[ICOM] QST - 7600

Fri Oct 9 16:11:14 EDT 2009

Now, now, John.  No going back, hi.
73,
Don
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg at yahoo.com>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ICOM] QST - 7600

If we really wanted a tight front end, go back to something like the Icom 
740-ham bands only with a bandswitch and tight bandpass filters for each 
band!

73s John AA5JG

--- On Fri, 10/9/09, Don Cunningham <wb5hak at martineer.net> wrote:

> From: Don Cunningham <wb5hak at martineer.net>
> Subject: Re: [ICOM] QST - 7600
> To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 2:56 PM
> John, et al,
> You are missing one of the very important reasons for no
> dual watch on the
> 7700. Dual watch requires a "wide open" front end so
> you can monitor two
> frequencies at the same time on the same receiver.
> The 7700 was designed to
> give that "tight front end" that many of us want for weak
> signal use, with
> less interference. The 7700 certainly is a fine
> receiver, much superior to
> the Pro III, but I have not seen the 7800 or 7600, so
> cannot speak to those
> rigs. Read all of Adam's report, it alludes to the
> reason for no dual watch
> on the 7700
> 73,
> Don, WB5HAK
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg at yahoo.com>
> To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [ICOM] QST - 7600
>
>
> I would also take the 7600 over the 7700 because it does
> dual receive,
> something missing on the 7700. I know technically it is
> dual watch, but it
> does allow me to receive on 2 different frequencies at the
> same time.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> --- On Fri, 10/9/09, Jan Robbins <swanman at cfu.net>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Jan Robbins <swanman at cfu.net>
> > Subject: Re: [ICOM] QST - 7600
> > To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> > Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 12:37 PM
> > I would certainly think Hans is
> > right, that 7600/7700/7800 receiver
> > performance is "very
> > close". Simply looking at the circuitry suggests
> > that. Still, on-air
> > performance at this QTH, plus
> > some external professional testing, favored the 7700.
> > On the other
> > hand, look at the price tags of the three radios. If
> > performance
> > of all three is "very close," and you don't need 200w
> > output, why
> > wouldn't the 7600 be the "best buy?"
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > Hans Remeeus wrote:
> > > Receiver performance between the 7600/7700/7800
> is
> > very close:
> > >
> > > http://www.remeeus.eu/ham-radio-english/transceivers/qst-product-reviews.html
> > >
> > >
> > > 73,
> > > Hans Remeeus (PA1HR)
> > > http://www.remeeus.eu
> > > Communication is about people, the rest is
> > technology.
> > >
> > >
> > > John Geiger schreef:
> > >> --- On Fri, 10/9/09, Jan Robbins <swanman at cfu.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> The
> > >>> receiver data is
> > >>> especially impressive, coming out vy
> nearly as
> > good as the
> > >>> 7700, which
> > >>> is Icom's best.
> > >> Does the 7700 beat the 7800 in receiver
> > performance?
> > >>
> > >> I admit, the QST review of the 7600 is very
> > tempting.
> > >>
> > >> 73s John AA5JG
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > __________ Informatie van ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
> versie
> > van database viruskenmerken 4408 (20090908)
> __________
> > >
> > > Het bericht is gecontroleerd door ESET NOD32
> > Antivirus.
> > >
> > > http://www.eset.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > 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/
> > > To support QSL/QTH.net: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Text inserted by Panda IS 2009:
> > >
> > > This message has NOT been classified as spam. If
> > it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following
> link
> > to reclassify it:
> > http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1781&SPAM=true&path=C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Jan\Local%20Settings\Application%20Data\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Internet%20Security%202009\AntiSpam
> > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----
> > 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/
> > To support QSL/QTH.net: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
>
>
>
> ----
> 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/
> To support QSL/QTH.net: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.8/2425 - Release
> Date: 10/09/09
> 08:10:00
>
> ----
> 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/
> To support QSL/QTH.net: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

----
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/
To support QSL/QTH.net: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.8/2425 - Release Date: 10/09/09 
08:10:00