Like most of you, I believe the Icom radios far out-perform the kenwood
ts-2000, and like most of you, I would rather have the accessibility of the
Kenwood, however since we're comparing rx sensitivity, how do those of you
feel the ts480 stacks up against the ts2000?
Fred Olver [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: thinking of changing rigs
> Lou,
>
> I've always thought Icoms were way ahead of Kenwoods in the
> sensitivity and noise department, but their lack of speech feedback
> makes them difficult for us to use. That was less of an issue when
> there were more controls on the front panel, but today everything is
> buried in menus and it makes operation tough for us. It's just so
> nice to be able to access everything, and that's why I bought my 480.
>
> Steve
>
> On Monday 3/6/06 22:37 Louis Kim Kline wrote:
>>Hi.
>>
>>I bought the TS2000S mostly because of accessibility. There are things I
>>don't like about the radio. It isn't as sensitive as some of my older
>>equipment, and I don't like the AGC on the TS2000S. Actually the receiver
>>on my Kenwood TS690S will outperform the TS2000S.
>>
>>Anyway, I think my favorite transceiver from a receiver performance
>>standpoint was the Icom IC735--zI always had all the sensitivity that I
>>wanted, and it was somehow more intelligible in noisy band conditions than
>>any of my Kenwood radios. Regarding the IC746, I would have gone with
>>that
>>radio if I could have solved the accessibility problem, and there are
>>somethings that I don't even care that much about. I find for example in
>>the TS2000S that the menus are pretty much set and forget. I presume that
>>the Icom is like that also. PL tones are a much bigger deal, as is
>>repeater offsets.
>>
>>
>>If Icom would even let you program it from a computer like the TS2000S,
>>that would be a manageable arrangement. If they did that the way that
>>Kenwood did with the '2000, maybe I would still be running an Icom IC706
>>MkIIG
>>
>>73, de Lou K2LKK
>>
>>
>>
>>At 09:07 AM 3/6/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>> > Gary:
>> >
>> >Although I don't use the IC746 pro, I do have the Icom 746 basic rig,
>> >and
>> >love it. I have heard others say that they feel the sensitivity and
>> >selectivity of the 746 line is better than that for the TS2000. I
>> >haven't
>> >had a TS2000, though, to do a direct comparison myself.
>> >
>> >The only down side to the 746 is that you probably will need some
>> >sighted
>> >assistance to get certain things set up, since the menus and some other
>> >functions (like repeater off-sets and PL tone selection) are not "user
>> >friendly". Once you get repeaters programmed into memories, though,
>> >those
>> >problems are solved.
>> >
>> >I don't know how helpful this will be to you, and I'm sure others on the
>> >list will have their own thoughts and opinions.
>> >
>> >If you have any more questions regarding my experience with the 746,
>> >feel
>> >free to ask.
>> >
>> >73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Gary Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
>> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> >Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:42 PM
>> >Subject: thinking of changing rigs
>> >
>> >
>> > > I am thinking of changing rigs from my ts2000.
>> > >
>> > > Candidates are
>> > > icom 746 pro
>> > > icom 756 pro
>> > > kenwood ts480
>> > >
>> > > I would like to hear from anyone who has actually operated these rigs
>> > > to
>> > > get a feel for their performance and useability.
>> > >
>> > > I don't need anything over 100 wattts, in fact, any other rig
>> > > suggestions
>> > > are welcome.
>> > > I'm mostly looking for better selectivity and sensitivity than I seem
>> > > to
>> > > get with the 2000.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for any light you can shed on this.
>> > > 73
>> > >
>>
>>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
>
|
