSB receivers. By the time SSB was main stream transistors were just around the corner. There are a few late receivers that fit this description, such as the HQ-145x, HQ-180, SX-100, or SX-122.

That is not to say those early radios are necessarily bad at SSB (although some of them are really bad at it), they just are not as good as later radios are.

T!