[ICOM] QST Prod Rev Expanded Reports: a proposal

[Dave Meitzen]

Has anyone read the latest NCJ article on receiver performance? I thought it
was well done and speaks to the performance issues rather well. My thoughts.
Dave

-----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/