Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: COMPAIR TWO HF RADIOS  (Read 7755 times)
K9MHZ
Member

Posts: 1553




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2018, 06:12:04 AM »

Point well taken.  Since we’re “compair”ing some older radios, the 7410 isn’t bad.  Have a 9100, but have never been thrilled with the HF side of it, and always felt that it was a typically lazy move by Icom to cram three VHF/UHF radios into a 7410 and call it a new rig.  

I guess it’s a Honda Civic vs Ford Focus deal.  Lots of: “meh....works OK,  I guess <yawn>“

« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 06:16:13 AM by K9MHZ » Logged
VK2NZA
Member

Posts: 116




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: April 17, 2018, 03:42:36 AM »

K9MHZ - interesting, I have heard a few IC-9100 owners have felt the model as average in the receive department, I haven't owned one, mainly due as you say, I prefer to have a dedicated VHF/UHF rig.
The HF receiver should for all intents and purposes be the same as the IC-7410, but having some fine rigs here in the shack including an IC-765,(one of my favourites) an FT 1000D,  Kenwood TS-870, I can honestly say the receiver in the 7410 is very very good.and compares very well to any of them.
It does pose the question as to whether the extra UHF circuitry somehow deteriorates the HF side in the IC 9100?
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 12619




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2018, 09:41:57 AM »

I think I know the problem, JX sleeps with his 480

Not at all but having a engineering back ground, having been a Ham for 49 years and having worked in flight test for many years too I know how to test rigs and do far more than turn them on, use volume control and twist VFO. I like pushing receivers to see what they can do. Prior to about 2009 I had zero interest in a 480. It was by chance I was heard one on a bench at Universal Radio while stopping by with a freind while recovering for knee surgery. I was amazed how "clean" receiver was compared for several other rigs there and is several visits since then I have test many rigs against one another. There was a time I really wanted a 590 but having compared it to the 480, 7300, 7410, 9100/9100A and a few others over lass few years side by side same signal same antenna and I am not impressed and think it is over rated dated today and and getting more dated as IF DSP is still maturing. Yes 480 is a analog rig but with optional xtal filter it will run with rigs cost 2 to 3x more. (without these filters it does lack in heavy QRM). While I have not really tested a 590 vs a 7300 with strong signals, I have with weak signals in mud and 590 is well behind 7300 and even 480 has a slight edge too because mixer noise in 590 together with n weak signals in noise does not play well.   

K3EY, you can try to dance around on this but I have seen it first hand and when used properly with weak signals in noise a 7300 will clearly outclass a 590. And while 480 is a analog rig it is a mature design with a very clean front end too. 
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
K3EY
Member

Posts: 79




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2018, 10:32:46 AM »

I think I know the problem, JX sleeps with his 480

Not at all but having a engineering back ground, having been a Ham for 49 years and having worked in flight test for many years too I know how to test rigs and do far more than turn them on, use volume control and twist VFO. I like pushing receivers to see what they can do. Prior to about 2009 I had zero interest in a 480. It was by chance I was heard one on a bench at Universal Radio while stopping by with a freind while recovering for knee surgery. I was amazed how "clean" receiver was compared for several other rigs there and is several visits since then I have test many rigs against one another. There was a time I really wanted a 590 but having compared it to the 480, 7300, 7410, 9100/9100A and a few others over lass few years side by side same signal same antenna and I am not impressed and think it is over rated dated today and and getting more dated as IF DSP is still maturing. Yes 480 is a analog rig but with optional xtal filter it will run with rigs cost 2 to 3x more. (without these filters it does lack in heavy QRM). While I have not really tested a 590 vs a 7300 with strong signals, I have with weak signals in mud and 590 is well behind 7300 and even 480 has a slight edge too because mixer noise in 590 together with n weak signals in noise does not play well.  

K3EY, you can try to dance around on this but I have seen it first hand and when used properly with weak signals in noise a 7300 will clearly outclass a 590. And while 480 is a analog rig it is a mature design with a very clean front end too.  

Your ego takes precedence over common sense.

And WHY do you INSIST that everyone agree with you
and INSIST that you are correct all the time=EGO EGO ego

You background is not unique by the way.....
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 10:37:47 AM by K3EY » Logged
K3EY
Member

Posts: 79




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2018, 01:54:05 PM »

I think I know the problem, JX sleeps with his 480

Not at all but having a engineering back ground, having been a Ham for 49 years and having worked in flight test for many years too I know how to test rigs and do far more than turn them on, use volume control and twist VFO. I like pushing receivers to see what they can do. Prior to about 2009 I had zero interest in a 480. It was by chance I was heard one on a bench at Universal Radio while stopping by with a freind while recovering for knee surgery. I was amazed how "clean" receiver was compared for several other rigs there and is several visits since then I have test many rigs against one another. There was a time I really wanted a 590 but having compared it to the 480, 7300, 7410, 9100/9100A and a few others over lass few years side by side same signal same antenna and I am not impressed and think it is over rated dated today and and getting more dated as IF DSP is still maturing. Yes 480 is a analog rig but with optional xtal filter it will run with rigs cost 2 to 3x more. (without these filters it does lack in heavy QRM). While I have not really tested a 590 vs a 7300 with strong signals, I have with weak signals in mud and 590 is well behind 7300 and even 480 has a slight edge too because mixer noise in 590 together with n weak signals in noise does not play well.  

K3EY, you can try to dance around on this but I have seen it first hand and when used properly with weak signals in noise a 7300 will clearly outclass a 590. And while 480 is a analog rig it is a mature design with a very clean front end too.  

Your ego takes precedence over common sense.

And WHY do you INSIST that everyone agree with you
and INSIST that you are correct all the time=EGO EGO ego

You background is not unique by the way.....

JX---you asked if I ever did a side by side with the 7300 and 590SG, obviously since I own both.

Today I did it yet again on 20 CW. My hearing even at my age tests like a 20 year old because I always
used ear protection around noise. Like commercial aircraft screaming jet engines that I worked on where
you were mandated to use ear protection. Well with my ears I can NOT tell one iota of difference listening
to weak signals using same antenna same conditions same everything.

The true difference between the 7300 and 590SG is the operator's preference and NOT what you say, think or believe, it just isn't.

k3ey
Logged
N0YXB
Member

Posts: 1254




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2018, 05:02:04 PM »


The true difference between the 7300 and 590SG is the operator's preference and NOT what you say, think or believe, it just isn't.

k3ey

Yes. Well said.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 12619




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2018, 04:46:48 AM »

You background is not unique by the way.....

Far more unique than you think. In flight test/Mod we had to think on fly. Using/testing HF rigs is childs play. I have even worked on the exact same B52's over 40 years ago during my SAC days that now fly missions today. (never dreamed back then they would still be in use today) Been in the cockpit of several large military aircraft in flight too. I could go on with a very long list but what the point. Some people do not truth/fact be it about low budget barn yard hamfests for sheep or attacks on their sacred cow rigs. Another point you TOTALLY miss is that I am a Kenwood guy and used them for over 35 years now and for me to place a Icom above a 590 tells you something. Meet me in at Universal in Columbus Ohio some weekend and I will show you how a 7300 can badly shade a 590 in pulling weak signals out of noise. I was kinda shocked first time I saw this hands on. 590 is a very old design in IF DSP world what unlike analog world that in mature and still does well many years later IF DSP is still maturing. Time to kick 590 design down road and replace it.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
N0YXB
Member

Posts: 1254




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2018, 07:18:59 AM »

And while your background is interesting, there are also others here with military aviation backgrounds. Some of us even received hazardous duty pay for flying in the aircraft we fixed, but that's not relevant to comparing two HF radios.

At the end of the day most modern transceivers in the same price class are comparable. EY is correct, it all comes down to the operator's preference. Nobody is going to die if they pick a Kenwood over an Icom.

Logged
HB9PJT
Member

Posts: 368


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2018, 12:32:00 PM »

W8JX can you make a demonstration on Youtube so we all can  see the IC-7300 is so much better than the TS-590?

73, Peter - HB9PJT
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!