Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Kenwood THF6 vs Icom IC-R10

[Jim Sanford <wb4gcs@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree.

I have an R-10, love it -- as a piece of test equipment.  Would NEVER 
use it for weak signal work -- selectivity is poor, as is opposite 
sideband rejection.

I agree with wayne re tuning.

73,
Jim
wb4gcs@amsat.org


Wayne Estes W9AE wrote:

> Ronald Nutter wrote:
> 
> I am looking to get an additional radio primarily for AO-40 receive.  From
> what I can see, these are my two candidates for that function.  Can anyone
> who has used one or both of these give me your opinions ?
> 
> 
> Wayne replies:
> 
> I don't think either of those radios would be very pleasant to use primarily
> for AO40 reception.  They are difficult to tune compared to a larger radio
> that has a "real" tuning knob.  The IF bandwidth is much wider than a
> "proper" SSB receiver, so you will hear excess noise and interference.
> Neither of them has a computer interface for Doppler tuning (not essential,
> but handy).
> 
> My recommendation would be to get a FT-817 or a PCR-1000 if you want a small
> radio for AO40 reception.  They both seem to be popular for AO40 reception.
> They PCR-1000 is a much better receiver than the IC-R10, at a slightly
> higher price.  The FT-817 is far more versatile than a THF6, but it does
> cost about twice as much.
> 
> A low-cost method for AO40 reception is to get a Radio Shack or Uniden 10m
> SSB transceiver and a 2m-to-10m downconverter.  This would be cheaper than
> the THF6 or IC-R10 and would give better reception.
> 
> Wayne Estes
> Mundelein, IL, USA
> 
> 
> ----
> Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org
> 

----
Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org