[ICOM] Pro 2 vs. 746 Pro

Wed Oct 6 15:25:25 EDT 2004

Justify the expense of the scope the same way you justify the expense of 
the radio. Just consider the scope as part of the radio. The speaker 
provides the aural link and the scope the visual link to the spectrum. 
Without the scope, you are driving blind, thrashing about the bands, 
helplessly grouping for signals while aimlessly cranking the tuning knob 
back and forth from one end of the band to another hoping to luck upon a 
carrier that happens to be transmitting at precisely the same instant 
you swish across his frequency while with the scope you can visualize 
the entire band segment, spot the signal and lock in on him like an 
English Pointer dog. Push the freeze button and lock the screen like 
stopping a DVD then slither over to his frequency like a cobra and 
pounce on him like a Grizzly Bear. Now open that wallet and let the 
moths go free!
Steve N4LQ
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jeff Frank" <jafrank at nyc.rr.com>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:09:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [ICOM] Pro 2 vs. 746 Pro

> John - That's the problem ... how do I justify spending almost a
> thousand 
> dollars more for a scope that I think is window dressing for my
> purposes?
> Jeff -KX2P
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Geiger" <johngeig at yahoo.com>
> To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [ICOM] Pro 2 vs. 746 Pro
> 
> 
> >I don't have a 756 but I have never seen the true use
> > of the band scope either.  Maybe I am way off base
> > here, but it seems that a little knowledge of
> > propagation, plus using a DX internet cluster, will
> > fulfill its purpose.  For example, if it is daylight,
> > then 20 and 17 are probably going to be open.  I can
> > tune the band and actually listen for signals, without
> > having to see them.  If I am looking for rare DX, then
> > I can turn on the cluster and look for the spots, or I
> > can tune the band and actually listen.
> >
> > 73s John NE0P
> >
> > --- Jeff Frank <jafrank at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> > http://vote.yahoo.com
> > ----
> > 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/
>