04-11-2018, 03:14 PM
I have to admit, my "money" is on the Philco, but 1934 to 1941 represents a lot of development in valve technology and perhaps circuit design. There are fewer valves in the RCA front end, but then the oscillator is combined with the mixer. Then again, one valve is used in the RCA simply as a phase inverter for the push-pull output, whereas the 16X has one valved dedicated to the QAVC feature - not really contributing to reception.
It is interesting to compare the designs as seen by the user. I do like the arrangement of the 5 band coverage of the Philco, and the 2 speed tuning mechanism is really good - it was marketed specifically as an "All Wave" receiver, and from what I have seen and heard, it can definitely live up to the claim. Lack of a tuning indicator on the RCA is a surprise, and I think I've seen similar models that do include them, suggesting that the 110K was not top of the line. Its SW coverage is quirky by comparison. I'm fortunate enough to own both
Another point about the melted insulation - The worst drips on the chassis were not from the wires nearest to valves. the only component nearby is the PSU filter cap... This says more about the previous restoration!
It is interesting to compare the designs as seen by the user. I do like the arrangement of the 5 band coverage of the Philco, and the 2 speed tuning mechanism is really good - it was marketed specifically as an "All Wave" receiver, and from what I have seen and heard, it can definitely live up to the claim. Lack of a tuning indicator on the RCA is a surprise, and I think I've seen similar models that do include them, suggesting that the 110K was not top of the line. Its SW coverage is quirky by comparison. I'm fortunate enough to own both
Another point about the melted insulation - The worst drips on the chassis were not from the wires nearest to valves. the only component nearby is the PSU filter cap... This says more about the previous restoration!
I don't hold with furniture that talks.
