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: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FT-950 as compared to IC-756PROIII or others  (Read 2447 times)
W0BKR
Member

Posts: 2067




Ignore
« on: December 27, 2007, 09:41:14 AM »

What is your impression or user feedback on teh FT-950 as a DX radio?  From what I have read on the FT-2000, seems okay but suspect to close in stations affecting selectivity.  I suspect the 950 will also.

Appreciate any feedback (other than in the equipment reviews).
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 21836




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2007, 12:21:20 PM »

PROIII has dual-watch receiver capability (dual receivers, not quite fully featured like in the '7800, but a lot better than nothing) and a beautiful front panel display including a spectrum scope feature standard.  That's a $1K upgrade to the FT-950...

Although I've never put those two rigs side-by-side (I could, over at HRO, but I haven't -- yet), using them one at a time the "feel" of the PROIII is vastly superior, unless I were selecting a mobile/portable rig in which case I'd much rather haul around the '950 (like to Field Day and such), since it's much smaller and lighter and has a reasonably good feature set.

For "home," the choice here would be very clear for me.  For portable work, it would also be clear, and in the other direction!

WB2WIK/6
Logged
IT9JCB
Member

Posts: 10




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2007, 02:31:35 PM »

I've got ft-950 five days ago (see also my review on this site) and I've also tested the ic756pro-II (old version) in my friend's shack: there is no story ..756 outperforms ft-950 in all, but it costs about 1500$ more...!!! FT-950 has very good rf front-end, same of 756, same selectivity, and is a champion for quality/price, but when you are working with a low sig embedded in the noise the 756 plus its fantastic DNR is unsurpassed. Note that on 950 the DNR does not work at all..and least but not last: you can not engage it directly front the front buttons but via menu only.
Thinking to change my FT-950 soon with icom 756proIII....
Logged
W0BKR
Member

Posts: 2067




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2008, 08:11:06 AM »

I am coming to a conclusion soon that buying the FT-950 was a big mistake.  I read user reviews only to find out from some of the posters that their posting was bogus and they have since parted with their respective FT-950 that they were praising.  It could be me and I hope that it is, but I was looking for a suitable substitute for my old PRO but the PRO runs rings around this 950 when the 950 should be on par or superior to the older PRO based upon the FT-2000 numbers (which the 950 should resemble).  Couldn't even hear a YN station on 160 meters with it, that was arm chair copy with teh PRO.  something has got to be wrong with that picture.
Logged
AE5EH
Member

Posts: 47




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2008, 07:40:32 PM »

"by W0BKR on December 27, 2007       
What is your impression or user feedback on the FT-950 as a DX radio? From what I have read on the FT-2000, seems okay but suspect to close in stations affecting selectivity. I suspect the 950 will also.

Appreciate any feedback (other than in the equipment reviews)"

How's about pulling your head out of your anal cavity? Or are your sphincter muscles in such an acute spasm you're "up and locked" indefinitely? You're not only a coward, you're a stupid coward too my little Parker County, TX Princess. Why don't you spend a little more time learning how to read your equipment manuals, and some basic communications electronics theory you little faggot. Spend less time bragging about your ARRL life membership, and what you think amateur radio should be (like the rest of everyone that might read that garbage really gives a damn what you think) in that worthless QRZ bio. Hey princess, how about a little explanation about that "bootleg callsign" business eh? I thought you pompous & holier than thou Weatherford, Texans didn't lie. You know what I'm talking about huh? You've been a ham so long and didn't know how to look up a call sign in the real legal database? Why don't you go do that and come clean Princess? Of course if you can't properly look up a call sign, you can't operate a simple radio like the FT950 either too well either huh?

How's that for feedback my little fairy with the gay "0 land" vanity call sign?

Terry-AE5EH
Logged
KE5NUC
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2008, 09:25:03 AM »

My apologies for the bad post. It was wrong.

Terry-W3QJ
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!