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] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: very vague..new transceivers....  (Read 17553 times)
KB1BZR
Member

Posts: 79




Ignore
« on: July 19, 2010, 02:29:45 AM »

I know this question is vague and maybe no good answer.

It even seems dumb.


ok..everything around here is ancient..

Things like an ICOM 720A..Kenwood 440...Icom 726...(or is it 728 ?)


It seems back in these days a nominal priced transceiver was good. (?)


In my old age I think newer is not always better.



I look at old specs and they will be 'triple conversion'..even 'quadruple conversion' for the receiver.

NOW double is SUPER ? Does not matter anymore ?



I need a receiver that 'what you hear is what you get'.  --ya know..a signal on 2342 khz is actually a signal... Something on 7087 khz is actually there vs. some 'who knows what'.


Amateur Radio. Most transceivers also cover 'general coverage'. (?) Maybe an option for a 'narrow AM Filter' if you want to even listen to AM 530-1700 khz. Shortwave ?


My vague question :::::::::::::



If you were going to buy a modern era 2010 transceiver in low cost range your choice ? A good general coverage receiver is also desired.


Kenwood TS480 ?  TSB2000 ?

Icom IC-718  7000 ?  IC706MKIIG ?   IC7200 ?


Yaesu FT897D ?  FT450 ? FT857 ?  FT950 ?



Low price but usually the cheapest is not the best.


What would you go after ? $1000 range. Any have a specific problem with the receiver ? (outside of amateur radio bands ?)


 Huh
Logged
KB1BZR
Member

Posts: 79




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2010, 02:39:41 AM »

This is like buying a new car.


Avoid lemons.




Are transceivers still 'general coverage receive' Huh  00000 mhz-30 mhz, etc.


Opinion of best radio for the price ?



Prefer something larger than a 'miniature'.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3877




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2010, 03:01:27 AM »

everything around here is ancient..

Things like an ICOM 720A..Kenwood 440...Icom 726...(or is it 728 ?)

None of those are "ancient". They're all less than 30 years old!

It seems back in these days a nominal priced transceiver was good. (?)

Not sure what you mean by "nominal priced" and "good" in that context.

The prices of older ham gear look attractive until you consider inflation. A dollar in 1980 bought a lot more than it does today, and most of us were paid a lot less. IOW, a rig that cost $1000 new in 1985 was a lot more expensive than one that costs $1000 new today.

In my old age I think newer is not always better.

That's always been the case. Some newer stuff is better, some isn't. Remember New Coke?

I look at old specs and they will be 'triple conversion'..even 'quadruple conversion' for the receiver.

NOW double is SUPER ? Does not matter anymore ?

More conversions doesn't always mean a better receiver. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Depends on the design.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20574




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2010, 10:20:47 AM »


I look at old specs and they will be 'triple conversion'..even 'quadruple conversion' for the receiver.

NOW double is SUPER ? Does not matter anymore ?

Not really.  Some great receivers today are direct conversion (RF operating frequency to audio), thanks to modern technology.

Quote
I need a receiver that 'what you hear is what you get'.  --ya know..a signal on 2342 khz is actually a signal... Something on 7087 khz is actually there vs. some 'who knows what'.

Unless your receiver is being overloaded, most perform like this.  Strong-signal handling is one of many figures of merit for receivers, and if you're next to a broadcast station or something, this might be an important one for you.

Quote
Amateur Radio. Most transceivers also cover 'general coverage'. (?) Maybe an option for a 'narrow AM Filter' if you want to even listen to AM 530-1700 khz. Shortwave ?

If you want AM to sound good, you wouldn't want a "narrow AM filter."  Many ham rigs use an attenuator when switching down to AM BCB, to prevent overload.  Most are not the best for AM BCB reception, a typical car radio is better.

Quote
Kenwood TS480 ?  TSB2000 ?
TS480s a good choice and a lot of bang for the buck.  The TSB2000 requires computer control, it has no front panel -- very different kind of rig.  It's also above $1K as far as I know.

Quote
Icom IC-718  7000 ?  IC706MKIIG ?   IC7200 ?
The 706MK2G is discontinued.  The 718 is way under $1K and well liked.  The 7000 is above $1K and well liked, but it's a small rig that for me is "too small" for home station use -- better for mobile/portable work.  Never used a 7200 yet.

Quote
Yaesu FT897D ?  FT450 ? FT857 ?  FT950 ?
The 857 and 897 are the same rig, different packaging and options.  They're both really small and too small for me for home station use, better for mobile/portable.  FT-450 is also very small but more modern and can have an internal tuner.  FT-950 is by far the best of this Yaesu list, but it's over $1K.


Logged
N7DM
Member

Posts: 671




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2010, 06:52:53 AM »

I run pretty 'ancient' gear, myself....also getting there.  I prefer what I use to transmit with, for my reasons. But I also own and daily use {for monitoring} a General Coverage/ Ham Band  RECEIVER. This one is Icom R-70...[ancient]. I like to be able to hear what YOU hear...be it audio or my keying note. That my Transceivers are dual conversion... or NUMEROUS conversion, doesn't mean a thing to me!  Maybe you need to think along my lines....  Just a suggestion. That little R-70 has been a real good tool. I also use it in the field..on a battery.. to run my noise bridge.  To say nothing of SWLing commercial broadcast.

dm
Logged
W0FM
Member

Posts: 2054




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2010, 03:02:22 PM »

My FT-1000MP is practiaclly DEAF on the AM BC band.  But the copy says it "covers" that band.  If AM BC is important to you, check the specs closely.  The fact that a band might be "included" doesn't always mean it will work really well.

73 de Terry, WØFM
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20574




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2010, 03:39:47 PM »

My FT-1000MP is practiaclly DEAF on the AM BC band.  But the copy says it "covers" that band.  If AM BC is important to you, check the specs closely.  The fact that a band might be "included" doesn't always mean it will work really well.

73 de Terry, WØFM

A lot of ham rigs are like that.  But I'd have no reason to use one for AM-BC reception.

For that, I use the AM radio from a 1969 Cadillac DeVille, hanging over the bench in the garage.  It's a fabulous receiver. 

Most stuff is application-specific. Tongue
Logged
W0FM
Member

Posts: 2054




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2010, 08:08:22 AM »

Steve,

And you stil power your rig with the battery from that DeVille, right?   Grin

Terry
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20574




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2010, 08:36:21 AM »

Steve,

And you stil power your rig with the battery from that DeVille, right?   Grin

Terry

Nah. Wink

I was looking in a salvage yard for a part for my Volvo, actually, and stumbled across their "salvage radio" section, in a shed.  The place had hundreds of radios.  Picked this one out and brought it home for $15.  (Probably $14.50 more than it cost them.)  It works fantanstically well.  I do use Radio Shack 6 x 9" oval "car radio" replacement speakers with it and they're very good, too.

Now, if I go back there 500 more times and bring the Caddy home piece by piece, I might be able to build a car around the radio... Cheesy
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4497




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2010, 07:27:02 AM »

One advantage of older gear is that a lot of it is repairable, even if some sort of work around is needed.  A five year old rig with a u/s 256 pin BGA ASIC that's no longer manufactured becomes a parts radio -  and if it's a common failure, noit much good then.
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5985




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2010, 10:40:51 AM »

FT-450 for a very high price to performance ratio. I had one before upgrading to an Elecraft K3.

You can read the technical reviews of transceivers in QST and make a decision based on that. You can view receiver measurements at:

     http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 10:51:39 AM by DAVE CUTHBERT » Logged
K3AN
Member

Posts: 787




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2010, 11:26:02 AM »

Do you want 6 Meter coverage? Do you want or need an internal antenna tuner? Do you like diving into a radio's menus just to change the AGC time constant from fast to slow or do you prefer a front panel with lots of knobs and buttons? 13.8 VDC or 120 VAC operation? Maybe both? How good is your vision (can you see the legends on small knobs and all the information on a small display)?

Just by answering these questions yourself, you should be able to narrow your choice to a couple or three radios. Then check out the QST reviews and with a large grain of salt check out the user reviews here.
Logged
WD8LIC
Member

Posts: 32


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2010, 05:53:45 AM »

For what it is worth, I bought an ICOM 718.  Only problem was the bandpass filter is too broad.  Installed an aftermarked cw filter and problem solved.  I'm very happy with my 718.
Bob WD8LIC
Logged
K7MH
Member

Posts: 336




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2010, 12:15:38 PM »

Given the choices offered in the original post, I'd go for the FT-950.
I might be swayed to the IC-7200 though.
Logged
WB4TJH
Member

Posts: 191




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2011, 08:06:59 AM »

Go with the modern  FT-950. The REAL problem with old gear is that many parts are no longer available except from junk radios. Go with modern technology and forget that outdated junk. If you really enjoy restoring old gear, that's a different matter, but for dependable, day to day use, go with most up to date technology you can afford.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   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!