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

Wed Oct 24 03:17:33 EDT 2007

I was just wandering eBay and encountered an IC-775 DSP which might be 
of interest to some here. But you'll have to be quick......

Item number: 110180951502
Current bid: $910
Time left: 15 hr 20 min

73 - Larry WØNFU
larry_w at comcast.net

Robert Chudek wrote:
> 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
>
> ----
> 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/
>
>