In the spring, I picked up a used IC-756PRO, having used a pair of them
at VE6JY in the phone SS.
I loved them as phone radios. This past weekend was the first real test of
the radio in a competitive CW environment. In my view, it absolutely
shined. I could be right next to a 20over 9 station, and while it was clear he
was there, my ability to copy weak stations was uncompromised.
My second radio is a TS850SAT, and it's a great radio, probably No.1 in
radios now available for less than $1,000. But it was not quite at the level
of the 756PRO. (And I have Inrad CW filters in both IFs).
Given that the high end of used pricing is about the 1300 or so US I paid (I
bought all my main used radios at Burghardt and have never been
disappointed), I think the 756PRO is the No.1 value in contesting radios
today.
73, kelly
ve4xt
> From: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
> Date: 2005/11/07 Mon AM 10:24:31 CST
> To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Low End of 40
>
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>
> > Because there can be only so many signals in a given amount of
bandwidth,
> > what the complainers are saying is that some people shouldn't be
allowed to
> > operate SS until a spot in "acceptable" bandwidth opens up.
> >
> > Is that really what the spirit of ham radio is about?
> >
>
> I am really impressed with my TS-850 during CW contests. The 500 Hz
CW
> filters plus the IF tuning and notch are superb for narrowing down the
> "acceptable" bandwidth. I had no trouble chopping out the QRM from
100 Hz
> away at times.
>
> Maybe the complainers should get a real radio! (I'm probably preaching
to
> the choir here.) :-)
>
> 73, Zack W9SZ
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|