[ICOM] QST Prod Rev Expanded Reports: a proposal

Thu Sep 9 13:02:06 EDT 2004

Bill-

I agree with your approach. I have two friends in Dallas who are both "top
of the honor roll". Both could buy any radio they want and both, gasp, use
756 Pro ll's. Like you say, "real world"--they have read their manuals and
understand how to obtain the full capabilities of their radios.
Incidentally, neither seems to covet a 7800.

Andy K5VM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Diamond" <wjdiamond at sbcglobal.net>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: [ICOM] QST Prod Rev Expanded Reports: a proposal

> I personally pay no attention at all to lab test reports from the ARRL or
> whoever.  It is like using a car on a test track.  It may run 100 MPH fine
> but the first chug hole it hits, the car fly's apart.
>
> What really matters is the "real world" and how they work there.
>
> When I did my own "real world" tests of Icom, Yaesu and Kenwood, a lot of
> people jumped my case because I did not post intercept, noise figure
numbers
> and the like.  As I said in my reports, they mean nothing, how it works is
> what really counts.
>
> I am presently evaluating a bunch of new gear and I will post the results
on
> my web site instead of the reflectors to avoid the "my radio is better
than
> your radio" threads..
>
>
>
>            WILLIAM J. DIAMOND
>           ROGERS, ARKANSAS USA
>
>         HAM RADIO OPERATOR WROT
>  VISIT MY NEW RADIO ROOM REVISED 7-04, AT
>            www.wjdiamond.com
>
>        DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY SITE IS AT
> http://pages.sbcglobal.net/wjdiamond/index.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of John Geiger
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 11:02 AM
> To: ICOM Reflector
> Subject: Re: [ICOM] QST Prod Rev Expanded Reports: a proposal
>
>
> Of course the ARRL is in the business of pleasing
> advertisers.  Go look at the review for the FT897.  It
> has terrible numbers.  The text of the article talks
> about its outstanding performance, and how the numbers
> are almost as good as those for the FT1000MP MKV, when
> they aren't even close.
>
> It is interesting that the numbers for the 756PRO do
> not seem all that outstanding.  THey are not as good
> as the receive numbers for the 756 original.
>
> 73s John NE0P
>
> --- awallacejr at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > 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/
> >
> >
> > ----
> > 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!?
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
> ----
> 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/