On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:44:06 -0800 (PST), Radioguy
wrote:

On Feb 29, 1:09*am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
Radioguy wrote:
Yes, I agree. *Side by side there would probably be a few situations
where each of those receivers would excel by a small margin on HF.
The 9500 might be a bargain if measured by the price-per-button.

The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra
margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference
between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not,
or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it.

Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably
of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5
wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there,
so the difference in price does not buy you much.

Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element
beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the
math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long.
Multiply that by 10.

At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of
an expensive VoIP box.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually
deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not.
And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true.
I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined
listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed
to deliver.

The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness
to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not.
But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands is where the
receivers should be compared.

I don't know that we'll ever answer this question here on the ng.
Yes, it boils down to basic signal capture capability - however, if
one radio makes that easier via better DSP, filters, easy to use
controls vs embedded menus I bet it will more often be used to its
full potential.

On a separate note; this is one of the better threads - good focus on
on-topic material!

Did y'all see Regis Philbin down there on that red carpet? He saw a buck
he haden't got his hands on yet!
cuhulin

On Feb 29, 8:48*am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"m II" wrote in message

news:e5Wxj.49169$w57.23959@edtnps90...

bpnjensen wrote:

Perhaps 'bated breath' would be more to Sir's liking?

"Foetid" is a lot funnier ;-)

Very true.

- - I've wondered about people who write 'Baited'
- - instead of 'Bated'. I feel like asking them if
- - they've been eating worms.

That would be "Chicken Livers" in Catfish County
- - - and they are good eating too ;-}
-ps- Ain't Got No "Chicken Livers" . . . just say 'Cheese' ()
- - p s - - then again so do tell that Raw {un-cooked} Shrimp
is loved by Catfish almost as much as by Us'uns.

- You may have noted that many of these spellings
- that are based on arcane usages or situations have
- now been accepted in both the "modern" (wrong)
- and traditional (right) forms because the mis-use
- exceeds the correct use.

Write Down Vulgar Ain't It ! ~ RHF

On Feb 29, 3:17*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:07:38 GMT, m II wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:

Perhaps 'bated breath' would be more to Sir's liking?

"Foetid" is a lot funnier ;-)

Very true.

I've wondered about people who write 'Baited' instead of 'Bated'. I feel
like asking them if they've been eating worms.

Ah..English....she's a cruel mistress...

mike

- Bait.............sushi...........what's the difference?

That would be Bait... $u$hi... there in lies the differen¢e !

On Feb 29, 8:44*am, Radioguy wrote:
On Feb 29, 1:09*am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:





Radioguy wrote:
Yes, I agree. *Side by side there would probably be a few situations
where each of those receivers would excel by a small margin on HF.
The 9500 might be a bargain if measured by the price-per-button.

The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra
margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference
between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not,
or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it.

Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably
of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5
wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there,
so the difference in price does not buy you much.

Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element
beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the
math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long.
Multiply that by 10.

At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of
an expensive VoIP box.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually
deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not.
And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true.
I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined
listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed
to deliver.

The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness
to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not.

- But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands
- is where the receivers should be compared.

Yeah I Buy a Radio to be able to Hear what I want to Listen
to; and too much 'stuff' starts to be 'stuff' that gets in the way
of the actual Radio Listening.

Well if you Buy 16+ Acres of Land to put up Four (4) Rhombic
Antennas each on it's own 4 Acres and pointing at the Four
Cardinal Headings N-E-S-W then you might be in a position
to discern the difference on a daily basis. Plus the Land can
usually be sold at a profit sometime in the future.

remember - don't let all the knobs and buttons stop you
from simply enjoying listening to you radios ~ RHF

On Feb 29, 3:28*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:44:06 -0800 (PST), Radioguy
wrote:





On Feb 29, 1:09*am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
Radioguy wrote:
Yes, I agree. *Side by side there would probably be a few situations
where each of those receivers would excel by a small margin on HF.
The 9500 might be a bargain if measured by the price-per-button.

The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra
margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference
between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not,
or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it.

Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably
of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5
wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there,
so the difference in price does not buy you much.

Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element
beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the
math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long.
Multiply that by 10.

At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of
an expensive VoIP box.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually
deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not.
And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true.
I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined
listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed
to deliver.

The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness
to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not.
But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands is where the
receivers should be compared.

- I don't know that we'll ever answer this question here
- on the ng.
- Yes, it boils down to basic signal capture capability
- however, if one radio makes that easier via better DSP,
- filters, easy to use controls vs embedded menus
- I bet it will more often be used to its full potential.

Simplicity + Practicality + Performance = ____________
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...vr/0082lrg.gif
! ! ! P R I C E L E S S ! ! !

- On a separate note; this is one of the better threads
- good focus on on-topic material!

Ditto That !

On Feb 29, 7:22*pm, RHF wrote:
On Feb 29, 8:44*am, Radioguy wrote:





On Feb 29, 1:09*am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:

Radioguy wrote:
Yes, I agree. *Side by side there would probably be a few situations
where each of those receivers would excel by a small margin on HF.
The 9500 might be a bargain if measured by the price-per-button.

The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra
margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference
between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not,
or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it.

Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably
of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5
wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there,
so the difference in price does not buy you much.

Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element
beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the
math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long.
Multiply that by 10.

At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of
an expensive VoIP box.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice:**************1-2...*******
Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually
deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not.
And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true.
I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined
listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed
to deliver.

The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness
to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not.

- But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands
- is where the receivers should be compared.

Yeah I Buy a Radio to be able to Hear what I want to Listen
to; and too much 'stuff' starts to be 'stuff' that gets in the way
of the actual Radio Listening.

Well if you Buy 16+ Acres of Land to put up Four (4) Rhombic
Antennas each on it's own 4 Acres and pointing at the Four
Cardinal Headings N-E-S-W then you might be in a position
to discern the difference on a daily basis. *Plus the Land can
usually be sold at a profit sometime in the future.

remember - don't let all the knobs and buttons stop you
from simply enjoying listening to you radios ~ RHF
*.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, good advice.

In article
,
David wrote:

On Feb 28, 6:38 pm, SW4ever wrote:
...Get a look at the ICOM R-9500 receiver Owners Manual, in PDF format
at: http://radioworld.ca and navigate your way to Icom 9500 site,
and scroll to left for pdf brochure and/or manual. The manual runs to
almost an incredible 200 Pages...WOW
This receiver is amazing..it does everything except wash your car and
win you the lottery (which you'll need if you hope to buy one).

Probably be hard in a " blind shortwave test" to differentiate between
this one
an R8
& an Icom R75

I think it would be easy. These two sets have very different audio
characteristics.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article
,
RHF wrote:

On Feb 28, 6:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:51:20 -0800 (PST), David

wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:38 pm, SW4ever wrote:
...Get a look at the ICOM R-9500 receiver Owners Manual, in PDF format
at: *http://radioworld.caand navigate your way to Icom 9500 site,
and scroll to left for pdf brochure and/or manual. The manual runs to
almost an incredible 200 Pages...WOW
This receiver is amazing..it does everything except wash your car and
win you the lottery (which you'll need if you hope to buy one).

Probably be hard in a " blind shortwave test" to differentiate between
this one
an R8
& an Icom R75

Okay folks.........get ready for yet another round of the R75 vs R8
debate.

- As to the blind test I would be more than happy to participate,
- I'll bring an R75, 100 feet of wire and an ICE 182 along with
- some rope & insulators etc to put up the test antenna. *

GH - For a 'true' Side-by-Side using one Antenna you will
need some sort of an Antenna Splitter/Combiner :

SNIP

Unlike yourself most people have this sort of thing figured out already
and it would comprise of more than passive splitters but thanks for
trying.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

wrote:
On Feb 29, 6:44 pm, Radioguy wrote:
It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually
deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not.
And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true.
I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined
listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed
to deliver.

The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness
to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not.
But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands is where the
receivers should be compared.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did a comparison between a Drake R8B and a high ticket Icom
IC-756PROIII see:
http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
where I clearly note the superiority of the more expensive radio. Of
course the law of diminishing returns applies, so when I get my new
Icom IC-7700 I do not expect the performance to be earth shatteringly
better than my 756Pro3, but the differences will be there.

If it gets me only one more really exotic catch that the 756Pro3 could
not resolve, then it will have been worth the extra money I am laying
out.

As a matter of interest I go on DXpeditions with a mate, Vince
Stevens, who has my old Drake R8A. On several occasions I have been
able to demonstrate to him that I am resolving readable signals on the
756Pro3 which he has not been able to resolve on his R8A.

But I rush to say that the R8A will ably resolve 99% of all stations,
so it is just those rare exotic signals that I am chasing with the
more pricey full featured radio's. Also, these top end full featured
radio's make DXing a lot easier, a bit like driving a top end Cadilac
compared to driving a bottom end budget model.

The R9500 will definitely do a better job of receiving tough signals
than a Drake R8.

Have fun and good DX

John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
RX Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
Drake SW8 & ERGO software
Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100
BW XCR 30, Sangean 803A.
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof mini-whip
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

Don't tell Ace.