I too am surprised at the responses but the K3 is substantially less expensive
than the Icom 7800 and this reflect some of the responses.
I use my 7800 on 160. It is an extremely quiet rig and I cannot imagine
anything better when you couple in the best dsp in class and good roofing
filters. I routinely run significant attenuation which knocks the QRN down
substantially. Additionally the ergonomics of the 7800 is the best of any rig
on the market and I like the knob sizes much better than on the all of the
other rigs mentioned in the survey. I used everyone of them in my shack or at
other locations before purchasing a 7800.
I also used an Icom 7600 last year at VP5H during a major contest. It is
extremely quiet on 160 and we did not need the k9ay loop we took as the rig
performed that well.
There are others in this reflector who use the 7800 or one of the top end Yaesu
rigs. They can comment if they want. My suspicion is that your survey result
reflects too small a sample size to fully sort out the rig issues.
And at the end of the day- any of the rigs in your survey are head and
shoulders above my first ham rig- the Heath HW 101
Scott K0MD
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:00 PM, topband-request@contesting.com wrote:
> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> topband@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> topband-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> topband-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Preferred Topband transceiver (Frank Davis)
> 2. Alternatives to Coax... (Brian Moran)
> 3. Alternative to coax? (Brian Moran)
> 4. Re: Alternatives to Coax... (VE6WZ_Steve)
> 5. Re: Alternatives to Coax... (Brad Rehm)
> 6. Re: Alternatives to Coax... (GEORGE WALLNER)
> 7. Re: Preferred Topband transceiver (Barry N1EU)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 20:05:32 -0330
> From: Frank Davis <fdavis@nfld.net>
> Subject: Topband: Preferred Topband transceiver
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <B73A58CA-71E6-4FAE-9610-43543CCAD901@nfld.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I have rec'd quite a number of offlist replies to my query about the current
> opions on the best transceiver for Topband with or without a 2nd onboard
> receiver.
> In retrospec there was no need to specify two classes...
> Here is a brief summary of the number of individual emails that mentioned a
> particular rig.
> Most emails were very brief but a few expounded on the virtues of a
> particular rig.
>
> 14 - K3 with or without 2nd rx
> 3 - Orion I
> 2 - TS850
> 2 - TS590
> 1 - FT1000MP (vintage)
> 1 - FT2000
> 1 - FT1000D
> 1 - Omni VI
> 1 - Omni VII
>
> It wasn't unexpected to me that the K3 would be very popular. What was
> surprising to me was the total lack of mention of any of the higher end Yaesu
> or Icom rigs.
> I also expected Orion II and the Omni VII to place high but that seems to not
> be the case.
> The K3 is the rig of choice these days for topband due mainly to weak signal
> capability and selectivity.
> I have only experienced one of the top list rigs having used the same
> FT1000MP since 1997.
>
> 73 Frank VO1HP
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What would be the preferred Topband transceiver these days in the two
> categories:
> 1.) Onboard 2nd receiver 2.) No onboard 2nd receiver
>
> Replies off list would be appreciated.
>
> 73 Frank VO1HP
> fdavis@nfld.net
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:24:08 -0800 (PST)
> From: Brian Moran <brianmo@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Topband: Alternatives to Coax...
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <410712.86928.qm@web30008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Could Cat-5 cable (twisted pair), with suitable baluns, be used to transit
> low-band RX antenna signals? Looks like some people are doing this for VHF
> signals:
>
> http://www.avovercat5.com/products/rf_f.htm
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:02:41 -0800
> From: Brian Moran <brianmo@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Topband: Alternative to coax?
> To: "topband@contesting.com" <topband@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <B2ABF625-0D0B-4DA0-BC2F-B598D7C0ADDF@yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> With an appropriate balun on both ends, could cat5 or cat6 cable be used to
> transit signals instead of coax on topband? Anyone tried?
> Brian N9ADG
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 20:13:37 -0700
> From: "VE6WZ_Steve" <ve6wz@shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Alternatives to Coax...
> To: "Brian Moran" <brianmo@yahoo.com>, <topband@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <FC5062C9104C4331BA38296EB8D222EC@Upstairs>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Brian:
> I use CAT-5 to feed my phased 2-el vertical arrays, as well as my 80m Yagi
> elements which are phased into a 160m rotatable rx array at 100'.
> Works fine. Easy, and handy to use esp. if you need to run voltage to the
> field as well....lots of conductors.
> 100 ohm impedance.
> Also, because it is a balanced pair is is more immune to common mode signals
> on the line.
> I use a flooded cable for outdoor use.
> ALL RX antennas...no TX.
>
> (here is a link to a very preliminary page showing my rx system :
> http://www.qsl.net/ve6wz/ve6wz_160m_rx.htm
>
> de Steve ve6wz.
>
>> Could Cat-5 cable (twisted pair), with suitable baluns, be used to transit
>> low-band RX antenna signals? Looks like some people are doing this for
>> VHF
>> signals:
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:44:34 -0600
> From: Brad Rehm <bradrehm@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Alternatives to Coax...
> To: Brian Moran <brianmo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: topband@contesting.com
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTin9q=pWaHWG7w-0EO_FWwNGSNDmr83N1+f1b0Yx@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7
>
> Brian,
>
> Ought to work very well. Cat 5 cable is designed for data rates at
> higher frequencies than our low band gear will use. I'd terminate the
> unused pairs with 100?
> resistors at both ends, though, to make sure they behave properly.
>
> I believe the Cat 6 cable might be even better for this application,
> because separation between the pairs is better controlled by a nylon
> spline in the center of the cable.
>
> Brad
> KV5V
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Brian Moran <brianmo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Could Cat-5 cable (twisted pair), with suitable baluns, be used to transit
>> low-band RX antenna signals? ?Looks like some people are doing this for VHF
>> signals:
>>
>> http://www.avovercat5.com/products/rf_f.htm
>> _______________________________________________
>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 01:32:58 -0500
> From: "GEORGE WALLNER" <aa7jv@atlanticbb.net>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Alternatives to Coax...
> To: Brian Moran <brianmo@yahoo.com>,topband@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <web-5798882@be2.cluster1.echolabs.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8; format="flowed"
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:24:08 -0800 (PST)
> Brian Moran <brianmo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Could Cat-5 cable (twisted pair), with suitable baluns,
>> be used to transit
>> low-band RX antenna signals?
>
> Yes! I have tried it and it works well enough. When using
> well constructed transformers, there is very little common
> mode noise transmission. Impedance is 100 ohms. Loss is
> about 1.2 dB per 100 feet at 3 MHz. Keep it away from
> metal objects. Ground the center-tap of the transformer to
> prevent static build-up. Be aware of cheap cables that may
> have higher losses.
>
> GL,
>
> George, AA7JV
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:31:55 +0000
> From: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Preferred Topband transceiver
> To: topBand List <topband@contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikAM3qF=fT33BVGxi4UX4xWzGnDU8aZWPCjhWG1@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Frank Davis <fdavis@nfld.net> wrote:
>
>> 14 - K3 with or without 2nd rx
>> 3 - Orion I
>> 2 - TS850
>> 2 - TS590
>> 1 - FT1000MP (vintage)
>> 1 - FT2000
>> 1 - FT1000D
>> 1 - Omni VI
>> 1 - Omni VII
>>
>> It wasn't unexpected to me that the K3 would be very popular. What was
>> surprising to me was the total lack of mention of any of the higher end
>> Yaesu or Icom rigs.
>> I also expected Orion II and the Omni VII to place high but that seems to
>> not be the case.
>> The K3 is the rig of choice these days for topband due mainly to weak
>> signal capability and selectivity.
>>
>
> What these results also indicate is that serious Topbanders are early
> adopters of new receiver technology that promise an advantage in weak/strong
> signal conditions. This was the case with the Orion I (e.g., narrow roofing
> filter + dsp) and later with the K3 (e.g., dual identical rx).
>
> 73, Barry N1EU
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>
>
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 96, Issue 3
> **************************************
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|