Hi Brett.

The Drake has superior sensitivity and selectivity to the Icom R75, and 
comparable sensitivity to the R71A, but the selectivity is still better on 
the Drake.  The Icom R71A has a bit better strong signal handling 
capabilities than the Drake, but the Drake and the Icom R75 are comparable 
in their ability to handle strong signals.

The Drake has much better audio than either one of the Icoms.  Icom tends 
to concentrate on the RF and IF sections of the radio, and really neglects 
good audio design.  Drake does an excellent job on both.

The primary drawbacks to the Drake are the lack of a voice frequency 
readout, less frequency coverage than the Icom R75, a little poorer thermal 
stability (still not bad, but noticably less stable than either of the Icom 
receivers), and a larger foot print.  By the way, the synchronous detector 
in the Drake R8A buries the synchronous detector in the Icom R75, which 
Icom shouldn't have even bothered with because it is absolutely useless.

If you don't care about listening below 100KHz, or above 30 MHz, go buy a 
Drake R8A or R8B if you can find one.  You won't be disappointed, and in 
the 100 KHz to 30 MHz range, I think it is a better radio than the Icom if 
you can live without a voice synthesizer.

73, de Lou K2LKK



At 05:16 PM 8/1/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>Hey lou,
>
>How does the drake compare to the Icom performance wise or have you had
>your hands on both?  I am a ditw Drake fan ever since I had my tr3.  The
>sp4 was awesome with that rig.  Sure beat the Swans.  I did enjoy my
>ic701 but never got used to the optical stepping on the VFO.  The RM2
>was nice however.  =20
>
>
>###
>BRETT WINCHESTER
>[log in to unmask]
>208-639-8386
>###
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: For blind ham radio operators
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lou Kline
>Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 4:46 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: A Replacement for an Icom R71 Receiver
>
>Hi.
>
>Too bad you didn't catch me when I had my Drake R8A up for sale.  That
>would've done the job in fine shape, as would the Drake R8B.  Another
>good candidate would be the Icom R75.  You might prefer the Icom because
>it has a speech board and a very nice DSP unit.  The Drakes are only
>available on the used market, but there are still new Icom R75 receivers
>out there.  It takes the UT102 speech synthesizer, and last I knew, Icom
>was giving the
>UT106 DSP unit away with the receiver.  It only has 6 KHz and 2.4 KHz
>filters in it, so you'll probably want to buy the 3.3 KHz filter for
>narrow AM and one of the CW filters, and maybe a narrow SSB filter.  Be
>prepared for sticker shock on the filters--the radio itself is
>substantially less expensive than the R71A, but the accessories make up
>the difference in a hurry.
>
>Receiver performance is close to that of the R71A,; I think the strong
>signal characteristics of the R71A are a little better, but the Icom R75
>does a respectable job.  Also, plan on getting some kind of external
>speaker as the built in is pretty poor.  Icom just doesn't seem to know
>how to put a good speaker in a radio.  That was one thing I liked about
>the Drake--the audio sounded like a million bucks on it.
>
>73, de Lou K2LKK
>
>
>
>At 03:25 PM 8/1/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >         I am looking for a communications receiver to replace my aging
>
> >ICR71 which I have had for about 22 years of generally great service on
>
> >HF. I run separate transmit and receive so I only need to worry about=20
> >receiver quality in this decision.
> >
> >         What I have in mind is something with generally the same=20
> >capabilities as the ICR71 with hopefully a serial interface that I can=20
> >use with a computer.
> >
> >         I have a Uniden BC780 scanner which I can fully control with=20
> >the exception of things like volume and squelch from a Linux computer.=20
> >The serial commands are turse, but not hard to master.
> >
> >         It would be nice to have that same capability on HF.
> >Also, if the HF receiver had that serial interface, it wouldn't matter=20
> >so much if it had an on-board speech output since the computer could=20
> >read the information one needed and its speech synthesizer would tell=20
> >you what frequency was being heard.
> >
> >         I seem to remember the ICR71 was around 600 Dollars so I am=20
> >figuring on needing to spend something similar.  I think every 20 to 25
>
> >years, it's time for a newer receiver.
> >
> >         The R71 is still working, but getting really strange glitches=20
> >in its behavior, probably due to electrolytic capacitors reaching the=20
> >end of their lives.
> >
> >         Any suggestions are appreciated.
> >
> >Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK Systems Engineer OSU=20
> >Information Technology Department Network Operations Group
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/931 - Release Date:=20
> >8/1/2007
> >4:53 PM
>
>Louis Kim Kline
>A.R.S. K2LKK
>Home e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
>Work e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
>Work Telephone:  (585) 697-5753
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/931 - Release Date: 8/1/2007 
>4:53 PM

Louis Kim Kline
A.R.S. K2LKK
Home e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
Work e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
Work Telephone:  (585) 697-5753