[ICOM] Icom IC-756ProIII or TS-850SAT???

[Robert Chudek]

Brian,

I haven't used a '850, but I have owned several TS-950SDX transceivers. I 
also have the Pro III which I have been using for the past year. I still 
have the '950 but haven't done a A / B comparison in real-time. My "feeling" 
is the Icom has the edge in selectivity, but it's not going to be a 
hands-down winner in all areas of comparison. I depends upon your goals and 
operating preferences. If you're a rag chewer, get the Icom... end of 
discussion. But if you're a contester, there's some trade offs...

There are features lacking on the Pro III that I miss (I am a contester)... 
the first is a true sub receiver. The Kenwood has VFO A, VFO B, and Sub VFO 
whereas the Icom is VFO Main and Sub.

The integrated Icom bandscope is a very nice feature, but I have always had 
the Kenwood SM-230 bandscope with my transceivers. Color is nice, the SM-230 
is a true CRT and not in color. The Icom is not very heavy compared to the 
Kenwood. But the '950 has a built-in 120 VAC power supply which brings it up 
to 50+ pounds, a real paperweight!

I don't like all the fan noise of the Icom compared to the Kenwood. The '950 
fan only came on when I was running a serious RTTY contest. It seems like 
the Icom fan is running 75% of the time and it is annoying. I swapped out 
the Icom PS-125 because it was a second device with a fan making noise. I 
use a "fanless" Astron power supply instead.

The one feature I really find lacking on the Icom is stereo receive. You get 
both channels fed to you in mono, with a fader (balance) control to set the 
percentage of mix. The Kenwood has true stereo where you can place audio 
channels in the left and right headphones. This is very useful when chasing 
DX who is operating split, whether it be CW, SSB, or RTTY. Even after a year 
of using the Pro III, I don't like the mono audio aspect of the radio.

There are a few important CAT commands missing in the Icom. This creates 
restrictions on the flexibility of controlling the radio. If you press the 
Split button, the radio does not tell the software you changed to split 
frequency operation. If you change frequency on the Sub VFO, it doesn't 
report the changes. These omissions force you to operate the radio from your 
computer instead of the front panel of the transceiver, i.e., if you press a 
button on the transceiver, a command may or may not be sent to the computer 
to report a change in status. Likewise, you cannot clear the RIT/XIT from 
the computer, you have to do it on the radio. Because there are commands 
missing, you need to learn what you can and can't do by pushing buttons on 
the transceiver.

On the plus side, the Pro III has a special RTTY filter that pulls weak 
signals out of the noise like I have never seen (heard) before. It's 
incredible. The other digital capabilities have already been discussed so I 
won't spend time on them. The built-in RTTY decoder on the Icom is novel, 
but almost useless - you can receive fine, and you can transmit using stored 
messages, but there is no keyboard interface that allows you to carry on a 
keyboard to keyboard QSO. For example, you can call CQ, and send a canned 
signal report, name, qth, etc... but you can't send the other fellows 
callsign. You would have to program a different callsign each time you made 
a QSO. It's not impossible, but it's very impractical. I still give Icom 
kudos for including RTTY decoding in the design. I think it has helped bring 
more digital operators to the mode.

The antenna tuner works fine, but my antennas are pretty close to 50 ohms so 
I don't know how well it would tune a piece of wire laying on the driveway. 
The Icom is ready for mobile operation (12 VDC), the Kenwood is not. The 100 
Watts of output is adequate, although many other rigs are boasting twice 
this amount of power.

There's virtually not filters you need to purchase for the Icom. I spent a 
lot of money "filtering up" my Kenwoods. An improved roofing filter kit was 
recently released for the Pro III by International Radio: 
http://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=225  I haven't read any feedback 
to know what kind of performance increase this provides but the company 
warns prospective buyers that installing this upgrade is not for the faint 
of heart. You are dealing with Surface Mount Technology components in the 
transceiver.

Someone already mentioned the Icom provides 6 meter capability. That's a 
great feature and, like the RTTY decoder, should help populate that band 
with more signals. I ran the Pro III on 6 meters using a 40 meter dipole and 
the internal antenna tuner. I made contacts with that configuration, 
although now I have a 5 element 6 meter yagi. A proper antenna is important 
for chasing weak signals. I am able to A / B the two antennas now and there 
are weak signals I cannot hear when using the 40 meter antenna.

That's about all I can think of right now...

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

http://k0rc.spaces.live.com
http://czudek.spaces.live.com
http://chudek.aberon.net
http://www.pclink.com/~k0rc

----- Original Message ----- 
From: John Geiger
To: ICOM Reflector
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:20 PM
Subject: RE: [ICOM] Icom IC-756ProIII or TS-850SAT???


And don't forget the most, most, important difference:
 The PRO3 has 6 meters!

73s John AA5JG

--- Sandy Taylor <ve4xt at mts.net> wrote:

> Hi Brian,
> I have the P3 and 850 side by side. I ran my 850
> again as a main radio while
> awaiting the insurance claim on the Pro to go
> through and get my P3.
>
> The 850 is an excellent, excellent radio, but it is
> still outshone by the
> P3. The quietness of the P3, the flexibility of the
> DSP-based filters, the
> spectrum scope, the memory keyer, the voice keyer
> with memory, the dynamic
> range of the receiver and the available tailoring of
> TX audio...
>
> I was surprised when I went to pick up my P3 at how
> much heavier it was
> compared with the PRO. The added engineering is
> quite evident.
>
> 73, Kelly
> Ve4xt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
> Behalf Of Brian Mileshosky
> Sent: October-23-07 9:37 PM
> To: 'ICOM Reflector'
> Subject: [ICOM] Icom IC-756ProIII or TS-850SAT???
>
> Hi Everyone --
>
> I'm salivating more and more over an Icom
> IC-756ProIII as time goes on, and
> am eyeing my Kenwood TS-850SAT with filters as a
> possible sale to partially
> fund the ProIII.
>
> Despite being an older radio, the 850 is known be
> many to be one of the best
> receivers and transmitted audio out there.  On the
> other hand the ProIII is
> known for its excellent DSP and spectrum scope.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone could share their candid
> opinion on the 850 versus
> the ProIII.  I'm particularly interested in those
> who have owned/used both
> radios for themselves.
>
> I'm really reluctant to part with my 850, but am
> anxious to own a ProIII,
> too.  Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to
> have my cake and eat it
> too!
>
> 73,
> Brian N5ZGT