I had the impression that the rise of the Ham-band-only transceiver in the 1950's and 60's was based on simple economics. It was cheaper to drop general coverage receive. It was also true that they were typically better performing than most general coverage receivers, mostly due to improved input filtering that protected the mixer from large off-frequency signals.
As you may recall, most general coverage receivers up to that time used simple L/C tunable input filters that required multiple knob-twiddling or a big "ganged" multi-section tuning cap with the stages carefully adjusted so they "tracked" the across the tuning range. A well-designed fixed tuned input filter was better, especially important consdering the relatively easy-to-overload mixers in common use back then. That gave the ad writers a good explanation for the limited tuning ranges. Ron AC7AC -----Original Message----- After almost 50 years of being a ham, I see that the conventional wisdom of NOT including general coverage in a receiver has been refuted. It was thought to be at the expense of performance on the ham bands. How have modern design techniques overcome this limitation? 73 de Jim - AD6CW ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
