After my initial tests with my BC-348Q military receiver, I wanted to move the rig into the library. My favorite chair in the library is next to a bookcase, and I have already cleaned off one shelf and have had my Hallicrafters SX-130 in place, and I've been listening to it for months.
We have six or seven big bookcases — all packed with books — so clearing a second shelf presented something of a challenge. But I was motivated to make room for the BC-348Q, and ended up doubling up smaller paperbacks on a bottom shelf and tossing some books that I've held onto and never read once, much less re-read.
About midnight I moved the Q to its new berth. It's a compact receiver, and is actually not as wide a rig as the Hallicrafters SX-130 below it. The antenna connections on the 348 are on the lower-left corner of the front panel, so attaching an antenna was just an alligator clip away.
Speaking of antenna … I bought a couple hundred feet of electric fence wire. I have the wire exiting the window behind my wingback listening chair, then up the exterior wall to an insulator outside the second floor bedroom window outside Elijah's bedroom. From that insulator, the wire extends over to my barn, which is about 50 feet. My original plan was to put a pole on the far side of the barn (the barn is 75 feet long!), which would give me more wire in the air. The shorter antenna has performed pretty well, so I've not been motivated to change it, hi!
I'm not sure what my wife will say with the overnight addition of yet another ham rig in the library, but it looks neat and tidy, so that will help ease her concerns (here's hoping!).
With both receivers in place, the question that came to my mind was “how does the old 348 compare to the SX-130?”
The truth? Painful as it is, here goes — there's no comparison … the 348 outperforms the SX-130 in most areas.
You read it correctly — the old 8-tube, single conversion superhet WWII remnant does an admirable job on AM, CW and even SSB — all without a product detector.
In side-by-side tests, the 348 simply was more sensitive and stable. It was not affected by hand capacity, which affects the SX-130. Part of the difference was simply in mechanical construction: the 348 was built to fly aboard military transports and bombers, so it was built for extreme service.
Admittedly, the only monitoring I've done with the 348 is SWL'ing under 14 MHz and 75/80 and 40 meter hamming, but it works surprisingly well. The area where the SX-130 has a leg-up is on crystal filtering. The 348 has a crystal filter intended for use on CW. The “X” designation on Hallicrafters receivers denotes the receiver is equipped with a crystal filter, which is why some 1940s and 50s designs were essentially the same, just with and without crystal filters.
Of course, while the 348 does a very good job for what it is, I think this side-by-side test proves mostly that the SX-130 could use an alignment and some tube checking. I bought an old MFJ 941 antenna tuner (one of the early ones with the antenna switch in the back!) for use to help tune the receiving antenna for better performance. This should improve reception on both the 348 and the SX-130.
The 348 has probably been aligned and worked on over the years compared to the SX-130; it has mostly original Hallicrafters tubes — none of which I've checked — so there may well be some performance gains waiting on me to take action.
The one thing the BC-348Q is missing is the AM broadcast band. It's equipped with VLF and then MF starting at 1600 kHz.
I better go fire up the BC-348Q and let 'er warm up. I'm going to tune across 40 to see what I can hear … maybe 20 meters too.
73 es CUL … de KY4Z … dit dit