transceiver vs. reciever
 

what would be a major diffrence in shortwave reception using a transceiver
like a icom 725 compared to using just a shortwave reciever like icom r-75?
thanks jack

no

"jwb" wrote in
news:Va3ke.14138$V2.6139@attbi_s72:

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/hamhf.html

I'm not familiar with the Icom 725, but, in short, the major difference
is that you won't be able to buy any new tabletop shortwave radios from
Icom or, I suspect, Yaesu either. There still will be the excellent
Palstar and other Shortwave Tabletop receivers from other manufacturers,
as well as used R-75s and others for decades, traveling from one owner to
another.

Remember the term "opinions". You will get opinions on this NG
masquerading as facts.

My fact (notice the irony here, actually my opinion), you can get
excellent performance from the Transceivers. I have an Icom R-75, Yaesu
FRG-100, and the Yaesu transceiver FT-840, they all offer similar
performance. The only thing I don't like about the FT-840 is that it has
a transmit button on the face of the radio (I believe this is common on
many Transceivers). When depressed, it transmits all the time.
Accidentally depressing the button could damage the radio if the radio is
not SWR matched to the antenna, which mine isn't, as I am just using a
simple random length wire antenna. In order to reduce the possibility of
damage, I keep the output power turned all the way down.

I use the radios quite interchangeably, not having a major preference,
reception wise, for any one in particular.

In theory, if I paid $600 for the transceiver Yaesu FT-840, and $600 for
the receiver Yaesu FRG-100, I would hope that the circuitry in the
"receiver only" has an edge on the receiver circuits in the transceiver,
but I can't tell the difference. In addition, the transceiver has the
ability to shift the IF to alter the Pass Band.

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/hamhf/2319.html

One point though, in my case, with the transceiver, I needed to buy the 6
KHz filter for listening to AM shortwave and MW, so that was another $115
added onto the radio's cost. I installed it myself, it was a drop in,
after taking the radio partially apart. (covers).

Make sure any transceiver that you plan to buy has the filtering for your
needs. Though I could have listened with the standard filter meant for
SSB, the sound would have been very poor.

http://jim.jingozian.tripod.com/ft840faq.html
"AM Settings Most owners who have had difficulties with AM audio quality
have reported that the 6 kHz option AM filter (p/n XF112A) is an absolute
necessity for both transmitting in AM. It also makes the FT840 an
excellent SWL receiver. Use of a AM modulation meter can tell you the
percent of modulation your AM signal is peaking at. Ideally, you're
looking for 100% modulation; over 100% the signal get distorted, under
100%, the signal sounds weak. For more information on running AM in the
ham bands, go to The AM Window, where there's info on frequencies, audio
tips, and running modern solid-state rigs on AM."

Regards,

Dr. Artaud


what would be a major diffrence in shortwave reception using a
transceiver like a icom 725 compared to using just a shortwave
reciever like icom r-75? thanks jack

Dr. Artaud

You don't have to worry about transmitting on a transciever with no antenna
or an unmatched as the SWR circuitry will cut back the power.
If this wasn't the case hams would be going broke replacing finals.

--

73
Hank WD5JFR
"? Dr. Artaud ?" wrote in message
...
"jwb" wrote in
news:Va3ke.14138$V2.6139@attbi_s72:

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/hamhf.html

I'm not familiar with the Icom 725, but, in short, the major difference
is that you won't be able to buy any new tabletop shortwave radios from
Icom or, I suspect, Yaesu either. There still will be the excellent
Palstar and other Shortwave Tabletop receivers from other manufacturers,
as well as used R-75s and others for decades, traveling from one owner to
another.

Remember the term "opinions". You will get opinions on this NG
masquerading as facts.

My fact (notice the irony here, actually my opinion), you can get
excellent performance from the Transceivers. I have an Icom R-75, Yaesu
FRG-100, and the Yaesu transceiver FT-840, they all offer similar
performance. The only thing I don't like about the FT-840 is that it has
a transmit button on the face of the radio (I believe this is common on
many Transceivers). When depressed, it transmits all the time.
Accidentally depressing the button could damage the radio if the radio is
not SWR matched to the antenna, which mine isn't, as I am just using a
simple random length wire antenna. In order to reduce the possibility of
damage, I keep the output power turned all the way down.

I use the radios quite interchangeably, not having a major preference,
reception wise, for any one in particular.

In theory, if I paid $600 for the transceiver Yaesu FT-840, and $600 for
the receiver Yaesu FRG-100, I would hope that the circuitry in the
"receiver only" has an edge on the receiver circuits in the transceiver,
but I can't tell the difference. In addition, the transceiver has the
ability to shift the IF to alter the Pass Band.

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/hamhf/2319.html

One point though, in my case, with the transceiver, I needed to buy the 6
KHz filter for listening to AM shortwave and MW, so that was another $115
added onto the radio's cost. I installed it myself, it was a drop in,
after taking the radio partially apart. (covers).

Make sure any transceiver that you plan to buy has the filtering for your
needs. Though I could have listened with the standard filter meant for
SSB, the sound would have been very poor.

http://jim.jingozian.tripod.com/ft840faq.html
"AM Settings Most owners who have had difficulties with AM audio quality
have reported that the 6 kHz option AM filter (p/n XF112A) is an absolute
necessity for both transmitting in AM. It also makes the FT840 an
excellent SWL receiver. Use of a AM modulation meter can tell you the
percent of modulation your AM signal is peaking at. Ideally, you're
looking for 100% modulation; over 100% the signal get distorted, under
100%, the signal sounds weak. For more information on running AM in the
ham bands, go to The AM Window, where there's info on frequencies, audio
tips, and running modern solid-state rigs on AM."

Regards,

Dr. Artaud


what would be a major diffrence in shortwave reception using a
transceiver like a icom 725 compared to using just a shortwave
reciever like icom r-75? thanks jack

"Henry Kolesnik" wrote in
:

Thanks for the comments. This has always worried me.

Regards,

Dr. Artaud

Dr. Artaud

You don't have to worry about transmitting on a transciever with no
antenna or an unmatched as the SWR circuitry will cut back the power.
If this wasn't the case hams would be going broke replacing finals.

jwb wrote:
what would be a major diffrence in shortwave reception using a transceiver
like a icom 725 compared to using just a shortwave reciever like icom r-75?
thanks jack



There would be very little if any difference. In a transceiver you are
paying for the transmitting part of the radio as well as the receiving
part. Now unless you have a license to get some use out of the
transmitting part, then you have wasted some of your money.

If I were a "philosophercater" (excuse my Bush-speak), I would think AM
performance on a transceiver would be not of much concern to the
manufacturer, so the performance may not be as good as what you would
find on a receiver. I'd expect no drawbacks in sideband.

Transceivers get a bit hotter since you have more circuitry. It follows
that they draw more power. Not that much of a big deal unless the
transceiver uses a fan.

Yaesu, Kenwood and Icom have all made receivers that looked like they were a
copy of the transceiver(or is that verse vica?), but looks can be deceiving.
My guess is that probably ten times as many transceivers are sold and as a
result they don't cost that much more than a look-a-like receiver. I
haven't done that much checking but IIRC they always add a few bells and
whistles to the receiver as well as a built in power supply. Granted a
transceiver will use more current and run hotter. As far as performance on
the ham bands in SSB would probably favor the transceiver and performance in
the AM SWL bands would probably favor the receiver. One definite advantage
of getting the transceiver is if the SWL wants to be a ham he is one step
closer with the equipment.

--

73
Hank WD5JFR
"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
jwb wrote:
what would be a major diffrence in shortwave reception using a
transceiver like a icom 725 compared to using just a shortwave reciever
like icom r-75?
thanks jack



There would be very little if any difference. In a transceiver you are
paying for the transmitting part of the radio as well as the receiving
part. Now unless you have a license to get some use out of the
transmitting part, then you have wasted some of your money.

Have a look at:
http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx
where I compare the Icom 756 transceiver with the Drake R8B receiver
--
John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
RX Drake R8B, SW8 & ERGO software
Sony 7600D GE SRIII
BW XCR 30, Braun T1000, Sangean 818 & 803A.
Hallicrafters SX-100, Eddystone 940
GE circa 50's radiogram
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

wrote in message
oups.com...
If I were a "philosophercater" (excuse my Bush-speak), I would think AM
performance on a transceiver would be not of much concern to the
manufacturer, so the performance may not be as good as what you would
find on a receiver. I'd expect no drawbacks in sideband.

Transceivers get a bit hotter since you have more circuitry. It follows
that they draw more power. Not that much of a big deal unless the
transceiver uses a fan.