[Kenwood] rig rumors?

[mark kenward]

"It's nice to get nostalgic but that rig and its design technology has run
its course. Like so many other rigs, it just lives on in the used market
kingdom.

Pete, wa2cwa"


Perhaps, Pete, but our (MY)point is not nostalgia at all.

I liked my HQ180AC also, but it cannot compare as a receiver. I love my 599
twins(why no 160meters, guys?) and have since 1976, but other than
sensitivity-it cannot compare.

I continue to use the rig(850), and SOLD my 870 (which I traded the 850 for)
BECAUSE IT IS BETTER!

In fact, better than anything else KW has made since(barring possibly some
permutation of the 950, which was similar).

What works, works. I would buy the 850sat DeluxeMK because it works!

I believe that is why the 850 continues to be so popular.

Anyone listening at Kenwood???????






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "peter A Markavage" <manualman at juno.com>
To: <kenwood at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Kenwood] rig rumors?


> Quote from k4pdm - "Their advertising could stress how "real" hams
> looking for top performance go for hardware filtering and real knobs, not
> menus."
> So, if you consider rigs with state-of-the-art DSP circuitry, menus or
> computer driven. etc. as the going forward look  in amateur radio
> equipment verses hardware filtering/real knobs(?), Kenwood advertising
> should single you out as an "unreal" ham, "not" real ham, ham "lite",
> etc. I'm sure Kenwood's advertising would win awards for that ad
> campaign.
>
> It's nice to get nostalgic but that rig and its design technology has run
> its course. Like so many other rigs, it just lives on in the used market
> kingdom.
>
> Pete, wa2cwa
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:25:42 -0800 (PST) Paul Manuel <k4pdm at yahoo.com>
> writes:
>>
>> --- peter A Markavage <manualman at juno.com> wrote:
>>  I guess if you two guys could find several thousand more buyers,
>> with
>> > money up front, you could petition Kenwood to build you one. But,
>> to
>> > retool back up for a model intro'd in 1986 would be economic folly
>> and
>> > embarrassing to them.
>>
>> Well, they wouldn't CALL it an 850, of course, and wouldn't be
>> EXACTLY the
>> same. Their advertising could stress how "real" hams looking for
>> top
>> performance go for hardware filtering and real knobs, not menus.
>> Maybe it
>> could be a TS-970SAT? Of course, it would probably have to sell for
>> $5000
>> or so since it is hardware-intensive...which makes the used 850s
>> look that
>> much better (hi hi!)
>> 73,
>> Paul K4PDM
> _______________________________________________
>
> Win a new Icom IC-756PROIII and help QSL/QTH.net
> Details at: http://mailman.qth.net/index.html
> _______________________________________________
> Kenwood mailing list
> Kenwood at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kenwood
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
>
>