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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Receiver specs explained  (Read 5983 times)
AD9DX
Member

Posts: 1519




Ignore
« on: April 23, 2012, 07:47:04 PM »

Ok I'll admit it, I still haven't sold my IC-7000 and bought a real DX radio not a mobile rig. I have been trying to research the rigs that I am interested in and am narrowing it down the best that I can.  I have been reading what has been touted as the reference bible http://www.sherweng.com/table.html but can't make heads or tails of what the specs mean.  I have only been a ham for a year and these numbers don't really mean anything to me.  PLEASE HELP!!! Huh Huh Huh
Logged

EX, KC9TRM, KB9IRZ
KS2G
Member

Posts: 439




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2012, 06:30:36 PM »

Elsewhere on Rob Sherwood's site you'll find his paper entitled:

Roofing Filters, Transmitted IMD and Receiver Performance
What’s important when it comes t ochoosing a radio?

http://www.sherweng.com/documents/Barc2008.pdf

73,
Mel -KS2G
Logged
AD4U
Member

Posts: 2186




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2012, 05:45:44 AM »

I will admit that receiver design has progressed greatly over the past 40 years.  The Sherwood site does a good job of evaluating receiver performance.  Just do not expect the "best" receiver available to make unreadable signals magically become readable.  That probably won't happen.

The most important part of any receiver lies between the user's ears.

Dick   AD4U
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20666




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2012, 09:20:37 AM »

The IC-7000 has a very good receiver; for me, its receiver wouldn't be the issue regarding operation at home.

The issue is it lacks enough front panel controls to make for comfortable and convenient operating; one has to push multiple buttons and/or refer to a menu in order to make many adjustments that I make dozens of times an hour when seriously operating.

Using the IC-7000 with HRD or some method of improved control and user interface, it would make a pretty good rig. Wink

I greatly prefer "larger" rigs with lots of front panel controls and no need to use a menu to change settings that I frequently change.

Logged
AD9DX
Member

Posts: 1519




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2012, 02:49:59 PM »

The IC-7000 has a very good receiver; for me, its receiver wouldn't be the issue regarding operation at home.

The issue is it lacks enough front panel controls to make for comfortable and convenient operating; one has to push multiple buttons and/or refer to a menu in order to make many adjustments that I make dozens of times an hour when seriously operating.

Using the IC-7000 with HRD or some method of improved control and user interface, it would make a pretty good rig. Wink

I greatly prefer "larger" rigs with lots of front panel controls and no need to use a menu to change settings that I frequently change.


I agree the 7000 is a great value in today's market.  However last year I got the 160m cw bug really bad.  The cw contests on top band are really tough with the 7000's lack of selectivity.  Even with the attenuator on. 
Logged

EX, KC9TRM, KB9IRZ
N4FBW
Member

Posts: 34




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2012, 08:55:49 AM »

FWIW, I got to play with a '7000 installed on a boat and I thought it was a great rig for marine mobile or other portable operations. I ended up purchasing an IC-7600 which has been an amazing radio. I felt that the '7000 was too small for what I wanted and I also did not want to have to add an external display. I recognize that the '7600 is quite a bit more than the '7000 which puts it out of the range of a lot of budgets.

The Sherwood Labs receiver spec chart is a great contribution to ham radio. Although the '7600 is nowhere close in receiver specs to say, the K3, I've never found it to be overwhelmed by strong, close in signals. The ergonomics and operating ease of the '7600 pretty much convinced me to buy the rig. That being said,I have not had a chance to test out the '7600 on 160m as I don't have an antenna for the top band.

As others have said, the '7000 packs a lot of features and great performance into a small price tag. The interesting thing to note is that the '7000 is actually less expensive (accounting for inflation) than the IC-730 was when it was being produced back in the 1980's.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6671




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2012, 06:28:39 PM »

Just do not expect the "best" receiver available to make unreadable signals magically become readable.  That probably won't happen.

The most important part of any receiver lies between the user's ears.

Dick   AD4U

Depends on the radio because when comparing a entry level rig with cheaply implemented IF DSP to one done proper it can make a LOT of difference in signal readability in tough conditions. While I agree the part between ears in important in loop it is more about knowing how to properly tune/use a modern rig to get the most out of it. A 1000 buck IF DSP rig does not begin to do IF DSP justice. Expect to pay more and get as new a design as you can afford too because IF DSP is maturing rapidly. The mere presence of IF DSP does not promise good performance
Logged

--------------------------------------
You can embrace new computer/tablet technology and change with it or cling to old fall far behind....
KE5JPP
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2012, 06:40:33 PM »

Be careful not to fall into the specsmanship game by chasing after the Sherwood receiver test numbers.  A few decibels here or there is not going to be noticed by your ears.  The only place you may notice it is with very expensive test equipment as long as the testing is done correctly and in a way that is repeatable.  They are non-real world tests. They are lab numbers under tightly controlled circumstances.  Just realize that these tests are a poor substitute for performance comparison in the real world.  

As far as the real world goes, a receiver can have extremely good numbers on the Sherwood tests but have the ergonomics of an old smelly pig.  You would not want to live with it every day no matter how high it rates.   Forget the specmanship and actually try out some radios to see if you can live with them from day to day.

Gene
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 10:00:16 AM by KE5JPP » Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6326




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2012, 02:06:53 PM »

I too have the 160 meter bug and finally got an Elecraft K2 for that. Now I can move right up to an S-9 +40 dB signal and copy the S7 guy near the noise level.
Logged
Pages: [1]   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!