[Yaesu] Best $600 contest rig

[WA3GIN]

Hi,

I think there is a bit more to the story then reading "marketing" 
specifications.  These radio manufacturers are no different then car 
manufacturers...the tag says 21mph but nobody gets that mileage per 
gallon...so don't be too sure the average amateur radio operator is ever 
going to see the IMD number.  I will agree that in the past the ICOMs were 
believed to be more selective than say the Kenwoods or Yaseus (that didn't 
have cascaded filters) but the ICOM were also noted for having tinny audio 
where the Kenwoods were unbeatable for their smooth full-bodied audio. So, I 
sort of think each tried to focus on what they did that was perceived as 
their market deferrentiator. Although today I suspect that its a close horse 
race.

The Drake TR-7 could not be used in Field Day or multi-op contesting because 
it had not front end protection for overload.  There are many stories out 
there about the guy that took he new TR7 to Field Day and watched the 
received go dead after operating up band from his CW team member who was on 
the same band...

I've had all three brands and Collins and some commercial rigs too.  I've 
always been able to work who I hear. SO, my subjective opinion of one is 
that radio specs are not a very good way to judge rigs because operators 
will vary the end results by as much as 6db or more depending on whether 
they were a steal mill worker or a dentist or a musician...What's the IMD on 
that 1.5lbs of gray matter between those analog ears, haha.

I'm listening to an AM station on 75m right now using a TS-480.  The specs 
on that Kenwood are pretty competitive when compared to the higher priced 
radios. Yet, I prefer to listen to the AM station on the old HQ170 which 
clearly has specs that don't compare...go figure.

73,
dave
wa3gin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jack/NA7RF" <vhfplus at bmg50.com>
To: "Steve Harrison" <k0xp at dandy.net>; <Yaesu at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Yaesu] Best $600 contest rig


> There is plenty of data to support the conclusion that many of the older
> ICOM rigs were better than their Kenwood or Yaesu counterparts in terms
> of receiver performance. I just looked at the product review information
> on the ARRL web site (members only section) and found four older rigs
> (pre-1990) that have particularly good receiver specs. Those specs
> include Minimum Discernible Signal (MDS), Blocking Dynamic Range (BDR)
> and Intermodulation Distortion Dynamic Range (IMDDR). Those rigs are:
> ICOM IC-720A, IC-730, and IC-740 and the Ten Tec Omni-D.
>
> Comparing to the Kenwood rigs these were all better than any of them
> excepting the TS-430S and TS-940S. Comparing them to Yaesu gear they
> were all better than any except the FT-102 but the '102 had a poorer MDS
> spec. The FT-980 and FT-ONE both showed "noise limited" specs for BDS
> and IMMDR, which may or may not be better than the ICOM and Ten Tec
> rigs, but I think they both go for in excess of the $600 price range
> specified.
>
> There *are* some surprisingly bad rigs out there like the SB-104 (I built
> and used one so I can vouch for that!), the TS-520S (I use a '520 and
> it's pretty dismal compared with the TS-930S I used to own) and the
> FT-301S/D, among others! For serious contest purposes, especially in
> high signal density areas, those BDR and IMMDR specs are pretty
> important and it would be a good idea to do some research before buying.
> In addition it would be a good idea to check on availability of
> after-market filters for a given rig. INRAD lists filters for the ICOM
> rigs mentioned above but not for the Omni-D. Unfortunately one can
> spend as much in filters as the rig is worth but the improvement in
> performance can be surprisingly significant.
>
> All that being said, there may be other factors that come into play in a
> contest environment, like CW keying quality at 40wpm or sidetone levels,
> like Steve mentioned, or the availability of of bells and whistles like
> IF bandpass tuning or IF shift.
>
> Have fun browsing and selecting a rig!
>
> Jack, NA7RF
>
> BTW, I agree that the TR-7 had a problem. It's receiver is not
> spectacular but the specs do not indicate that it would fold like that
> under contest conditions.
>
>
>
> Steve Harrison wrote:
>> At 01:04 PM 9/24/2006 -0400, kd4e wrote:
>>> Renee wrote:
>>>> I would say a Drake TR7. I have used one for such in the past and it 
>>>> performed quite well. Wouldn't mind having one again.
>>>> 73
>>>> Renee NZ9T
>>> The Drake TR-7 was way ahead of its time and still
>>> is a fine rig for about any Ham application!
>>
>> I TRIED using one of those in a CW contest from a friend's place who had
>> nice big yagis, back in the early '80s. It was super-deaf yet couldn't 
>> cope
>> with big guns within a few kc, and I could barely hear the sidetone.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yaesu mailing list
> Yaesu at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/yaesu