[ICOM] Pro 2 vs. 746 Pro

[Dave Edwards]

You'll see!!
I've had years of operating regular rigs...from boatanchors (when they were
new!!) then, a TS520, 830,850, Yaesu's Icom's etc etc. I even had the scope
thing in the form of a SB620 hooked to my old Heath stuff...and a SM220
hooked to my Kenwood stuff.  They were not the same thing as the Pro's
scope.  The old heath and kenwood are just a pretty picture of moving
blips...that don't mean much.
On the Icom, for example...you are sitting on 6 meters...mostly dead band.
You can see the static on the scope. All of a sudden, about an inch away
from the middle there is a peak...you can put a marker on that spot, and
tune so the marker comes to the center...there is your tuner-upper (or CQer)
right on your freq.
With a regular rig, you'd never have found that guy!!
In contest situations, you can use the scope to search for clear spots to go
and claim the frequency for CQing.
In addition, you can also use the scope to see how wide someone
is...although I could honestly care less!!
The Pro also has a ton of other features...some of which I still have not
played with!!  I won't go into them 'cuz I don't know which of them the 746
also has!
By the way... are you stepping up from another rig??
Keep in mind, as soon as the Pro III is in stores, there will be plenty of
'as-new' Pro II's on the used market!!
...Dave
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Frank" <jafrank at nyc.rr.com>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ICOM] Pro 2 vs. 746 Pro


> Thanks Dave - What you say makes sense. Just not sure about the scope.
I've
> seen it and have a hard time accepting it's going to be useful to me for
hf
> work. One guy told me it's good if you're doing something else and are
> waiting for a signal to appear on a closed band (like 15 at night). I
guess
> it would help in a frantic contest situation to know where the activity is
> if you're hunting for a better band at the time. Otherwise it looked to me
> like somebody took a can a green paint and threw it against a wall.
> Jeff - KX2P
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dave Edwards" <kd2e at comcast.net>
> To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [ICOM] Pro 2 vs. 746 Pro
>
>
> > Jeff... I have a 756Pro. I don't have the 746, but I think the answer is
a
> > no brainer.
> > The Pro2 is a better radio.
> > Even if the performance were the same....Once you start using the
> > 'fish-finder', you will not want to be without it!
> > I passed on the ProII....not much differance. But, I may be tempted by
the
> > ProIII.
> > Sad thing though...for essentially the same rig..the price will be near
> > double what I paid for my Pro a few years ago!
> > ...Dave
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Jeff Frank" <jafrank at nyc.rr.com>
> > To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ICOM] Pro 2 vs. 746 Pro
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Gus - Thanks for the lead to the Sherwood web-site. Haven't seen that
one
> >> yet. But from what I've read, performance isn't always exactly
correlated
> >> with "numbers" and some argue that tests for esesentially analogue
radios
> >> don't always apply well for more dsp designs. I'm looking more for
actual
> > on
> >> the air experiences with the Pro2 vs. 746Pro. But thanks.
> >> Jeff - KX2P
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: "Augie Hansen" <augie.hansen at comcast.net>
> >> To: "Icom Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:08 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [ICOM] Pro 2 vs. 746 Pro
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 10/6/04 7:31 AM, "Jeff Frank" <jafrank at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm trying to decide between buying the Pro 2 or the 746 Pro. Read
> >> >> just
> >> >> about
> >> >> everything I could find on the internet about it. Besides the
> > difference
> >> >> in
> >> >> extra features and price, some technical types have been saying the
> >> >> Pro
> > 2
> >> >> has
> >> >> a more "bullet-proof" front end against very strong signals than
does
> > the
> >> >> 746
> >> >> Pro. I like working 40 meters (ssb and cw) at night, as well as and
> > some
> >> >> contest activity, so that could be an important factor for me. Does
> >> >> anyone
> >> >> have any experience with both those radios under very strong signal
> >> >> conditions?
> >> >
> >> > Hi Jeff,
> >> >
> >> > Given your intended use you want a radio that has good dynamic range
> >> > characteristics. Check out Rob Sherwood's comparison chart on his web
> >> > page:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.sherweng.com/presentation.html
> >> >
> >> > The close-in (2KHz) is particularly critical to CW contest operators.
I
> >> > have
> >> > an Elecraft K2 and an old, but still very capable Drake R4C with the
> >> > Sherwood mods. Both have exceptional dynamic range characteristics.
> >> >
> >> > The two Icom radios you are looking at have virtually the same DR
> >> > numbers --
> >> > good, but not great. A 2KHz number of 80 or higher is preferred. So
> >> > your
> >> > choice will probably be based more on cost vs. features (dual watch,
> >> > etc.).
> >> >
> >> > 73, Gus Hansen
> >> > KB0YH at arrl.net
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----
> >> > Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
> >> > Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
> >> > Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
> >> Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
> >> Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
> >
> > ----
> > Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
> > Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
> > Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>
> ----
> Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
> Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
> Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/