Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
Re: SX-28A Hum
Ch2 and C-43 form a parallel resonant circuit, a tank, if you will.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
It is in the plate lead of the pre amplifier half of the 6SC7. When the switch is in the position marked IN on the diagram it is shorted out by the switch. The plate load of the tube is then R-37. When the switch is in the OUT condition, the tank forms the plate load and R-37 is shorted out. Note that C-44 along with R-48 is a bypass filter for the B+ going to both 6SC7 plates. Since the plate load with the switch in the IN position is resistive there should be no frequency discrimination. In OUT the plate load is a resonant choke (about 1100 Hz). I was surprised the frequency is not lower but calculated it a couple of times. I have not looked up the plate resistance of the tube. R-36 and R-37 are 100K. C-44 is 10uF and R-48 is also 100K so there should be no audio at that point even down to quite low frequencies. As far as fidelity the SX-28 was intended to be a good fidelity receiver for AM broadcasts. Like the Super-Pro, it is designed to have a wide IF and, for the time, a relatively high quality output amplifier. While broadcast stations in the old days were required to have good performance to about 10Khz (double the standard now) few receivers could recover much beyond perhaps 4 or 5 Khz. Hallicrafters offered a "High Fidelity" speaker for use with the SX-28, a bass-reflex made by Jensen. The bass boost offered is, IMO extreme according to the response chart. There is a crude high frequency control, all roll off, probably to reduce the effect of static and other noise. A HF boost would have required another stage of amplification. They knew how to do it, see the old (third edition) of the RDH for some circuits. I think the labeling of the BASS control in the handbook is an error even though it got continued in the 28A. Someone with an actual receiver can determine it for us, I am just guessing from what's on the schematic. I am strongly suspicious of the tube, easy to prove by substituting it. On 2/16/2025 11:11 PM, Jim Whartenby via groups.io wrote: So the hum in question might just be 60 cycle leakage instead of the --
Richard Knoppow Los Angeles WB6KBL SKCC 19998 |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss