[ICOM] QST Prod Rev Expanded Reports: a proposal

[awallacejr at sbcglobal.net]

Interesting opinions but to suggest that the ARRL tests are "nearly
worthless" is a little over the top. Sherwood is in the business of selling
filters so he is hardly unbiased. The folks in this group who really know
what they are doing think the 756 Pro ll is one of the very best radios ever
offered to hams.

Andy  K5VM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea at arrl.net>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ICOM] QST Prod Rev Expanded Reports: a proposal


> Oh, I did find some ratings and comparisons to the ICOM IC-756PRO2 (and
> other) receivers.
>
> I would pretty much agree with this list, although I can mention some
other
> receivers that I would guess gave the R390 (one of the top receivers) a go
> for the money (or glory!).
>
> I really was surprised at how well the ICOM IC-775 did - I've never had
the
> pleasure of using one of these, but from this data, I am going to search
one
> out.
>
> Take a look - it is great reading.  At least the "stock" Drake R4C is no
> match for the ICOM IC-756PRO2, but the R4C with very narrow roofing
filters
> work very well under crowded band conditions.
>
> Really fun reading - I wish there was more of this stuff.
>
> http://www.sherweng.com/Dayton_2004/Dynamic_Range_Data.pdf
>
> 73
>
> DR
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jan C. Robbins" <swanman at cfu.net>
>
> Just please for heaven's sake pay attention to what Rob Sherwood has
> told you.  At the moment, your reciver measures are nearly worthless.
> Dr. Jan C. Robbins, n0JR
>
> ----
> 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/