[South Florida DX Association] ARRL IC-7800 report now out]

[Bill Marx]

Interesting notes from the Icom List:
-Bill W2CQ


COMMENTS inserted below from Rob Sherwood:
> 
> Dave N9EWO wrote:
> 
> > Hi to all,
> >  
> > The ARRL lab report is now out on the Icom IC-7800. I'm not a ARRL 
> > member so have not had a chance to read this (link below). Just a FYI 
> > here.
> >  
> > They were saying on the HF Icom net today that the noise floor and 
> > close in dynamic range did not do well at all in this lab test (@ 2 
> > khz ??) . (Perhaps Rob you had a bit of input for this report ??)
> >  
> 
> REPLY:   Please give me a link to this, or send me comments.   There is
> no expanded report with the real "brass tacks" numbers.  There is no
> critical 1 or 2 kHz dynamic range information.   There is no data on
> phase noise.  The text says the 20  kHz 3rd order dynamic range is 98
> and the table says 104.   Hopefully an expanded report will come out
> later, but this seems to me to be a puff piece.
> 
> I am in total shock after reading this review of the most significant
> piece of equipment that has shipped in 2004.  The review says very
> little of substance.
> 
> Why didn't the guy who "felt" it was better than his 930 hook up an A/B
> switch and actually compare?   There was no pile up, but he "felt" this
> and he "felt" that.  There are 4.5 column inches of discussion of the S
> meter, but a lack of information on critical aspects of the radio.
> 
> Some of the puffery I find objectionable:
> "I was able to hear calling US stations on back scatter that I don't
> believe I would have heard on the TS-930.  The pile-up was not very big,
> but I sensed a "depth" to the frequency that made me feel like I was
> hearing layers of signals that normally fall into a "mush layer".
> 
> More questionable statements:
> The IC-7800 seemed to perform well with weak RTTY signals.
> What the hell does that mean.
> 
> More warm fuzzy feelings:
> The receiver is so sensitive that you can pick up the clicks earlier
> than I think I would have noticed on the '930 or most other rigs.
> 
> A lot of people at the League and around the world have been spending a
> lot of time for months discussing test methodology and how to make the
> reviews in QST more meaningful.  The work is not finished, but in the
> interim, I was not expecting to read this kind of "press release" copy.
> 
> I hope I don't get kicked off the ARRL group for these politically
> incorrect statements, but this article is a total disappointment.
> 
> Rob Sherwood
> NC0B
> 
> 
> > The ARRL Lab IC-7800 review 
> > <http://www.arrl.org/members-only/prodrev/pdf/pr0408.pdf> is now on 
> > the ARRL members-only site. (must log on.)
> >  
> > Regards,
> > Dave Zantow N9EWO
> > Janesville, WI
> > Dave's Radio Receiver Page
> > http://www.ticon.net/~n9ewo <http://www.ticon.net/%7En9ewo>