[ICOM] Icom 7200 at Dayton Big Disappointment???

[John Geiger]

A 6khz roofing filter would sure be nice. That should give it some decent
close in dynamic range performance.

73s John AA5JG

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D C *Mac* Macdonald" <k2gkk at hotmail.com>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:42 PM
Subject: RE: [ICOM] Icom 7200 at Dayton Big Disappointment???



I believe Adam alluded to a 6 kHz roofing filter.
That would NOT be software defined, if I properly
understand what a roofing filter does.  A 6 kHz
roofing filter would preclude "normal" FM which,
as used in North America, would require a 15 kHz
roofing filter and would result in greatly reduced
performance with SSB, CW, and narrow data
modes.  If the 7200 turns out to be a transceiver
with greatly improved HF performance at price
which is reduced from what is currently offered,
I say BRAVO indeed!

73 - Mac, K2GKK/5
Oklahoma City, OK



___________________________________
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:25:21 -0700
> From: n6lrv at cox.net
> To: icom at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [ICOM] Icom 7200 at Dayton Big Disappointment???
>
> This can not be the case. The 7200 like so many radios these days is
software defined. The
> inclusion of FM and signaling would have resulted in the addition of very
little hardware if any
> at all. To produce another multimode/multiband transceiver for amateurs
and not include FM &
> signaling is ridiculously stupid. How and why their marketing people would
let this get by is
> incomprehensible. The recent increases in 6m activity on all modes is in
large part due to these
> multiband/multimode radios. The 7200 would sell much better with it than
without. What's really
> ridiculous is that they aren't willing to speak honestly on the subject.
When I asked an Icom
> America rep at Dayton about this he shrugged his shoulders and said "I
don't know why". Simply
> unacceptable. I'm very disappointed in Icom again.
> Gary
> N6LRV
>
>
>
__________________________
> D C *Mac* Macdonald wrote:
>
>> If, as Adam has suggested may be possible, the FM capability
>> had been omitted by Icom's engineers to provide a far more
>> capable HF performance in conditions of intense RF density,
>> then I'd say that the omission of a mode that might interest
>> less than one tenth of a percent of operators was a superb
>> decision!
>>
>> 73 - Mac, K2GKK/5
>> Oklahoma City, OK
----
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/