My use of that term 'short superhet' is, in retrospect, annoying, since I do try to avoid that phrase, simply because it is open to so many different interpretations - as you observe. Now not wishing to be pedantic, the term 'short superhet' implies that there is a 'normal' superhet - or even a 'long' one! 
There are many configurations of a 'superhet', so even the introduction of three adjectives (short, normal and long), doesn't really help towards a clear classification or description. We can even take such an adjectival qualification from the sublime to the ridiculous - 'wide', 'tall', 'deep', 'shallow', etc.: all of which are open to individual definitions and interpretations; pointless.
A few years ago, this question of what defines a 'short superhet' arose on another forum: there was no consensual agreement amongst the members. Someone did refer to the TRF 'notation': e.g. 1-V-2. In response, I suggested a similar notation for a s/het.: 1-M-2-D-2; one RF - mixer - 2 IF - detector - 2 AF, but it did not receive even an informal approbation!
However, I feel that the word 'heterodyne' (as in 'superheterodyne') is not open to such a wide interpretation. 'Super' means more than or greater than, and we all know the meaning of the word 'heterodyne'. So a 'superheterodyne' means a process where the incoming signal freq. is converted to another freq. which is above audibility. That rules out a regenerative detector, since the result of the heterodyning action is an audio frequency: so that becomes an 'ordinary heterodyne' (or possibly an 'audioheterodyne') receiver.
Anyway, all of that is merely a few thoughts from me - which, therefore, are not going to have slightest impact on the use and meaning of the word 'superheterodyne' in radio & electronics engineering circles. But it's pleasant to swap notes on such things with like-minded individuals: like your good self.
Al.
There are many configurations of a 'superhet', so even the introduction of three adjectives (short, normal and long), doesn't really help towards a clear classification or description. We can even take such an adjectival qualification from the sublime to the ridiculous - 'wide', 'tall', 'deep', 'shallow', etc.: all of which are open to individual definitions and interpretations; pointless.A few years ago, this question of what defines a 'short superhet' arose on another forum: there was no consensual agreement amongst the members. Someone did refer to the TRF 'notation': e.g. 1-V-2. In response, I suggested a similar notation for a s/het.: 1-M-2-D-2; one RF - mixer - 2 IF - detector - 2 AF, but it did not receive even an informal approbation!
However, I feel that the word 'heterodyne' (as in 'superheterodyne') is not open to such a wide interpretation. 'Super' means more than or greater than, and we all know the meaning of the word 'heterodyne'. So a 'superheterodyne' means a process where the incoming signal freq. is converted to another freq. which is above audibility. That rules out a regenerative detector, since the result of the heterodyning action is an audio frequency: so that becomes an 'ordinary heterodyne' (or possibly an 'audioheterodyne') receiver.
Anyway, all of that is merely a few thoughts from me - which, therefore, are not going to have slightest impact on the use and meaning of the word 'superheterodyne' in radio & electronics engineering circles.
But it's pleasant to swap notes on such things with like-minded individuals: like your good self.Al.
