[ICOM] Pro 3 and 7000 Tests by Sherwood

[Glen Rosenthal]

If you are looking at the receiver comparison table, also read the white 
paper "A discussion of measurement accuracy and sample variation".

www.sherweng.com
Under "How to Tips, White Papers and Presentations", pick "Receiver 
performance".

Sample variations of a few dB are normal, and the parameter of 1 or 2 dB 
difference in receiver performance should not be reason enough to pick radio 
A over radio B. A significant difference of 10dB or better in close-in 
dynamic range is a big deal compared to 1 or 2 dB.

Also, if one is looking at wide spaced dynamic range numbers, if radio A is 
90 dB and radio B is 99 dB, this is NOT a big deal since radios rarely fall 
apart with strong signals at wide spacings. However, wide spaced numbers may 
have more significance in special cases like Field Day and in Multi-Multi 
contest stations with a "run station" and a "spotting station" on the same 
band where the receiving station is essentially "in the field" of the 
transmitting station.

*******************
Jan Robbins swanman at cfu.net wrote:
Tue Mar 28 21:25:29 EST 2006

Since Rob Sherwood uses the BEST testing methods known in the industry,
and since his results are widely recognized as the MOST RELIABLE among
third-party testers (and offer by far the most extensive and precise
comparisons), I'd sure want to know who ELSE thought he had anything
better to say and why, before I wondered a minute what "someone else"
thought.  Who is qualified to judge the "standard," pray? Rob's been
doing this for 20+ years, and everybody in the industry knows his
results are more accurate than others and stand up over time, not to
mention that he has no "vested interest" in the various brands, and that
he, almost single-handedly, finally got ARRL labs to use HIS methods.
As someone said a long time ago, "When you hire Michelangelo to paint
the Sistine Chapel ceiling," don't ask a schoolboy to judge and correct
it."   Jan N0JR

John Geiger (NE0P) wrote:

It is interesting that the 756PRO3 has slightly worse performance (probably 
within margin of error) as compared to the 756PRO.  Can anyone else confirm 
that they are so close in receiver performance?  Most evidence seems to say 
otherwise.

73s John NE0P


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu
Reply-To: ICOM Reflector <icom at mailman.qth.net
Date:  Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:36:56 -0500



        FYI Sherwood recently added
data for the IC-756 Pro III and IC-7000 to
his receiver performance test data table:

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

                        73,  Bill  W4ZV

----
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/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Previous message: [ICOM] Pro 3 and 7000 Tests by Sherwood
Next message: [ICOM] IC -AT 500 Operator Manual
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]