[CQ-Contest] Icom IC-756 tryout

[Stephen Merchant]

I have no relationship with Icom or any of its minions, but feel the need to
respond to this note.  I have been evaluating this radio since early January
and have used it in three contests successfully, including ARRL DX CW in a
multi-multi configuration at N6RO.  Also, K2KW used his at 6Y4A in ARRL DX.
Ken and I will be writing a review for the next NCJ.  I'll try to respond to
Tom's points here.


At 09:50 AM 2/27/97 -0500, Tom Cooper wrote:

>First, the bad news.  Never, not even once, did anything
>show up on the screen that correlated with what I was hearing.  
>I fiddled with the display thing for a long time, studied the 
>manual, fiddled some more and nada.  Maybe this one was stuck
>in lava lamp imitation mode.

I have never seen this occur.  Perhaps a problem with the individual radio.

>The controls seemed awkward for CW, and the APF wasn't very 
>effective.  Overall, the receiver sounded OK, but the AGC is
>too flat for my taste.  Weak or strong, signals sounded the same.

I realize ergonomics is a little bit like pasta sauce -- everyone has their
favorite -- but compared to the FT1000MP, the layout and knob size are
considerably easier to work with on the 756.  I admit to a strong bias
against the ergonomics of the 'MP even thought I have an FT990 and like it a
lot.  

All of the contesters who have used or listened to the 756 have commented
favorably on the "sound" of the receiver.   I was concerned about how well
it would fare in a high rf, multi- setting <three 1.5kw stations
side-by-side>, and it did just fine.

Wrt the AGC -- I have no complaints about the speed of it in fast or slow
setting.  The fast setting accomodates 40 wpm cw, the slow handles ssb quite
well.

>The good news is, uhhh, that I didn't buy one before trying.  If
>you want the maximum number of gadgets to waste time on, this is 
>the rig for you.  

When you compare the amount of time it takes to learn the shorthand required
to converse with an FT1000MP versus the time it takes to simply read a
screen with graphics and plain English representation, you realize you can
program a 756 very quickly indeed.  And compared to the 'MP, it's dsp
implementation is far simpler.

In the contest where I used an 'MP as radio 1 and the 756 as radio 2, I
found virtually no perceptible difference in receiver performance.  But
there are limitations in the 756 and I'm not suggesting that the 756 is a
"better" radio.

It would be helpful to know more of the details surrounding Tom's evaluation
of the radio -- were you operating in the ARRL DX contest with it?  What
antennas and bands were used?  

I'll write a more detailed report in the next day or two and post it here if
Trey doesn't object.


73, Steve K6AW 
merchant at silcom.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com