[ICOM] QST Prod Rev Expanded Reports: a proposal

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Andy,

That's indeed what the Sherwood list I mentioned says:  that the 756PRO2 is 
one of the very best radios ever offered to hams.  The comment about ARRL 
tests are "nearly worthless" was made by Jan N0JR and not by Sherwood.  You 
will have to ask Jan what the comments made by Rob Sherwood were if you're 
interested.

An amateur receiver needs the ability to handle strong close signals because 
we need to copy a signal that is very close to a local signal.  Marine SSB 
radios don't need this but we do.

What I found so interesting is how well the R390 still does - that receiver 
is 60 years old!

That's fascinating!

73

David N1EA

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <awallacejr 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


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/