[Icom] IC-746PRO vs IC-756PRO

Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:35:13 -0600

The "scope" on the 746pro works just like the 706 series, ie, it is not real
time.  I would prefer the used 756pro over the 746pro unless you really
needed 2 meter all mode for some reason.
Jim K4JAF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Serio" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:22 PM
Subject: [Icom] IC-746PRO vs IC-756PRO

> Thinking about selling my original 756 and buying a new 746PRO. The price
is
> very low now and they are throwing in the power supply. Curious as to how
> much difference there is between the 746PRO and 756PRO performance wise.
> I could pick up a used 756PRO for about the same money. Anybody compared
> these two rigs side by side? Also does anyone know if the band scope on
the
> 746PRO is a continuous display or does it work like my 706 and make one
scan
> of the band with the audio muted? Thanks.
> Paul, N5PS
>
> Don Rasmussen wrote:
>
> > Kelly Wrote:
> > > My question.  To me, some of the audio sounds "raspy" or "fuzzy".  I
> > > realize this is a DSP rig where my TS850 is analog.  However, I've
seen
> > > lots of rave reviews about the audio in the 'Pro.  Is this fuzziness
> > > normal?  It is especially noticeable on CW signals with the 500 & 250
hz
> > > filter in.  And some signals tend to have more "fuzz" than others.
This
> > > could also be entirely user error as there are so many settings on the
> > > Pro.  One thing I have noticed is that using the NR fuction tends to
> > > "smooth" out the fuzziness, although not completely eliminate it.
> >
> > Hi Kelly and guys,
> >
> > Kelly, your serial is very late, my one year old (original) Pro is in
the
> > 3000 series. As for the rave reviews for audio in the pro, that could
relate
> > more to phone modes than CW. Still, the DSP CW filters seem very robust
in
> > contests, possibly even better than a TS850.
> >
> > As for the fuzz/rasp, that can be dialed out fairly easily by turning up
the
> > CW PITCH control (775hz or better). I don't know why, but it helps. Also
> > make sure the NR and NB are off. The speaker is also hyper-critical, if
you
> > try every speaker you have you will find that the signal is very loud
from
> > some speakers and mixed in the background with others. I like the Drake
MS4.
> >
> > Even after increasing the CW pitch you will still hear a rushing sound
with
> > the steeper skirted filters. (BFP on display) This can be unwelcome for
> > ragchews and can be eliminated by choosing the softer skirted filters.
In
> > the original Pro that means selecting 600hz or wider then narrowing it
down
> > as desired with the PBT controls. Finally, in quiet conditions you may
> > notice a "watery" effect in the background even after all of these
changes.
> > I don't enjoy it so I set the RF GAIN at S3 and leave the preamp at 1.
That
> > removes any traces of it and still leaves lots of gain in the receiver
as
> > opposed to simply leaving the preamp off which leaves the receiver
pretty
> > deaf. This setup is optimal for me and leaves nothing to be desired in
> > comparison with my best analog transceivers.
> >
> > For what it's worth, TenTec is saying that their new high end
transceiver
> > has all of the fun of a DSP radio but without any of the DSP
peculiarities.
> > I'll need to experience that first hand to believe it!
> >
> > 73,
> > de WB8YQJ
> >
> > ----
> > 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/