Thank you for all of the input so far.  By the time you add in a CW
filter, a DC power supply (which I don't have) and a voice guidance
board, and the discounts currently being offered for the 746 Pro
(they can throw a PS-25 in), the prices come out almost even.  My
brother was at Dayton yesterday and looked at both radios.  He wasn't
impressed with the 480 at all, partly because the control head wasn't
mounted to anything solid, and he thought the buttons were too small.
 I haven't seen either one yet, but the fact that they had to cram
all of the 480's buttons into a space smaller than 3 by 7 inches
concerns me a little.  Do you find yourself making mistakes,
activating one function when you wanted another?  And the receiver on
the 746 has an RF gain control, whereas the 480 relegates this to the
menus, I think.  I don't mind separating the control head from the
radio; I can picture it directly behind my computer keyboard.

I really don't care much about two-meter coverage, especially FM and
PL tones; my concern is for HF, possibly 6-meter SSB and CW, full
break-in, contesting, and lots of SWL-ing.   I probably said before
that I have a 50,000-watt AM station less than a mile from me, and
some times and in certain directions the power-line noise can be
dreadful around here.  Theoretically, IF signal processing should
work better than audio DSP, so the Icom would offer a wider selection
of receive bandwidths in different modes.  But if they are buried in
menus, or if the band-stack register function is hard to figure out,
it might be a problem.  I'm an engineer, so I like to have lots of
things to adjust.  Do the menus in the Icom give you any indication
when you have gone all the way around, or set to a default state, or
something?

Thank you for all your ideas.  I don't want to keep this permathread
going permanently, but as far as I'm concerned, ham radio is HF, and
a good HF radio is basic to enjoyment of the hobby.  I hope to make
this choice, then stick with it for many years.

73
Lloyd, W3IUU

On Fri, 20 May 2005 20:28:02 -0700, Kevin Nathan wrote:

>Hi Lloyd,
>
>I sold my 746 Pro in order to buy the 480.  In my book, the two are almost
>evenly match in terms of the CW receive.  I can't think of anything the 746
>Pro would do that the 480 will not.  I feel the receiver is definitely as
>good as the Icoms and much better than the TS-2000.
>
>In terms of chattiness, I like my 480.  The one annoying thing the TS-2000
>does is when you rotate through the memories, the thing says memory each
>time y0ou move the dial.  This can drive you nuts after a while.  The 480
>doesn't do that.  It also announces all of the other functions including the
>PL tones for 6 meter repeaters and I find it an absolute joy to use.
>
>I hope that helps a little and very 73.  Please write if I can help any
>more.
>
>Kevin :)
>Amateur Radio:  K7RX
>Navy Marine Corps MARS:  NNN0SHS
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Lloyd Rasmussen" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 20:14
>Subject: TS-480 vs. IC-746 Pro
>
>
>>I know that accessible HF radios  is a permathread here on the
>> Blind-Hams list.  From looking at specs, it appears to me that the
>> Icom IC746-Pro would be likely to be a better CW receiver, with more
>> options for adjustment of IF bandwidth, etc.  Have any of you
>> compared it against a 480, either for receive or for ease of
>> operation or control panel clutter?  I understand that the 746 Pro
>> can take a speech board and speaks little more than frequency and
>> S-meter readings.  Have you 480 users ever thought that your
>> transceiver was too verbose?  I'm frustrated because my local HRO
>> store is over 30 miles from here, and they said they never stock
>> their demo radios with accessory filters, voice boards, etc.
>>
>> I still don't know when I will actually buy something new, but it
>> might be this year.  My R4C really works, but I like general coverage
>> SW listening, and the FS-4 frequency synthesizer is starting to
>> become very flaky again.
>>

Some people think that the devil is in the details.  Actually, God is in the details.
Lloyd Rasmussen, Kensington, Maryland
home: <http://lras.home.sprynet.com/>
Work:  <http://www.loc.gov/nls/z3986>