[ICOM] Best Icom HF rig

[bmarton]

Interesting stuff on Tom's website.  I have to agree, the R4C is rotten with
the early version, I have had several...worse yet, the R4B.  Now, the late
R4C with the GUF-1 6Khz filter in conjunction with the Sherwood 600 Hz.
First IF (switch-able) filter is something else (not an easy install).  I
will say it out performs any Icom I have used to date, including my
IC-781...not even close.  Two CW stations can be right on top of each other,
and I mean on top of each other to the point of not knowing what is being
sent and the R4C will separate the signals and let one have a QSO with the
station of choice.

I will also add in here, that the IC 781 has a very mediocre notch filter
compared to the drake or for that matter my IC 751A.  Otherwise, I would not
trade it for anything.  I love the 781 for what it does best...giving me
information.  

Bruce K1XR






-----Original Message-----
From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of Steven Moore
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 7:55 PM
To: ICOM Reflector
Subject: Re: [ICOM] Best Icom HF rig

all this receiver talk reminded me of this link
http://www.w8ji.com/receivers.htm

you may or may not like what you read :-)

73
Steve  wd0ct

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jan C. Robbins" <swanman at cfu.net>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ICOM] Best Icom HF rig


> Having compared all three of them in A/B tests, my vote is strongly for 
> the 775, which has one of the best receivers ever tested by a number of 
> independent testing agencies.  But the 765, if given the full 
> "treatment," including InRad filters and reduction of IF gain for best 
> noise floor, runs such a good race that I'd be hard-pressed to choose. 
> The 775 does have an excellent, easily adjustable DSP in addition to 
> good front-end filtering, which the 765 does not, and other bells and 
> whistles, so I suppose it wins by a little bit.
> 
> I haven't tried the 7800 or ProIII, but have had 756Pro and ProII in 
> similar A/B tests with the other rigs, and all three you 
> mention--775,781, 765--have noticeably better receivers.
> 
> There are many reasons for 'preferring" one rig to another, and I would 
> be the last one to argue that there is such a thing as an objectively 
> "best" rig for all operators.  On the other hand, without head-to-head 
> A/B tests and/or data from qualified third-party specialists such as Rob 
> Sherwood, who have themselves done head-to-head testing, any judgment is 
> at best a guess.  I would have "guessed" the 781 had a better receiver 
> than the 765, even when the latter is properly modified, but I would 
> have been wrong.
> 
> It's a fun investigation!  GL es vy 73 to all.  Jan N0JR
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Flanagan wrote:
>> At 09:32 AM 9/12/2005, John  Geiger (NE0P) wrote:
>>  >In your opinion, what is the best Icom HF rig ever made-the 775?  781? 
>> 765?
>> 
>> Ever made at the time or ever made based on today's standards?
>> 
>> Dick
>> -- 
>> Dick Flanagan K7VC NV SM
>> E-mail: k7vc at arrl.org
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> 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/

__________ NOD32 1.1214 (20050912) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com