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 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: QST Review of IC7610?  (Read 6215 times)
K2TPZ
Member

Posts: 9




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2018, 02:29:39 AM »

The QST Review was very informative. I guess I was wrong and it just took a while to get the rig reviewed.
Logged
N9AOP
Member

Posts: 1174




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2018, 11:01:00 AM »

KC0W, elecraft really does compare the K3S with the ICOM 7610.  Please put your glasses on.  I agree that it is more money.
Art
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 566




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2018, 11:08:15 AM »


The only real review, how does it sound on the air?

Kraus


I think you will find with more experience that they more important consideration is how well it receives under various conditions. In this respect, there are few if any transceivers comparable with a K3S. Obviously some lesser radios come close but it's all about how much someone can afford or wants to spend on a hobby.

As for signal purity, again, the K3S seems to be among if not the best according to everything I've read. Whether you can differentiate signal emission purity is irrelevant.
Logged
SWMAN
Member

Posts: 1349




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2018, 04:31:17 AM »

Where was the 7610 review found in what QST issue. It wasn't in Sept. Issue.
Logged
KX2T
Member

Posts: 1103




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2018, 07:45:28 AM »

Its in the October issue on line.
As far as the 7610 and the K3s goes the only thing the K3s does better is the blocking spec, but as far as phase noise, RMD,MDS the 7610 hangs with the best of them yet the block is right around what other SDR rigs will do, that is all about the SDR design but anyone who owns a Flex, Anan, Icom SDR RX most of the blocking if you need better is done with a very slight amount of attenuation or very slightly back off on there RF gain controls. Were the Icom blows away the K3s is in the AF stage, like it's bigger brother the 7851 the 7610 has a very clean AF amplifier stage, very low distortion from this amplifier which is soo much cleaner than any Elecraft I have ever listened to and Yes I have owned a K3 in my past. The Icom also does as well as most of the top of the list under what Mr. Sherwood calls ultimate channel selectivity at > then -110db.
The one thing I personally think Elecraft is in the toilet with is control layout, user interface and looks, there basic cheap kit look is soo long in the tooth, the old Heathkits look far better and they were green giants, lol.
BTW check out the IND spec on the 7610's lab numbers and its a  12VDC final, much cleaner SSB signal on the Icom with far better audio.
Logged
KX2T
Member

Posts: 1103




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2018, 06:37:07 AM »

What is not in the QST review is the latest firmware upgrade on the 7610 in which they upgraded the second USB port on the back of this rig so you can easily down load the drivers from Icom's site and this allows use with HDSDR panadapter program, very nice addition to the 7610's tool box of tricks. Many of the few in the beginning of this radio's release were complaining about the video output on the back of this radio but installing HDSDR on your stations computer places a display on a 32" monitor like a Flex radio does as far as the pan display goes along with simple controls plus HDSDR plays well with other logging/control software so you have complete computer control with outstanding display. This was a late August release but having the second USB connection with USB3 cable compatibility was a great idea but I feel this is only the beginning, Icom does it again!
Logged
HB9PJT
Member

Posts: 415


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2018, 02:37:15 PM »

The blocking of the K3 is 30 dB better than the IC-7610 according Rob Sherwood. Then when you write "a slight amount of attenuation, then do you mean 30 dB attenuation which is equal with 1 Watt instead of 1000 Watt with a transmit signal?

73, Peter - HB9PJT

As far as the 7610 and the K3s goes the only thing the K3s does better is the blocking spec ....

... Icom SDR RX most of the blocking if you need better is done with a very slight amount of attenuation or very slightly back off on there RF gain controls.
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 1648




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: August 31, 2018, 03:21:07 AM »

All a meaningless discussion when  most receiver have got specifications that are beyond what can realistically be used on the ham bands. Why pursue stupidly high receiver blocking numbers  that assumes your ham neighbor is going to park in your driveway when they operate. Maybe hams will wake up to this receiver number stupidity one day.

In the mean time we never hear the receivers collapse but we certainly hear the spatter and crud from all the poorly designed transmitters. What is clear is that the transmitters need their specifications improved by 30db and receivers could easily take a 20 to db cut in specification. You are far more likely to hear splatter than ever hearing  IC7610 or K3 receiver collapsing.


But this mass stupidity about receiver performance in the ham community while sweeping the terrible transmitter specifications under the carpet is just pure technical ignorance. We get hundreds of pages of debate on receiver performance but nobody has the guts  to criticize all the ham manufacturers who produce  radios with terrible transmitter IMD specifications. The ignorance is palpable.

The new radios from Yaesu and Kenwood will be in the same basket,  exceptional receiver numbers and disastrous transmitter numbers. Maybe one day hams might get some technical  common sense and figure out that transmitter performance is  of far more importance today only because receivers have enough performance. But as usual all the manufacturers will spend valuable resources on receiver performance which does not need resources and spend nothing on improving transmitter performance. I  suppose ignorance manufacturers feed their ignorant consumers with poor products.
Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 2525


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #38 on: August 31, 2018, 10:52:10 AM »

All a meaningless discussion when  most receiver have got specifications that are beyond what can realistically be used on the ham bands. Why pursue stupidly high receiver blocking numbers  that assumes your ham neighbor is going to park in your driveway when they operate. Maybe hams will wake up to this receiver number stupidity one day...
While I might not be quite as adimate as you are, I am forced to agree.  The current crop of transmitters surely needs to be reviewed with a more practiced eye towards things like phase noise, etc...  I had a ham who lived 700 feet from me.  His Collins gear was wiping me out...  I changed to an Elecraft K3, things got better.  He changed to a K3 as a result of my good fortune, and things got even better for both of us.  After that Elecraft issued a new synthesizer with far better specs than the original, I got the new Synthesizer, and things got better again, Stan then got the new synthesizer, and things got WAY better...  I just happened to document the synthesizer change outs here with Spectrum Analyzer shots showing the actual change in db for each stage:
https://www.nk7z.net/k3/
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM by NK7Z » Logged

Thanks,
Dave
Amateur Radio: RFI help, Reviews, Setup information, and more...
https://www.nk7z.net
HB9PJT
Member

Posts: 415


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2018, 02:44:03 PM »

You here much more an IC-7610 or IC-7300 collapsing than a K3. 30 dB weaker blocking is a lot.

73, Peter - HB9PJT

You are far more likely to hear splatter than ever hearing  IC7610 or K3 receiver collapsing.
Logged
KX2T
Member

Posts: 1103




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: September 08, 2018, 10:40:51 PM »

Well Peter until you sit down and use any of these two radio's by yourself you have not a clue which would be crushed in a real contest environment. There is allot more than the blocking spec being better there is something called phase noise and both these radio have excellent numbers then you have ultimate channel selectivity which here again both do well. I always thought that the blocking was a key number in comparing RX then I placed a K3 next to a 7300 and it became apparent why Elecraft is always comparing there $3K plus rig next to the low cost 7300, what they are doing is paying Icom a huge complement. When you start looking past all these fine lab numbers there is the operational feel of the rig, RX and TX sound, the UI (user interface) and then you start seeing the differences in quality between Elecraft and Icom plus at the current $3K price of the 7610 next to a fully loaded K3S in which you are barking at close to $6k with all options need plus there mickey mouse panadapter display. Sorry I see no value at all with the K3s, its way overpriced and out dated plus its plain ugly.
In case you are wondering yes I had owned a K3 (not s) and now currently own a 7610, in the past 8 years I had gone threw having owned a re worked FT1KMP, TS590S, FTDX3000, IC7300, K3 and the IC7610.
Logged
PA1ZP
Member

Posts: 688




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: September 09, 2018, 05:50:47 AM »

Hi

Sorry dear OMs Peter HB9PJT, knows what he is talking about, I found him to be one of the smartest asses around in Europe.
30 dB difference in blocking dynamic range is huge and he is fully spot on.
These Icoms are very poor contest and multi/multi perfromers, or being in contests or in fielddays.
Even on a bit big antenna on 20 mtrs these rigs fall apart completely by overloading.
You can keep the RX alive by putting up Att or and shutting down preamps, but doing this will also remove weak RX signals from these rigs.

Tested against a TS590S on our camping sight with 5 HF stations using full size 80 mtr multiband doublets within a distance of 200 feet of eachother, the IC7300 was very weak and fell apart the moment one of the others started to use any HF band.
As long as the other stations were not using the 80 mtr band and only 100 Watts , the TS590S would still do a decent job on 80 mtrs RX.

73 Jos
« Last Edit: September 09, 2018, 05:57:34 AM by PA1ZP » Logged
VE3WGO
Member

Posts: 451




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2018, 07:23:18 AM »

sounds like you are going to need a TS-890s
Logged
PA1ZP
Member

Posts: 688




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: September 09, 2018, 01:30:05 PM »

Hi

No Kenwood for me anymore.
I realy got fed-up with the awfull ringing cw filters of the TS590S and the awfully bad CW RX audio.
No I realy like the Icom7300, , but I do not do contests or fielddays.
So no troubles with my IC7300, it does an excellent job on 80/40/30/20/17/15/12/10 in both SSB and CW ragchewing.

But you said an IC7300 or IC7610 are the best of the best contest rigs or recievers, no they are not a TS590S or SG will beat them both big time in multi/multi use, and a K3 will pulverise them.
But who cares for a great contest rig, I  got a headache of the awfull ts590S CW audio within 5 minutes.

And so lots of rigs have pros and cons, you need to find out wich rig suits your needs best and wich doesn't.
My best rig isn't someonse elses best rig at all.
I do not do digital work on any band just CW and SSB, so i do not even look if my rig has a USB port or RS232, because I will never use these.

73 Jos
Logged
ZS5WC
Member

Posts: 715


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #44 on: September 09, 2018, 10:21:58 PM »

 :)I agree with Jos, whatever rig suits your setup best..
I had the IC-7700, Hated the useless 'S' meter and NB overshoot, TX performance was good.
Current rig is the FTDX3000-stunning in all aspects except the NB has a slight overshoot.
Most DSP rigs suffer from this anomaly.
BTW, Zenki is right about TX imd-in the 1980's rigs were produced with HV solid state finals or more final tubes to address this issue.
Like the the 930 / 940s and the FT-102.  The FT-102 in particular was very good-3 6146B's limited to 100w output produced IMD levels better than -42dB below PEP.
Try and find that today-all finals are clones with the RD-100HHF1 mosfets in push pull -for all manufacturers, most are 12V finals.
There are mosfets out there now that would happily deliver 400w in a single package, at higher HV potentials and produce better IMD peformance.

73 de William
ZS4L / ZS5WC
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 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!