View Full Version : Top Rigs for Low Bands
K3STX
10-05-2003, 01:28 AM
I was just reading ON4UN's "Low Band DXing" and he includes the results of a survey of over 200 ops who prefer 160, 80, and 40 meters. #They asked "What rig do you prefer" the results:
Yaesu 52% (FT-1000 series)
Kenwood 21% (TS-930/TS-850)
Icom 20%
Ten-Tec 4%
Other 3%
My question is this: Why is Icom so LOW? Is it because this was a poll from 1998 and is out of date? I was under the impression (from these posts and reviews on eham.net) that the Icoms were KING and that Yaesu sucked (old fashioned design).
One of these days my TS-520S will die, but I never even considered a Yaesu. (Can't afford a Mark V Field anyway.) Am I wrong?
paul
k4dje
10-05-2003, 03:37 AM
I can't speak for or against the Icom except they are like a honda, just don't like them.
I've got a yaesu and a kenwood low band rig. I prefer the yaesu. I like the way it sounds compared to the kenwood. Both rigs seem to have the same ears, I can copy a weak station with either rig. The yaesu is easier on my ears.
K9STH
10-05-2003, 05:02 AM
I really don't particularly care for the Kenwood, Yaesu, Icom, or Ten Tech units! However, all four of the companies make good equipment (and make some "dogs" as well!). I just don't care for transceivers.
Now, I guess I fit in the "other" category since my 160 meter primary station consists of a Hammarlund HX-50A and Collins 75A4! It is definitely not the "latest and greatest", but the HX-50A can "load a wet noodle" and puts out an excellent sounding SSB signal. Now, the 75A4 can run with the best of the modern receivers. The only "draw back" to the HX-50A is that it needs between 30 minutes and an hour to really stabilize (this trait is common in most Hammarlund equipment, transmitters and receivers, and many of the receivers never seem to get that stable above 14 MHz). The 75A4 is "rock solid" in a couple of minutes.
Glen, K9STH
k9kjm
10-05-2003, 06:43 AM
I agree. ALL of the companies have "Dogs"
When ON4UN's survey was done, Icom may have
been low, But now the 756 PRO and PROII are
pretty close to the top of the heap.............
Icom also has it's dogs, Including it's new
VHF/UHF 2720H...............
I'm always surprised at how many people rave about the FT-1000... I saw the survey in ON4UN's book and also wondered about it.
I happen to prefer ICOMs, but really, none of the new rigs are perfect. There was a post about what features you would like to see in a radio, and the answers show that many people want larger control panels, less menus and buttons and more knobs and switches, etc. etc.
I have often joked that we need to take an ICOM 718 and put it inside of a Collins 75A-4 cabinet.
Anyway, a survey of what others prefer should not be allowed to sway you when the time comes for you to make your decision. You're the only one who has to be happy with your radio, of course.
w5jet
10-06-2003, 12:50 PM
Going back thirty or so years I bought an Icom and it was my first solid state rig. #I really liked it because it worked. #The only problems that I have had with icoms have usually been of my own making. #(I once thought I had a problem but as it turned out, I didn't) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I really don't have anything against any of the other major brands as I would buy something tomorrow if I saw something that I needed and it really appealed to me. #All of the brand wars talk about radios, cars and etc. seem kind of juvinile to me. #Who really cares? #Just get something that works and go with it. #
73s, Jim #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
As you know, if you have read similar posts on this subject, I LOVE my Icom 720A, and never found anything wrong with the 701, either. In fact I know of one 701 that survived many years in the jungles of South America, and outside of needing some emergency repair to the "vias" because the constant humidity caused the boards to swell, that radio worked flawlessly! BTW, strands of wire from lamp cord were used to restore the cracks in the vias from one side of the board to the other ! I don't even want to think of what they used to solder those strands of wire in !
I had a chance to use some of Icom's more recent offerings at the last field day, ( you can't believe how many 706's there were) and I cannot say that I am in love with the menus, and sub-menus that go into the newest radios, but I know that Icom does not stand alone in the design.
The driving force behind all the computerized operating systems is LOW COST. As has been pointed out to me, it is less expensive for a company to design one chip that selects a dozen different functions via menus, than it does to put in a dozen different toggle switches to do the same thing!
The 720A is of the earlier type of design, and I must admit that I was a bit intimidated by the many pushbuttons on the front of that radio, when I upgraded from the 701 ( the one that went to S.A.! ). I guess I could get used to the menus and submenus on the current batch of radios, but I suspect that I will always be more fond of the huge front panals full of knobs and switches, such as the old Collins stuff had !
BTW, in answer to why is Icom so "low" , I don't believe that 20% of the preference is all that low at all! When you look at poor TenTec and all the "others" which were preferred by lest than 10%, you have to wonder what has happened to all the great radios of those earlier times? I know there are a lot of Collins stations out there, and considering that 80 and 160 still have a lot of AM operation on them, a lot of the boatanchors and re-built broadcast rigs such as Gates must count in the "others" catagory, too ! That tends to boggle my mind !
Don't know if this helps or not, but it's my 2 cents worth from my experience!
73 from Jim AG3Y
K9STH
10-06-2003, 04:25 PM
Jim, you won't find any of the Collins gear on the "top band" list because none of the post World War II transmitters have 160 meter capability. #The 75A2, 75A3, and 75A4 receivers had 160 meters, but the 75A1 receiver and none of the S-Line equipment except the 51S-1 receiver cover 160 meters.
The same with a lot of the other equipment, especially transmitters. #Hallicrafters stopped putting "top band" with the HT-20, Heath only had 160 meters on the DX-100 and DX-100B, and so on. #WRL did have 160 meters on their transmitters until the "Deluxe" series (excepting the Globe Scout 680 series which had 6 meters instead of 160, but the identical 65 series had 160 meters and not 6 meters). #Remember, that well into the 1970s that 160 meter operation was very restricted, in some areas only 25 KHz available. #Thus, 160 meters became pretty much the "forgotten" band.
Glen, K9STH
WB2WIK
10-06-2003, 05:10 PM
160m has its unique subset of problems and equipment requirements that can be quite different from the "higher bands."
Of absolute necessity is a separate "receiving antenna" port that allows the operator to transmit with one antenna while receiving with another. No serious 160m operator can live without that feature. And the receiver should be capable of accepting an overwhelmingly strong signal input from that receiving antenna, since the transmitter will likely be driving a 1500W output amplifier located quite close to the receiving antenna. Early Icoms including the IC-701, 720, 740, 745 and 751 all failed in this regard. I know, I had to constantly repair mine!
Another important feature is an excellent noise blanker that doesn't cause (much) noise modulation of desired signals -- performance in this area varies dramatically from model to model.
Today, the premier rigs are the IC-775DSP (runs circles around the IC-756PROII), FT1000D, FT1000MPMkV (not as good as the "D," but respectable) and likely the Ten Tec Orion. When Kenwood discontinued the TS950SDX, it discontinued its "premier" rig and simply hasn't replaced it (yet). The Ten Tec OMNI VI+ was also a killer 160m rig but is also discontinued now. The Orion has far more features, anyway.
WB2WIK/6
Glen, I appreciate your input as always, but since the poster was referring not only to 160, but to 80 and 40 as well, I thought it appropriate to talk about the Collins in conjunction with the other two bands. #
I had a 74A-4 along with the CE100V setup when I first upgraded from Novice ( as I have mentioned before ) and still, to this day, consider it the most fun I have ever had with a station! #The KWM-2 setup I had when I first moved out here to MD was pretty neat stuff, too, but will never match the "thrill factor" those old rack-mounted boatanchors provided!
I suspect that operation on 160 was limited to a large part by the Loran and "Russian Woodpecker" QRM that was very prevelent at that time. What say?
73 from Jim AG3Y
K9STH
10-06-2003, 11:59 PM
The "woodpecker" was actually more of a problem on 20 meters than 160. But, Loran was the primary reason that 160 meter operation was restricted by the FCC during that period. When the original Loran became obsolete, then the entire 1800 to 2000 KHz was returned to amateur operation.
Also, many amateurs today think that you have to have the latest and greatest equipment to work DX. They forget that the older equipment (especially Collins) does as good a job and in some cases a better job! Also, the Heath SB-Line will do whatever the Collins 75S-3 / 32S-3 will do at least 90 percent of the time. But, it is that other 10 percent that makes the Collins worth the cost. In my opinion, the SB-301 / SB-401 are a bit better than the 75S-1 / 32S-1 but are not as good as the 75S-3 / 32S-3 series. I have all 3 combinations and have operated considerably using all of them.
Glen, K9STH
not a big fan of icom radios ...every icom i have owned going back to the icom 701 in the seventies has had a problem(s)....purchased the ic-706 when they first came out...it lasted less than a week...for the most part, i tend to stay clear of them ..having said that, on the plus side, the only icom i now own is the ic2800 dual band rig which, i think, is one of the better, if not the best, dual band radio available ...no, i have had no problems with this radio. by far the best (recent vintage) gear i have owned in the past approx. 45 years has been yaesu and ten tec........#dan,k3xr
Well, as I've mentioned before, the biggest beef I have with ALL of the radios being made today are the itty bitty knobs and switches, and the layers and layers of menus and sub-menus you have to go through in order to operate the rig.
At one time, TenTec used to make the best feeling and looking rig on the air, and before that, I would have given my eye teeth for certain Hallicrafter rigs. These rigs had BIG knobs, EASY TO READ dials, and INDIVIDUAL controls for EACH FUNCTION.
I would give anything to have a modern radio built like one of the old boatanchors, but using the latest state of the art circuitry, but relying more on ANALOG technology rather than digital !
I know, I know, that will never happen, but wouldn't it be great to have a solid state 75A-4 ?
73 and a heavy sigh from Jim AG3Y
K9STH
10-08-2003, 03:50 PM
How about a "hybrid" 75A4. One that had a tube type front end and mixers for all of the better overload, intermod, etc. features and the solid-state i.f. and audio sections.
Glen, K9STH
Glen, this is getting off the subject, but remember the "nuvistor" front ends and external preamplifiers that were used on the VHF/UFH bands? They would have been a bit of a waste in HF technology, but you couldn't get a better device for high gain, low noise, high level overload characteristics.
I believe what has happened is that everything has gone to solid state just for the sake of "modern-idity" ( if that is a word! ) and some of the good old characteristics have fallen by the wayside.
73 to you, and I'm glad you understand what I am wishing for!
Jim AG3Y
Hallicrafters all the way! SX-111, HT-37.
K9STH
10-09-2003, 03:14 PM
Jim:
I do have an Ameco nuivistor preamplifier mounted on the back of my Hallicrafters HA-2 2 meter transverter. It really helps! Also, the "front end" of my Heath SB-110A is a nuivistor ("guaranteed" receiver sensitivity on 6 meters is 0.1 microvolts and my SB-110A does much better!).
Also have several VHF (50 MHz, 144 MHz, 222 MHz, and one 432 MHz) converters that use nuivistors. All of them are very sensitive.
I know that there has been some research in making new vacuum tubes in TO-18 packages. These "new" tubes work at 5 volts or less. However, they exhibit all of the favorable characteristics of the vacuum tubes yet do not require all of the power. These were designed especially for receiver front ends, mixers, etc.
Glen, K9STH
Well, you have to admit that the performance of modern solid state rigs is light years ahead of the older stuff.
Sensitivity of the ICOM 718 (for only $500) is .13 uV, and the 756 has over 90 selectivity settings !
I do think it would be terrific to put a 718 or something inside of a Collins 75A-2, or whatever. Strip it out, put the ICOM inside and find a way to connect up the controls...
Or maybe start a new radio company and produce a 75A-2 look-alike with totally modern internals and performance...
I'll bet it would sell like hot cakes !!!
K9STH
10-10-2003, 03:22 AM
Actually, a lot of the older "stuff" can hold its own any day of the week with the solid-state stuff. For example, most of the tube-type receivers don't need an r.f. attenuator because the front end is pretty impervious to high level problems which the solid-state stuff has problems. Many solid-state equipment have attenuators.
The tube-type transmitters are inherently "cleaner" by up to 20 to 40 dB than the solid-state equipment (spurious emissions, in band noise, etc.). This has been proven numerous times under laboratory conditions.
As for sensitivity, many tube type receivers have a minimum detectable signal well less than 0.05 microvolts which a fair number of the "modern" sets cannot meet. This is the minimum signal that can be detected in the CW mode and thus copied. A number of the solid-state equipment seem to have more internal noise than the tube-type equipment.
As for stability, it depends on the brand of the tube type equipment just as some of the solid-state equipment is not as stable as others. In general, Collins equipment will stay right there! As for calibration, yes, the new "digital" readouts are nice. But, often they are not as "exact" as the readout is supposed to read because most of the owners don't know how to calibrate the frequency reference to WWV. I have seen newer equipment over 2 KHz off from what their indicated frequency is just because the reference oscillator hadn't been calibrated properly! Frankly, on SSB no two people tune exactly the same for voice reproduction and the actual frequency can be different from the received frequency by over 100 Hz. Yet, I have heard people in long discussions about just what the absolute frequency is! With a good analog dial you can estimate the frequency to within between 100 and 200 Hz and that is plenty close enough for virtually all amateur work.
The tube-type transmitters usually have pi-network outputs that can match a lot more than 50 ohms. Most solid-state equipment has a fixed output of 50 ohms and thus requires some sort of antenna tuner in many cases. An antenna tuner is usually much harder to adjust than just the old "peak and dip" of the pi-network!
Modern equipment is smaller, it doesn't need high voltage to work, etc. It is much harder to service than the older equipment. Also, the transmit audio quality of the older equipment is often better than the newer solid-state equipment. This is due to the fact that tubes generate odd multiples of frequencies which are more "pleasing" to the ear whereas solid-state devices generate even multiples of frequencies which are much "harsher" to the ear!
There are definitely advantages to both types of equipment! However, at least at this time, the tube-type equipment is not being manufactured (and will probably never be manufactured in quantity for any time soon, if ever!). Thus, unless one wants to "fork over" the money for the better boat anchor equipment, then they are pretty much restricted to the solid-state equipment. As such, they need to carefully look over any equipment including operating it, listening to others using the equipment, etc., before purchase. There are some pretty good units out there and there are definitely some "dogs"!
Glen, K9STH
Excellent reply, Glen . Just a minor point having to do with "even vs. odd" multiples ( or are you thinking harmonics? )
Even multiples are musically related ( actually an octave apart ) and sound good to the ear as compared to the odd multiples which give a dissonant sound.
If all the odd multiples are added to a sine wave, you end up with a square wave, which has a very raspy, dissonant sound!
Interestingly, the argument has been made for years that tube-type high fidelity equipment has the same differences when compared to solid state units ! That is why you will see 40 year old tube amplifiers ( mono-blocks ) being sold on EBay for many times their original price, even taking inflation into consideration!
Best 73 to you. Jim AG3Y
K9STH
10-10-2003, 03:00 PM
I was thinking harmonics!
Glen, K9STH