Matt,

There are very few rigs that cover 160 - 70 CM, but I believe the Yaesu
FT-817 and the ICOM IC-706MKIIG do, but they are totally inaccessible in my
opinion. Also, the Kenwood TS-2000 covers most, if not all, of those bands
too. 

It is very debatable, and certainly subject to personal opinion, but
personally, I prefer separate HF and VHF/UHF rigs, if for no other reason
than if one goes down and needs repair, you still have another rig with
which you can get on the air. Also, it is my personal opinion that it is
extremely difficult, nearly impossible, for one transceiver to cover that
entire frequency range with optimum sensitivity and selectivity; I think
there must be compromises somewhere. Again, those are entirely my personal
positions.  

Ron, K8HSY

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Chao [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What transceiver is best??

Hi, Ron.  Nice roundup of considerations.  Speaking of same, what radios
actually do cover HF/VHF/UHF?  Have never seen such an animal, but might be
interested down the road.

In the meantime, I have my hands full just trying to wrap my head around
digital modes.  73.--Matt, N1IBB.

At 10:02 AM 7/22/2015 -0500, you wrote:
>I completely agree that the question of which is the best transceiver 
>is not an easy one to answer. However, we can simplify it somewhat by 
>narrowing down by categorizing specific key criteria such as:
>
>1. What is your license class, and if you have the Technician class ham 
>license, do you plan to upgrade in the near future? If you hold the 
>General class or higher license or the Technician license, but plan to 
>upgrade in the near future, then, you may be looking for an HF rig, a 
>VHF/UHF rig, or even one that will cover all of the ham bands in one 
>box. If, however, you hold the Technician class license and have no 
>intensions of upgrading and enjoying just working FM through your local 
>repeaters, you may be in the market for simply a VHF/UHF FM only 
>transceiver. Of course, you could be a Tech and not interested in 
>upgrading, but want to work the HF frequencies that you can; in which 
>case, you still might be in the market for a rig that will cover those
frequencies.
>
>2. What is the maximum you can afford, or what is the maximum you are 
>willing to invest? Even these are not easy questions to answer. It 
>depends on whether you are going to pay for the entire rig up front, or 
>whether you are going to pay with monthly payments. I never recommend 
>monthly payments, but if that is the only way you can afford to buy a 
>transceiver, then, that is an option for you to consider. Personally, I 
>don't believe in any monthly payments if it can be avoided and such 
>financing should be used only for required needs, and I don't consider 
>ham equipment a required need, but that is my personal position. Ham 
>gear is a want, not a need, and those kinds of purchases should be 
>saved up for, rather than paying a financing source interest which only
makes your purchases cost more.
>
>3. Subject to the answer to question #2, another issue that must be 
>considered is are you going to buy a new transceiver or used. This is 
>not a simple question to answer either, especially if you purchase used 
>gear. It depends on how old; is it current or old technology; are parts 
>still available if needed; is it considered "used but reconditioned;" 
>is it available from an individual or from a dealer, and the questions 
>go on and on. In short, you will generally pay a little more when 
>purchasing used gear from a dealer, but there is also a little less 
>risk of getting a rig with problems. However, I have purchased lots of 
>gear from individual hams and have been perfectly happy with my purchases.
>
>4. If you are blind and cannot see the display and markings on the 
>controls, then, you will want to take accessibility into consideration. 
>The majority of rigs are not very accessible, given today's definition of
accessibility.
>Does the rig have a voice module included with it or is such a module 
>available for it? Do the various controls give you some kinds of 
>useable feedback, e.g. do they peep when you press them and do the 
>beeps have a different pitch or tone that tells you their selectable 
>state? For this reason alone, many of us blind ops prefer certain 
>models of the Kenwood line of transceivers, e.g. the TS-480, TS-590, 
>TM-V71a, or the Elecraft transceivers like the K3.
>
>5. What mode or modes will you most likely be using? If for example, 
>you are mostly a CW operator, you will want a highly selective receiver 
>that will allow you to bring out the signal you are trying to copy and 
>block out unwanted signals. Since CW occupies a much narrower 
>bandwidth, you will want a receiver that includes sharper filtering 
>like the common filters used such as 2400Hz, 500Hz, 250Hz, and 100Hz. 
>With DSP (Digital Signal Processing) you can even go narrower. If you 
>operate only SSB, you will still want a selective receiver, but you 
>will not need nearly the tight level of selectivity that is needed or 
>desired by a CW op. For example, SSB signals are normally received 
>using filters from around 2600 Hz to 2400 Hz; though many of the newer 
>receivers give you considerable flexibility in adjusting their 
>selectivity levels. In contrast, if you plan to operate only on VHF/UHF 
>FM, you certainly do not need to pay all of the extra money for a 
>highly selective, all-mode transceiver. In today's world of digital 
>rigs and communication modes, such as RTTY, PSK31, you may want to try 
>your hand with some of these digital data modes, and if that is the case,
you will need a rig that is compatible with such modes, e.g. will connect to
your computer.
>
>6. Do you need an exceptionally sensitive receiver in your transceiver?
>Sensitivity relates to how well does the receiver hear weak signals. 
>Most receivers today are quite sensitive, but even still, some are 
>better than others. If you plan to work a lot of DX, for example, you 
>will want a really sensitive receiver. However, if you mostly rag chew 
>on 75 and 40 meters and check into nets, your need for an exceptionally 
>sensitive receiver is not as critical. You can determine a receiver's 
>sensitivity by comparing their relative signal to noise ratios. 
>Technically speaking, the signal to noise ratio (S/N) can be regarded 
>as the amplitude difference between the noise floor and the signal 
>peak. There are various trade-offs and relationships between noise 
>figure, sensitivity and dynamic range when comparing different high-quality
receivers, and that can get pretty complicated.
>
>These are just a few of the issues to evaluate when considering the
>question: which is the best transceiver for me to purchase? There are 
>many other points to ponder such as does the rig have an automatic 
>antenna tuner built into it; how portable is it; what is the 
>transceiver's service record, e.g. has it been known to have problems, 
>and again, the questions go on and on. It is highly recommended that 
>before you purchase any rig, you go on Google and search for all the 
>information and reviews you can find on the transceivers you are 
>seriously considering purchasing. eHam tends to have very good customer
reviews of all kinds of ham gear.
>
>Ron, K8HSY
>
>
>Dr. Ronald E. Milliman
>Retired Professor of Marketing