[Elecraft] K3 to IC-7800 Comparison?

[Phil Wheeler]

Tom,

This is pretty off-topic, but not all 
vendors/manufacturers operate like that. I had a 
Canon camera which had known problems so that I 
didn't use it much due to "the threat of failure 
was there every time I turned that radio[camera] 
ON". So I bought a new camera, a later Canon 
model, to replace it. Well I turned on the old one 
to compare the image quality (IQ), and it failed!  
Sent it to Canon and they fixed it (may have 
replaced) and I had it back in a week -- at no 
cost, even though it was out of warranty. Turns 
out it was a known manufacturing defect -- which 
the IC-7700 sounds like. End of story is that I 
preferred the old camera's IQ so returned the new 
one :-)

I wish more manufacturers operated that way. In 
ham radio, Elecraft is the one I am most confident 
would (but none of my Elecraft gear has ever 
failed, even better!).

73, Phil W7OX

On 9/13/15 8:01 AM, Chester Alderman wrote:
> I certainly agree with Joe about Adam! I've never heard such prejudicial
> explanations trying to justify Icom's innocence for final transistor
> failures in the IC-7700's. He took all reports of final failures and said he
> was going to forward them to Icom, but very few of us ever believed he
> actually forwarded any information to Icom from IC-7700 users about the
> failures. And IF did, there was never any response from Japan.
> I sold my IC-7700, not because the finals failed, but because the threat of
> failure was there every time I turned that radio ON.
>
> 73,
> Tom - W4BQF
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Joe
> Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 8:09 AM
> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 to IC-7800 Comparison?
>
> On 9/13/2015 2:10 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> He seems quite genuine, no horses in the race, his objectives seem to
>> be the same as Rob Sherwood and my own -- to put mfrs feet to the fire
>> to improve the receive performance and signal quality of the stuff
>> they sell us. :)
> Adam is an out an out Icom evangelist - not exactly unbiased.
>
>> An example is in the footnote for the Flex-6700, which has no
>> preselector for the range where he had to do his measurements, which
>> may have caused that radio to measure worse than it would on the ham
>> bands.
> On the other hand Adam limits noise power for direct sampling SDR designs to
> a lower level than used with traditional up/down conversion transceivers.
> The lower noise power input gives the direct sampling designs an unfair
> advantage be ignoring strong signal environments.
>
> 73,
>
>     ... Joe, W4TV