[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

HF + down/transverter vs. 'sat' transciever

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been given a satellite set-up that
used two HF rigs as transmitter/receiver combined with various transverters
and downconverters. I got everything BUT the transceivers. I am new to this
BUT to it seems to me that the big advantage of the HF transceiver as IF
seems to be that you don't need a new radio - you use what you have got.
Well, I don't 'got'!

I have only one HF rig (an Icom 737a) so I will need another HF receiver or
transceiver to get a station set-up. By the time I buy another HF
rig/receiver, perhaps I could sell some of the downconverter/transverter
stuff and - adding more money - buy a new/used satellite rig. Having a 'one
box' solution (I would still need downconverters to listen to AO-40 on 2.4
GHz.) would be convenient. And, there are some special features on sat rigs
that, to me, sound like conveniences compared to cobbling up HF rigs.

I have just browsed eBay and the price of used FT-736s, etc., seem steep
enough that (at least here in Canada) buying a used sat rig does not seem
like a great deal compared to buying a new one. I realize prices on eBay are
often a bit high but that was the quickest reference I had.

SO, I doubt I will find 'the ultimate truth', but what about some opinions
here?! I'd love to hear from others' experiences - maybe I can avoid a
costly mistake (or at least make my own *new* costly mistakes rather than
repeating someone else's old ones!)

1) Are there technical advantages of using HF rigs rather than 'satellite'
(VHF/UHF multimode) rigs?

2) Any specific multimoed radios to look for *or* avoid, in your opinion?

Any other thoughts? Thanks again for your help.

David Beach

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org