[Premium-Rx] Domestic -v- professional radios

[Greg Bailey]

Gentlemen:

The following is a post sent to my attention by Michael O'Beirne, 
G8MOB.  Mike is new to our List and is presently at the Associate Member 
level.  He will be advanced to Full Member next week.  His background in 
receivers is substantial and I am pleased to share his comments.

For off line communication, reply-To: "Michael O'Beirne" 
<michaelob  at  tiscali.co.uk>

Greg

______________________________

Michael's post-

>It was put to me with considerable logic recently that if a very expensive
>professional radio malfunctions then the operator is not too bothered - he
>gets the "system" to fix it and ultimately the company or government pays.
>
>If, in contrast, the operator has paid for the radio himself, then he is
>going to be a very unhappy bunny if it malfunctions and he will threaten the
>supplier with writs and lawyers if he is really agressive.  Accordingly, the
>domestic stuff is field tested to an extraordinary extent.  If WJ have to
>call in 100 faulty radios, then that's too bad, but if Panasonic have to
>call in 1 million that's a PR mega disaster.
>
>With the likes of Kenwood, Yaesu and Icom, their stuff sells in big numbers
>and has to be reliable. My old Yaesu FT221R 2 metre transceiver (with a
>professional front end made by a small UK outfit called muTek) has never
>gone wrong in 20 years plus.
>
>Now I am not a lover of Japanese gear, but some can be excellent.  Their 
>maritime
>stuff is first rate and they have been in that market since well before WW2.
>The Japanese dominate the commercial marine radar market such that the
>British Decca and others gave up competing.
>
>Some of their test gear is excellent too.  I have an automatic THD meter.  I
>think it is a crib from the classic HP 339A but it is in absolutely
>agreement with my Marconi THD meter and is a lot easier to use. The quality
>of the meter movement is excellent. Need I mention Anritsu and others
>chasing HP and R&S.
>
>The very latest Icom 7800 transceiver was recently reviewed by Peter Hart in
>the RSGB's RadCom for August 2004.  Peter is a serious RF man and pulls no
>punches in his reviews.  His measurements give this rig an IP3 (from memory)
>of about +41dBm and incredible DSP filtering that would run rings around
>many a "professional" receiver.  But that said
>     a.    It is very expensive, like 7,095 pounds sterling in the UK for a
>package including the mic, flat screen momitor and keyboard;
>     b.    I think it looks supremely ugly.  There are far too many controls
>on the panel, the main tuning knob is rubber covered and feels just like the
>skin of a reptile, and the TFT screen looks more like an arcade games
>display.  I have indifferent eyesight and dislike black knobs against a
>black panel, and I prefer to read proper meters, not screen simulations.  I
>tried one out at a shop last week and did not like it.
>     No, I still prefer WJ and Racal.  But there is more to a receiver than
>mere numbers.  A receiver is like a close friend.  Some friends have worts
>but they are still good mates.  Other people may look good and dress
>expensively but in fact are total rubbish.  Some receivers feel right.  It may
>be the panel, the knobs, the metering, the layout, the logic of tuning, the
>audio, the ease of use, you name it.  I like classic WJ but not Cubic.  Not
>into membrane keyboards.  Cosmetically the most handsome for me is the
>RA1772 and I would choose its Berco knobs above all others.  If you want the
>very best audio and the smoothest, non-aggressive AGC then it's the
>PhaseTrack F1-2 used by the BBC, CBC and others for rebroadcast of SW
>services at local stations on FM, but you are limited to 9 crystal channels.
>If you want the most mechanically complicated then it's got to be the R390A
>or the Siemens E311.  If you want the most incredible pre-mixer selectivity
>then its one of the big TMC monsters or the GEC CJA/CJC (it has 6 tuned
>circuits before the mixer!).  There is no one set that encompases all these
>and other aspects.
>
>A further thought is that if our radios become almost perfect, then where is
>the challenge?  I suspect we like our expensive radios because they are like
>a Rolls-Royce.  Not too many of us can afford a Rolls but an ex-government
>radio - of course.  I say this because if the communications get too easy
>then what is the point?  We might as well move over to the internet - as I
>am doing at present as I type this!!  That, sadly, is what most kids think,
>at least here in the UK.  They point out that with a tiny mobile phone they
>can text or call their friends in most parts of the world, so why do they
>need expensive radio gear, antennas, planning permission for the antennas,
>tedious neighbours who do not want next door festooned with masts and wires,
>QRM, the FCC equivalent (a Home Office agency here) and all the other hassle
>just to talk to someone abroad.  I have to say that the argument is not
>without merit and logic.
>
>That's enough from me.  Keep well.
>73s
>Michael O'Beirne
>G8MOB