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 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Icom IC-R8600 Wideband Receiver  (Read 77092 times)
VE3WGO
Member

Posts: 218




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: October 14, 2017, 03:38:54 PM »

QST just reviewed this receiver, and it seems to be quite the performer!  http://icomamerica.com/en/products/amateur/receivers/r8600/Icom-R8600-QST-product-Review.pdf
Logged
N4UE
Member

Posts: 737




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: October 15, 2017, 02:40:06 PM »

Yes, I saw the review yesterday. There had been speculation about low sensitivity on the VHF Air band.
The review states that it's use on the upper VHF/UHF Ham bands would benefit from an external preamp.
I use mast mounted GaAsFETs on 2M and 70 cm. Sure helps, even with large antennas and hardline......

ron
N4UE
Logged
WA2ONH
Member

Posts: 420




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: October 20, 2017, 05:22:44 PM »

There is another review of Icom's new IC-R8600 receiver at...

http://webpages.charter.net/n9ewo2/icr8600.html

N9EWO Review : Icom IC-R8600 "Wide Band" SDR / DSP Communications Receiver
Logged

73 de WA2ONH   ... Charlie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no shame in not knowing; The shame lies in not finding out"
K0UA
Member

Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: November 01, 2017, 03:32:56 PM »

Here is another comprehensive review.

http://www.ab4oj.com/icom/r8600/r8600notes.pdf
Logged
KG7QYJ
Member

Posts: 26




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2017, 03:42:46 PM »

Am I seeing this correctly that there are no reviews for this here at eHam?

I would have expected some ratings!
Logged
VR2AX
Member

Posts: 833




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2017, 02:32:49 AM »

Am I seeing this correctly that there are no reviews for this here at eHam?

I would have expected some ratings!

I went and got mine in Hong Kong today and am now testing.
Logged
VR2AX
Member

Posts: 833




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: December 25, 2017, 08:20:10 PM »

This is just an extremely initial report after acquiring one on Saturday.

Mine is the #04 or export version which is what is offered in Hong Kong.

This is a useful link:

http://www.dj0ip.de/sherwood-forest/sherwood-xcvr-tests/icom-r-8600/

Compared to an IC-7300 it puzzled me on starting up. Signals seemed weaker. However it dawned on me this is because the R8600 has three antenna inputs, ANT 1, ANT 2 and ANT 3. These are N connector (full range) and SO-239 and RCA (both LF-HF). It defaults to the first whereas I had my test receive antenna connected to the second..

Receive antenna for the test is an AOR LA-500 12 inch magnetic loop antenna. It is ok from a receive point of view, the main challenges being noise and some directions being obstructed by high rise buildings. I am around 80 feet above ground surrounded by up to 500 feet high rises in many directions.

Turned the supply voltage on the GSV3000 down to 12 volts (slightly more than cut-off) and had no issue with overheating or noticeable change in performance.

No ham signals strong enough to check adjacent channel however I did try BBC on 9.740 from Singapore beside Radio Taipei on 9.735. It seems about the same as the 7300, maybe slightly better using synch AM on USB. Not yet conclusive, much of the problem being from wide sidebands from the lower station.

NB seems similar to the 7300, in my experience not very effective. It may be the type of noise. NR is better, again similar overall to the 7300.


Have not tried anything outside the 1.8-30 range yet.
Logged
VR2AX
Member

Posts: 833




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: December 27, 2017, 05:21:26 AM »


NB seems similar to the 7300, in my experience not very effective. It may be the type of noise. NR is better, again similar overall to the 7300.


Need to modify this statement which is not accurate so will post further.
Logged
KD7RDZI2
Member

Posts: 268




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2018, 01:35:16 PM »

According to specs http://www.sherweng.com/table.html it is probably the best wideband receiver ever made... just in the HF seems on par with the IC7610
Logged
VR2AX
Member

Posts: 833




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2018, 03:54:15 AM »

Some further observations:

Works on below 11v, I suggest 10.75 as a minimum. Basic current draw 1.5A and up to 2A on full.

The NB is effective on some noise by 10-15dB.

“OVF” may show when you are not aware of an overload issue. It can be ignored.

Have tried up to 3GHz. Poor antenna so noise limitation.

Struggling work out how to narrow the lower cw filter below 250.

For USD 1923 not bad.
Logged
KD7RDZI2
Member

Posts: 268




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: January 11, 2018, 10:40:16 AM »

What is the LO Noise (dBc/Hz) over 30Mhz and beyond 1.1Ghz? Roll Eyes
Logged
W6RZ
Member

Posts: 193




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: January 11, 2018, 11:58:47 AM »

What is the LO Noise (dBc/Hz) over 30Mhz and beyond 1.1Ghz? Roll Eyes

http://www.dj0ip.de/app/download/5811195025/Icom+R8600-Two+Samples-c.pdf
Logged
KD7RDZI2
Member

Posts: 268




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: January 11, 2018, 12:18:42 PM »


I see phase noise figures on HF (20m) not on VHF and UHF Roll Eyes
Logged
W6RZ
Member

Posts: 193




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2018, 12:27:36 PM »

RMDR and phase noise are the same exact thing.

RMDR = LO noise (dBc/Hz) - 27

LO Noise (dBc/Hz) = RMDR + 27
Logged
KD7RDZI2
Member

Posts: 268




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2018, 12:35:56 PM »

right, on 23cm:
LO Noise (dBc/Hz)=82+27=109 10khz offset. Seems good to me at these frequencies!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 12:38:08 PM by KD7RDZI2 » Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4]   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!