[ICOM] QST Prod Rev Expanded Reports: a proposal

[awallacejr at sbcglobal.net]

Thanks David. It will be interesting to see how well the Pro lll works in
the shack. I can't work all the ones I can hear already because I don't have
enough aluminum high enough in the air on my 1/7 acre lot. I hear the DX
usually very clearly in contest conditions even if they don't move the
needle at all but can't cut through the really big pileups from Texas
without a lot of patience.

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 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ICOM] QST Prod Rev Expanded Reports: a proposal


> 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/
>
> ----
> 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/