[Icom] 756proII General operation and Bandscope

Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:47:33 -0400

Tom,

There is a feature that it is never mentioned or overlooked, The 
TS2000's firmware is upgradable, download the latest from the web site 
and upload it through your computer, I consider this a necessary 
feature that will save you money in the long run. The 756PRO has some 
issues in the past and Icom made available a firmware upgrade in Japan 
to try to fix the problems, Here in the US We were force to buy the 
PROII to get rid of the cw artifacts caused by the DSP. Another feature 
very important that is not found on the PRO's is the flexibility that 
you have to create   your on DSP filters through the software 
(ARCP-2000), it is amazing what you can do with this.

In short I regret selling my TS-2000, but I love my PROII and I am sure 
I am going to have to pay in the future for a new ICOM rig with better 
DSP and new bands, instead of just upgrading the new firmware with 
fixes. Mr. Icom knows that we are suckers in this country for ICOM and 
will pay for a whole new rig the get new fixes.

BTW, I don't like the lack of triple band stack in the TS2000.

IMHO

http://www.qtc-japan.net/2001/02_products/dsp/ic-756pro.htm  (This link 
shows the ROM upgrade for the original PRO) I believe ab4oj has a link 
to it on his web site.

Luis
KN1W

On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 12:57  AM, Scott Manthe wrote:

> Tom,
> As someone who has owned both rigs, I might be more help to you than 
> some
> others on this list. There seems to be the assumption on this list and
> elsewhere that the TS2000 is somehow flawed because it wears so many 
> hats.
> This is not the case- unless you've used a TS2000 and have real world
> experience with it, you should hold your commentary. The TS2000 is a 
> TERRFIC
> rig, even on HF, easily as good as the TS-870 and better in many 
> respects.
> It will hold it's own against all but the best HF rigs around (the 
> FT1000
> series, the Pro and the ProII), but it is not quite the HF performer 
> that
> the IC-756Pro is. It specifically lacks some close-in dynamic range 
> that the
> Pro does have. Aside form this specific case, they are very close in
> performance. This is not terribly noticable, but can be a factor on 
> very
> crowded bands with very strong signals on SSB. This is not the case on 
> CW,
> where I would rate the TS2000 and Pro as even, although the Pro has a 
> better
> electronic keyer, but inferior QSK. The TS2000 does however have 
> features
> that the Pro series doesn't have, is very, very versatile and doesn't 
> lag
> terribly in the performance department.
>
> You will have to decide for yourself whether the bandscope feature and 
>  size
> factors are that important to you. As I said, I've owned both rigs and 
> been
> happy with both. The bandscope, along with the dual recieve, can be 
> very
> useful and the 756Pro is a very nice rig. The TS2000 is more compact, 
> but it
> is a very solidly made radio and can even double as a feature rich 
> mobile
> rig, if you desire. The computer control capabilities, as well as the
> additional VHF/UHF coverage make it a VERY attractive rig. If you're a
> contester in a multi-multi situation, the TS2000 might not be your best
> choice, but otherwise it's a fine rig.
>
> If you've got any other questions, drop me a line.
>
> 73,
> Scott, N9AI
> [email protected]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Crawford" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 2:28 PM
> Subject: [Icom] 756proII General operation and Bandscope
>
>
>> Hello to the list,
>>
>> I don't want to start a war here but...... :)
>> The 756 ProII and the TS-2000 are on my short list for a new state of 
>> the
>> art rig.
>>
>> The TS-2000 sure seems to offer a lot of capability for the money but 
>> the
>> controls seem cramped.
>> I really like the idea of the ICOM's band scope and my general 
>> impression
> is
>> that the ICOM control panel is less crowded.  (I've never had a hands 
>> on
>> opportunity with either instrument.)
>>
>> I am questioning whether or not I'll be able to discern a performance
>> difference between these two instruments.  But I've witnessed a lot of
>> experience on this list so, any opinions are appreciated.
>>
>> Specifically - DOES the bandscope really work as claimed and do you 
>> really
>> find it useful?
>>
>> thanks in advance,
>> tom
>> W3TMC
>> ----
>> Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan W6OLD, [email protected]
>> Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.315 MHz
>> Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>>
>
>
> ----
> Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan W6OLD, [email protected]
> Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.315 MHz
> Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>