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

[Anders Janis SM4RNA]

In our bandplan 6kHz should be enough for FM on 10m, but most US statiuon we 
here over here is wider than that.

de Anders


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg at lcisp.com>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ICOM] Icom 7200 at Dayton Big Disappointment???


>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/
>
> ----
> 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/