BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Date:
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:53:14 -0500
Reply-To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Pat Byrne <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<F5.A9.23198.4A7087C4@louvi-msg>
Message-ID:
Sender:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
Ed,
I had a TS2000 for a couple of years and traded it for an Icom 
746PRO.  The Icom isn't as accessible but more sensitive and 
selective.  Also, the Kenwood had a "digital" sound in receive and I 
didn't particularly care for that.  And, often I didn't operate for a 
while and was a bit lost with all of the Kenwood controls!!  That's 
me and certainly no fault of Kenwood.  But finally, my preference was 
for the Icom which I since have replaced with an 756PRO III.
Hope this helps.
Pat, K9JAUAt 01:44 PM 8/27/2010, you wrote:
>I was wondering how satisfied owners are with this rig along side of others
>they have used?  Selectivity, sensitivity and such,   I hear the
>accessibility is good.
>I have a 480 so am somewhat familiar with this particular  rig.  Thanks and
>73.  Ed  K7UC

ATOM RSS1 RSS2