[ICOM] [Fwd: Re: ARRL IC-7800 report now out]

[Jan C. Robbins]

It is wonderful top see this kind of SYSTEMATIC analysis from someone 
who knows receivers. Tks Rob!!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: ARRL IC-7800 report now out
Date: 	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:01:41 -0600
From: 	Rob & Terri Sherwood <rob at sherweng.com>
To: 	Dave N9EWO <n9ewo at ticon.net>, Tim Duffy <k3lr at k3lr.com>, "Charlie,
W0YG" <w0yg at myawai.com>, Jan Robbins <swanman at cfu.net>, Tom Rauch
<w8ji at contesting.com>, Dennis N0SP <pegasus at mho.net>, "D.R. Muckenfuhs"
<DelMuck at compuserve.com>, Donald Kessler <ki6sz at earthlink.net>, Curt
Gamble <w0alc at mindspring.com>, Greg Burnett <gbus at adelphia.net>, Stephen
Bertke <sdbertke at yahoo.com>, "Tracy, Michael, KC1SX" <mtracy at arrl.org>
References: 	<001601c45c71$3e37ca40$c682b542 at N9EWO>



COMMENTS inserted below from Rob Sherwood:

Dave N9EWO wrote:

> Hi to all,
>  
> The ARRL lab report is now out on the Icom IC-7800. I'm not a ARRL 
> member so have not had a chance to read this (link below). Just a FYI 
> here.
>  
> They were saying on the HF Icom net today that the noise floor and 
> close in dynamic range did not do well at all in this lab test (@ 2 
> khz ??) . (Perhaps Rob you had a bit of input for this report ??)
>  

REPLY:   Please give me a link to this, or send me comments.   There is
no expanded report with the real "brass tacks" numbers.  There is no
critical 1 or 2 kHz dynamic range information.   There is no data on
phase noise.  The text says the 20  kHz 3rd order dynamic range is 98
and the table says 104.   Hopefully an expanded report will come out
later, but this seems to me to be a puff piece.

I am in total shock after reading this review of the most significant
piece of equipment that has shipped in 2004.  The review says very
little of substance.

Why didn't the guy who "felt" it was better than his 930 hook up an A/B
switch and actually compare?   There was no pile up, but he "felt" this
and he "felt" that.  There are 4.5 column inches of discussion of the S
meter, but a lack of information on critical aspects of the radio.

Some of the puffery I find objectionable:
"I was able to hear calling US stations on back scatter that I don't
believe I would have heard on the TS-930.  The pile-up was not very big,
but I sensed a "depth" to the frequency that made me feel like I was
hearing layers of signals that normally fall into a "mush layer".

More questionable statements:
The IC-7800 seemed to perform well with weak RTTY signals.
What the hell does that mean.

More warm fuzzy feelings:
The receiver is so sensitive that you can pick up the clicks earlier
than I think I would have noticed on the '930 or most other rigs.

A lot of people at the League and around the world have been spending a
lot of time for months discussing test methodology and how to make the
reviews in QST more meaningful.  The work is not finished, but in the
interim, I was not expecting to read this kind of "press release" copy.

I hope I don't get kicked off the ARRL group for these politically
incorrect statements, but this article is a total disappointment.

Rob Sherwood
NC0B


> The ARRL Lab IC-7800 review 
> <http://www.arrl.org/members-only/prodrev/pdf/pr0408.pdf> is now on 
> the ARRL members-only site. (must log on.)
>  
> Regards,
> Dave Zantow N9EWO
> Janesville, WI
> Dave's Radio Receiver Page
> http://www.ticon.net/~n9ewo <http://www.ticon.net/%7En9ewo>