[Kenwood] Re: Receivers: TS830 vs TS850

[John AA5JG]

Thanks for all of the comments about this question.  I have owned a TS850 before (should have kept it) and did get to play with the TS830 some earlier this year.  It seemed like it had a pretty good receiver on it, but as was mentioned, the VFO tuned way too fast, and the VFO knob felt too light as well.  The 850 does have some nice additional features on it, though.

The Kenwood TS950SDX-Now THAT is a radio.  I haven't used anything better.  Best NB and tuner I have ever seen, and it has that great Kenwood sound.  Dual receive doesn't hurt either.

73s John AA5JG


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Larry Clark <k0rs at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: k0rs at yahoo.com
Date:  Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:37:26 -0700 (PDT)

>
>
>AA5JG asks:
>
>"Is this true, does the 830 really have an even better receiver?"
>
>Depends on what your criteria for "better" is.  I've owned a couple of
>830's and seven 850's over the years.  I used an 830 to get to honor roll,
>but eventually replaced it an 850 when it began to show some age related
>disablilities.  At first I was slightly disappointed at the rx performance
>in the 850.  It seemed more prone to adjacent channel interference and
>the noise blanker wasn't as effective as the 830's.  What I soon 
>discovered was the 850's operating flexiblity and convenience features
>made it much more effective when taken as a package.  Can't beat dual
>VFO's in one box.  The tuning rate is much, much better.  Most contesters
>and DXers find the 830's tuning rate *way* too fast.  Filter selection is
>more versatile in the 850.  The 850 also has a very nice general coverage
>rx that the 830 lacks.
>
>KI6X:
>
>"Guy I know was big 160M, CW contester, honor roll DXer.  Loved
>his -830 and said nothing was as good at least on 160M."
>
>160m DX guys usually didn't like the 830 because of the need
>repeak the drive control for TX and RX when working large splits as was
>necessary to work JAs.  This may be less of a problem now that
>160m frequency assignments are changing.
>
>WA2CWA:
>
>"you could go here and compare receiver test data on a number of rigs:
>http://www.sherweng.com/table.html"
>
>True, intersting stuff.  I know Rob and respect him very much.  But 
>nothing beats sitting down in front of a radio, or better two radios
>side by side, to get a feel for the intangibles that can make or break
>a rig according to one's personal perferences.
>
>KI0OT:
>
>"Never used an 850 but I can't see it being any better than the 830."
>
>No offence meant Brad, but until you *have* used both radios, preferably
>side-by-side, you have no basis for comparison.  Not being able to
>imagine one radio being better than another isn't very quantifiable.
>
>A couple of years back I was seized with some foolish nostalgia and 
>bought another (very nice) 830 setup.  The whole thing, SP230, VFO230,
>AT230, MC50, even a PC1.  I added a KB1 and CW filters.  I found I rarely used it.  It seemed slow and clunky and the tuning rate was especially
>irritating.  It was a pain to try to use a low drive amp because
>controlling the drive power is problematic on CW and damn near
>impossible on SSB.  I couldn't believe this was the same radio that
>got me to honor roll!
>
>Don't get me wrong, I *like* boat anchors and I have
>several vintage setups.  I guess I had unrealistic expectations for
>the 830.  It doesn't have the charisma of a "real" boat anchor nor the
>performance of a modern rig.  Now I'm content with a 950SDX, which is
>like an 850 on steroids.  If I get the urge to operate something more
>venerable, my Drakes fill the bill.
>
>73,  Larry,  K0RS 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      
>______________________________________________________________
>Kenwood mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kenwood
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>Post: mailto:Kenwood at mailman.qth.net
>
 

________________________________________________________________