"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Lucky wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

"Lucky" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in
message
m...

"Michael" wrote:


I find that there isn't anything that I can hear with
the R-75 that I can hear with more expensive radios.

That's true. Images, birdies, artifacts, intermodulation
products --
it's all there.

The R-75 is dumpster fodder. Value? yep. Value for
money?
yep.
Absolutely a good value? Not even close.

You need to experience a truly good radio. See
http://www.sherweng.com for some guidelines.



I personally think you made a fool out of yourself with your
drivel
and
that's about it.

Lucky


You can believe that all you want. I owned an R75 for years.
When
I
was selling it at a hamfest, Bob Sherwood came by and I
offered
it
to
him, and he just laughed.

I'll say it again: It *is* value for the money, but it is
*not*
an
absolute value.

For me, the issue that is important is front-end overload.
There
are
several flamethrowers that put millivolts worth of signal on
my
antennas. I don't have problems with close-in dynamic
range...
no
one
should really have problems with sensitivity on HF.

The R75 was nothing but images below 10 MHz without both
preamps
off
and the attenuator on.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940


Hi

I have about 10 radios. For $425, the R75 is my best rig. I
have
no
problem with images here in Miami. There are many Hams down
here
and
lots
of the time the bands are terrible. But, with my R75, I can
clean
the
signal up very well and enjoy the conversations. I can't do
this
with
my
other rigs. Here they. They are not all very good but I
started
out
as
a
novice.

1] Kenwood 5000
2] Lowe HF-150
3] JVC NRD 525
4] Yaesu FRG-7
5] TenTec 320-D for DRM
6] Yaesu FRG-7700
7] Nasa Target HF3
8] Kenwood QR-666 {really the R300}
9] Degen 1103
10] Icom R75

I would say the next best rig is the HF-150 then the 5000 and
525
are
about equal with the 525 giving you a few more options. If I
mean
business I use the R75. All I know is that I bought a brand
NEW
radio
with **DSP and **dual PBT plus easy computer control for
$425.
Just
being
able to mix and match filters is superb. The built in 2 level
pre-amp
works great.

How in the freaken world can you argue this point? How? Point
me
to
a
decent receiver for $425. Please, show me so I can buy it.



Not to state the obvious, but he did concede that, for the
money,
R-75
is a value. What he's saying, what I've said, and what has
been
repeated
here over the last few years, is that R-75 is not an absolute
value.
For
$425, yes, it's a good deal. But as an absolute value, it's
like
most
ICOM's (of which I've owned several and loved every one of
them):
It's
potential is not realized until it's been modified. No one is
saying
that
it's a bad radio. No one is saying that it's not worth having,
and
that
it's not a strong player, and to reiterate for those in Rio
Linda,
FOR
THE
MONEY, it's a good value.

It's just not all it can be.

As much as I loved my R-71, I was very much looking forward
to
R-75's
release. And was ready to close a deal with Universal as soon
as
it
was
available. But after playing with one for the better part of a
day,
I
was
less than impressed. And went in another direction. A
direction
I've
been
very pleased with. In fact, I've not bought a new radio since.

I liken ICOM's to cars at the drag strip. Do you know why
there
are
so
many Fords and Chevy's are used as racing platforms? Ånd you
don't
see
so
many Lincoln's and Cadillacs? Not because the Fords and
Chevy's
are
superior, but because they're a good buy for the money. For an
economical
outlay, you can buy a platform, that when modified to taste
becomes
precisely the car you want. Exactly built and tuned to the
application
you've chosen for it. A Lincoln would be a better platform.
Sturdier,
more
finely tuned suspension. But with fewer mods available, and at
dramatically higher cost.

I"ve seen Lincoln's at the race track. And I watched one mop
up
a
Taurus
in the quarter mile, but at 20 times the outlay for a
dragstrip
car.

ICOMs are solidly built, and decent performers. Like entry
level
domestic cars, their design has great potential for
performance.
But
production cost shortcuts and economies produce a product that
could
be
far more than it is. Requiring modification to extract the
performance
built into the design. When you're finished, add up price of
the
radio,
the cost of the mods, shipping, old battery and recappable
tires,
and
you've got a radio that's actually more expensive than it
would
have
been
had they not cut the production corners in the first place.

But then, at least, the absolute value of the radio would be
established.

There's nothing wrong with you loving your R-75. And as Eric
has
said
more than once, it IS a good value for the money.

It's just that as it comes out of the box, it's potential is
not
realized. And for many users, that's a deterrent to ownership.


Not only is the R-75 a good value for dollar, it is a good
absolute
value
as
well. Price aside, it is a good radio period. It is well
built,
sensitive,
selective, has a good user interface, is adequate for program
listening,
can
be very good for program listening with simple mods, and it is
outstanding
for utility and DX'ing. For me, it doesn't make the sense god
gave
a
mule
to
malign the R-75 because after market mods can improve the
performance
of
the
audio definition and the function of the sync detector should
you
decide
to
do so. The R-5000 is a great radio and it doesn't even have a
sync
detector.
The NRD 545 is a good radio and to my ear, even through an
external
speaker
the audio is hollow and tinny for any radio, let alone one with
a
price
tag
that is so high.

I have used the R-75, R-5000, R8, R8b and have some time on an
NRD-545.
Going by actual usage, I can honestly say that NONE of those
radios
are
"WONDER RADIOS" in comparison with the others. The all have
their
strengths,
but none of them will work miracles in comparison to other ones.
They
are
all capable radios. Of all of those radios, the one that I'd
prefer
to
have
for DX'ing and or utility would be the R-75. For program
listening,
I'd
take
the R8b. The audio quality itself is not all that much better
then
my
Kiwa
modified R-75, but the ssb selectable AM sync on the R8b can be
a
marvel
for
cutting out not just fade distortion but cutting out QRM
completely
from
a
signal above or below. I can also do the same thing with QRM
using
my
Sony
7600gr too !!!!

So.... Those are facts. The R-75 is a good performer in some
categories
and
an OUTSTANDING performer in most others. How can you say it is
not
an
absolute value ???

In reading posts from people that COMPULSIVELY malign the R-75
and
obsess
over the perceived AM sync deficiency ad nausium, it seems like
it
is
the
self justification of a person who spent way more money then the
R-75
costs
on their rig.

Or is it self justification on your part because you either don't
have
or
don't
want to spend the money for a better rig?

No... Not true at all. I'd spend more money on a better rig. I
was
going
to buy an NRD-545 not too long ago. I tried one out on loan from a
friend.
Although I loved the way it looked and I loved the way the controls
were
set
up, I thought the weak audio was a serious distraction. Still...
That
is
not why I didn't get one. I was primarily looking for a better
DX'ing
radio. I'd deal with lesser audio if the DX'ing abilities were
better
then
my R-75. I came to the realization after testing out the NRD-545
that
noting could help me DX' any better due to the high noise floor
here
in
north NJ. I dont need a new rig, I need to move to another area.

I always did want to see the American southwest. May be Arizona
:-)

Yes, it's an OK radio, but come on...

OK.. I know you like your R8 series, but do you really think the R8
series
is better then the R-75 for DX'ing. ???

Absolutely. If they weren't I'd have been one of the first to get
R75

The R8 series is only WAY better
then the R-75 for one thing and one thing only. And not... not
program
listening. With my Kiwa mods and external speaker, it does well
for
program
listening. Although not too many people mention it when comparing
the
R8
with the R-75 because everyone is pointing out the synch thing, the
R-75
SUCKS ON ICE for medium wave DX'ing. It's way too noisy. I loved
using
all
of the R8 series for MW, especially the R8b. I thought the R8b's
AM
synch
was the cats ass.

Regardless, you cant tell me the R8 or R8a or R8b is better at SW
DX'ing
then the R-75.

I believe I already did. Several times!


Tell me again and tell me why.

Haven't I wasted enough time on you already? You really need to learn
how
to pay
attention.

Start off by gazing at that front panel and try to commit to memory the
fact
that you're using a R75 vs. an R-75.


Oh... the front panel. I see it... Your wrong again... It reads
"IC-R75".

I wasn't wrong at all, 'tard boy... PLEASE try to pay attention. It DOES
NOT say
R-75 does it, 'tard boy?


It doesn't read R75, nimrod. If you insist on mocking people for a petty
oversight, I suggest that you should take more care not to make any
oversights yourself as you have just done. It reads IC-R75. Now be
reasonable and stop casting stones from your glass house.

Simply put to your stone casting frustration... The IC-R75 is a better
radio for DX'ing and SSB/utility then the R8 series.

Yield to the facts. I promise you'll feel better once you do so.

Michael

Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Lucky wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

"Lucky" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in
message
m...

"Michael" wrote:


I find that there isn't anything that I can hear with
the R-75 that I can hear with more expensive radios.

That's true. Images, birdies, artifacts, intermodulation
products --
it's all there.

The R-75 is dumpster fodder. Value? yep. Value for
money?
yep.
Absolutely a good value? Not even close.

You need to experience a truly good radio. See
http://www.sherweng.com for some guidelines.



I personally think you made a fool out of yourself with your
drivel
and
that's about it.

Lucky


You can believe that all you want. I owned an R75 for years.
When
I
was selling it at a hamfest, Bob Sherwood came by and I
offered
it
to
him, and he just laughed.

I'll say it again: It *is* value for the money, but it is
*not*
an
absolute value.

For me, the issue that is important is front-end overload.
There
are
several flamethrowers that put millivolts worth of signal on
my
antennas. I don't have problems with close-in dynamic
range...
no
one
should really have problems with sensitivity on HF.

The R75 was nothing but images below 10 MHz without both
preamps
off
and the attenuator on.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940


Hi

I have about 10 radios. For $425, the R75 is my best rig. I
have
no
problem with images here in Miami. There are many Hams down
here
and
lots
of the time the bands are terrible. But, with my R75, I can
clean
the
signal up very well and enjoy the conversations. I can't do
this
with
my
other rigs. Here they. They are not all very good but I
started
out
as
a
novice.

1] Kenwood 5000
2] Lowe HF-150
3] JVC NRD 525
4] Yaesu FRG-7
5] TenTec 320-D for DRM
6] Yaesu FRG-7700
7] Nasa Target HF3
8] Kenwood QR-666 {really the R300}
9] Degen 1103
10] Icom R75

I would say the next best rig is the HF-150 then the 5000 and
525
are
about equal with the 525 giving you a few more options. If I
mean
business I use the R75. All I know is that I bought a brand
NEW
radio
with **DSP and **dual PBT plus easy computer control for
$425.
Just
being
able to mix and match filters is superb. The built in 2 level
pre-amp
works great.

How in the freaken world can you argue this point? How? Point
me
to
a
decent receiver for $425. Please, show me so I can buy it.



Not to state the obvious, but he did concede that, for the
money,
R-75
is a value. What he's saying, what I've said, and what has
been
repeated
here over the last few years, is that R-75 is not an absolute
value.
For
$425, yes, it's a good deal. But as an absolute value, it's
like
most
ICOM's (of which I've owned several and loved every one of
them):
It's
potential is not realized until it's been modified. No one is
saying
that
it's a bad radio. No one is saying that it's not worth having,
and
that
it's not a strong player, and to reiterate for those in Rio
Linda,
FOR
THE
MONEY, it's a good value.

It's just not all it can be.

As much as I loved my R-71, I was very much looking forward
to
R-75's
release. And was ready to close a deal with Universal as soon
as
it
was
available. But after playing with one for the better part of a
day,
I
was
less than impressed. And went in another direction. A
direction
I've
been
very pleased with. In fact, I've not bought a new radio since.

I liken ICOM's to cars at the drag strip. Do you know why
there
are
so
many Fords and Chevy's are used as racing platforms? Ånd you
don't
see
so
many Lincoln's and Cadillacs? Not because the Fords and
Chevy's
are
superior, but because they're a good buy for the money. For an
economical
outlay, you can buy a platform, that when modified to taste
becomes
precisely the car you want. Exactly built and tuned to the
application
you've chosen for it. A Lincoln would be a better platform.
Sturdier,
more
finely tuned suspension. But with fewer mods available, and at
dramatically higher cost.

I"ve seen Lincoln's at the race track. And I watched one mop
up
a
Taurus
in the quarter mile, but at 20 times the outlay for a
dragstrip
car.

ICOMs are solidly built, and decent performers. Like entry
level
domestic cars, their design has great potential for
performance.
But
production cost shortcuts and economies produce a product that
could
be
far more than it is. Requiring modification to extract the
performance
built into the design. When you're finished, add up price of
the
radio,
the cost of the mods, shipping, old battery and recappable
tires,
and
you've got a radio that's actually more expensive than it
would
have
been
had they not cut the production corners in the first place.

But then, at least, the absolute value of the radio would be
established.

There's nothing wrong with you loving your R-75. And as Eric
has
said
more than once, it IS a good value for the money.

It's just that as it comes out of the box, it's potential is
not
realized. And for many users, that's a deterrent to ownership.


Not only is the R-75 a good value for dollar, it is a good
absolute
value
as
well. Price aside, it is a good radio period. It is well
built,
sensitive,
selective, has a good user interface, is adequate for program
listening,
can
be very good for program listening with simple mods, and it is
outstanding
for utility and DX'ing. For me, it doesn't make the sense god
gave
a
mule
to
malign the R-75 because after market mods can improve the
performance
of
the
audio definition and the function of the sync detector should
you
decide
to
do so. The R-5000 is a great radio and it doesn't even have a
sync
detector.
The NRD 545 is a good radio and to my ear, even through an
external
speaker
the audio is hollow and tinny for any radio, let alone one with
a
price
tag
that is so high.

I have used the R-75, R-5000, R8, R8b and have some time on an
NRD-545.
Going by actual usage, I can honestly say that NONE of those
radios
are
"WONDER RADIOS" in comparison with the others. The all have
their
strengths,
but none of them will work miracles in comparison to other ones.
They
are
all capable radios. Of all of those radios, the one that I'd
prefer
to
have
for DX'ing and or utility would be the R-75. For program
listening,
I'd
take
the R8b. The audio quality itself is not all that much better
then
my
Kiwa
modified R-75, but the ssb selectable AM sync on the R8b can be
a
marvel
for
cutting out not just fade distortion but cutting out QRM
completely
from
a
signal above or below. I can also do the same thing with QRM
using
my
Sony
7600gr too !!!!

So.... Those are facts. The R-75 is a good performer in some
categories
and
an OUTSTANDING performer in most others. How can you say it is
not
an
absolute value ???

In reading posts from people that COMPULSIVELY malign the R-75
and
obsess
over the perceived AM sync deficiency ad nausium, it seems like
it
is
the
self justification of a person who spent way more money then the
R-75
costs
on their rig.

Or is it self justification on your part because you either don't
have
or
don't
want to spend the money for a better rig?

No... Not true at all. I'd spend more money on a better rig. I
was
going
to buy an NRD-545 not too long ago. I tried one out on loan from a
friend.
Although I loved the way it looked and I loved the way the controls
were
set
up, I thought the weak audio was a serious distraction. Still...
That
is
not why I didn't get one. I was primarily looking for a better
DX'ing
radio. I'd deal with lesser audio if the DX'ing abilities were
better
then
my R-75. I came to the realization after testing out the NRD-545
that
noting could help me DX' any better due to the high noise floor
here
in
north NJ. I dont need a new rig, I need to move to another area.

I always did want to see the American southwest. May be Arizona
:-)

Yes, it's an OK radio, but come on...

OK.. I know you like your R8 series, but do you really think the R8
series
is better then the R-75 for DX'ing. ???

Absolutely. If they weren't I'd have been one of the first to get
R75

The R8 series is only WAY better
then the R-75 for one thing and one thing only. And not... not
program
listening. With my Kiwa mods and external speaker, it does well
for
program
listening. Although not too many people mention it when comparing
the
R8
with the R-75 because everyone is pointing out the synch thing, the
R-75
SUCKS ON ICE for medium wave DX'ing. It's way too noisy. I loved
using
all
of the R8 series for MW, especially the R8b. I thought the R8b's
AM
synch
was the cats ass.

Regardless, you cant tell me the R8 or R8a or R8b is better at SW
DX'ing
then the R-75.

I believe I already did. Several times!


Tell me again and tell me why.

Haven't I wasted enough time on you already? You really need to learn
how
to pay
attention.

Start off by gazing at that front panel and try to commit to memory the
fact
that you're using a R75 vs. an R-75.


Oh... the front panel. I see it... Your wrong again... It reads
"IC-R75".

I wasn't wrong at all, 'tard boy... PLEASE try to pay attention. It DOES
NOT say
R-75 does it, 'tard boy?


It doesn't read R75, nimrod.

Sure it does 'tard boy... look at it again! It sure as hell doesn't say 'R-75' now
does it?

If you insist on mocking people for a petty
oversight, I suggest that you should take more care not to make any
oversights yourself as you have just done. It reads IC-R75. Now be
reasonable and stop casting stones from your glass house.

Like I said, your skull sure is thick!

Simply put to your stone casting frustration... The IC-R75 is a better
radio for DX'ing and SSB/utility then the R8 series.

Your fantasy, not mine!

Yield to the facts. I promise you'll feel better once you do so.

I faced up to the facts many, many, years ago, 'tard boy. That's why I don't use
ICOM radios!

Get a frickin' clue, and try not to cry yourself to sleep tonight.

LMAO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"I swear by, not at, Drake receivers" ©

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

In article ,
"Michael" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
..
.
Lucky wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

"Lucky" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in
message
m...

"Michael" wrote:


I find that there isn't anything that I can hear with
the R-75 that I can hear with more expensive radios.

That's true. Images, birdies, artifacts, intermodulation
products --
it's all there.

The R-75 is dumpster fodder. Value? yep. Value for
money?
yep.
Absolutely a good value? Not even close.

You need to experience a truly good radio. See
http://www.sherweng.com for some guidelines.



I personally think you made a fool out of yourself with your
drivel
and
that's about it.

Lucky


You can believe that all you want. I owned an R75 for years.
When
I
was selling it at a hamfest, Bob Sherwood came by and I
offered
it
to
him, and he just laughed.

I'll say it again: It *is* value for the money, but it is
*not*
an
absolute value.

For me, the issue that is important is front-end overload.
There
are
several flamethrowers that put millivolts worth of signal on
my
antennas. I don't have problems with close-in dynamic
range...
no
one
should really have problems with sensitivity on HF.

The R75 was nothing but images below 10 MHz without both
preamps
off
and the attenuator on.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940


Hi

I have about 10 radios. For $425, the R75 is my best rig. I
have
no
problem with images here in Miami. There are many Hams down
here
and
lots
of the time the bands are terrible. But, with my R75, I can
clean
the
signal up very well and enjoy the conversations. I can't do
this
with
my
other rigs. Here they. They are not all very good but I
started
out
as
a
novice.

1] Kenwood 5000
2] Lowe HF-150
3] JVC NRD 525
4] Yaesu FRG-7
5] TenTec 320-D for DRM
6] Yaesu FRG-7700
7] Nasa Target HF3
8] Kenwood QR-666 {really the R300}
9] Degen 1103
10] Icom R75

I would say the next best rig is the HF-150 then the 5000 and
525
are
about equal with the 525 giving you a few more options. If I
mean
business I use the R75. All I know is that I bought a brand
NEW
radio
with **DSP and **dual PBT plus easy computer control for
$425.
Just
being
able to mix and match filters is superb. The built in 2 level
pre-amp
works great.

How in the freaken world can you argue this point? How? Point
me
to
a
decent receiver for $425. Please, show me so I can buy it.



Not to state the obvious, but he did concede that, for the
money,
R-75
is a value. What he's saying, what I've said, and what has
been
repeated
here over the last few years, is that R-75 is not an absolute
value.
For
$425, yes, it's a good deal. But as an absolute value, it's
like
most
ICOM's (of which I've owned several and loved every one of
them):
It's
potential is not realized until it's been modified. No one is
saying
that
it's a bad radio. No one is saying that it's not worth having,
and
that
it's not a strong player, and to reiterate for those in Rio
Linda,
FOR
THE
MONEY, it's a good value.

It's just not all it can be.

As much as I loved my R-71, I was very much looking forward
to
R-75's
release. And was ready to close a deal with Universal as soon
as
it
was
available. But after playing with one for the better part of a
day,
I
was
less than impressed. And went in another direction. A
direction
I've
been
very pleased with. In fact, I've not bought a new radio since.

I liken ICOM's to cars at the drag strip. Do you know why
there
are
so
many Fords and Chevy's are used as racing platforms? Ånd you
don't
see
so
many Lincoln's and Cadillacs? Not because the Fords and
Chevy's
are
superior, but because they're a good buy for the money. For an
economical
outlay, you can buy a platform, that when modified to taste
becomes
precisely the car you want. Exactly built and tuned to the
application
you've chosen for it. A Lincoln would be a better platform.
Sturdier,
more
finely tuned suspension. But with fewer mods available, and at
dramatically higher cost.

I"ve seen Lincoln's at the race track. And I watched one mop
up
a
Taurus
in the quarter mile, but at 20 times the outlay for a
dragstrip
car.

ICOMs are solidly built, and decent performers. Like entry
level
domestic cars, their design has great potential for
performance.
But
production cost shortcuts and economies produce a product that
could
be
far more than it is. Requiring modification to extract the
performance
built into the design. When you're finished, add up price of
the
radio,
the cost of the mods, shipping, old battery and recappable
tires,
and
you've got a radio that's actually more expensive than it
would
have
been
had they not cut the production corners in the first place.

But then, at least, the absolute value of the radio would be
established.

There's nothing wrong with you loving your R-75. And as Eric
has
said
more than once, it IS a good value for the money.

It's just that as it comes out of the box, it's potential is
not
realized. And for many users, that's a deterrent to ownership.


Not only is the R-75 a good value for dollar, it is a good
absolute
value
as
well. Price aside, it is a good radio period. It is well
built,
sensitive,
selective, has a good user interface, is adequate for program
listening,
can
be very good for program listening with simple mods, and it is
outstanding
for utility and DX'ing. For me, it doesn't make the sense god
gave
a
mule
to
malign the R-75 because after market mods can improve the
performance
of
the
audio definition and the function of the sync detector should
you
decide
to
do so. The R-5000 is a great radio and it doesn't even have a
sync
detector.
The NRD 545 is a good radio and to my ear, even through an
external
speaker
the audio is hollow and tinny for any radio, let alone one with
a
price
tag
that is so high.

I have used the R-75, R-5000, R8, R8b and have some time on an
NRD-545.
Going by actual usage, I can honestly say that NONE of those
radios
are
"WONDER RADIOS" in comparison with the others. The all have
their
strengths,
but none of them will work miracles in comparison to other ones.
They
are
all capable radios. Of all of those radios, the one that I'd
prefer
to
have
for DX'ing and or utility would be the R-75. For program
listening,
I'd
take
the R8b. The audio quality itself is not all that much better
then
my
Kiwa
modified R-75, but the ssb selectable AM sync on the R8b can be
a
marvel
for
cutting out not just fade distortion but cutting out QRM
completely
from
a
signal above or below. I can also do the same thing with QRM
using
my
Sony
7600gr too !!!!

So.... Those are facts. The R-75 is a good performer in some
categories
and
an OUTSTANDING performer in most others. How can you say it is
not
an
absolute value ???

In reading posts from people that COMPULSIVELY malign the R-75
and
obsess
over the perceived AM sync deficiency ad nausium, it seems like
it
is
the
self justification of a person who spent way more money then the
R-75
costs
on their rig.

Or is it self justification on your part because you either don't
have
or
don't
want to spend the money for a better rig?

No... Not true at all. I'd spend more money on a better rig. I
was
going
to buy an NRD-545 not too long ago. I tried one out on loan from a
friend.
Although I loved the way it looked and I loved the way the controls
were
set
up, I thought the weak audio was a serious distraction. Still...
That
is
not why I didn't get one. I was primarily looking for a better
DX'ing
radio. I'd deal with lesser audio if the DX'ing abilities were
better
then
my R-75. I came to the realization after testing out the NRD-545
that
noting could help me DX' any better due to the high noise floor
here
in
north NJ. I dont need a new rig, I need to move to another area.

I always did want to see the American southwest. May be Arizona
:-)

Yes, it's an OK radio, but come on...

OK.. I know you like your R8 series, but do you really think the R8
series
is better then the R-75 for DX'ing. ???

Absolutely. If they weren't I'd have been one of the first to get
R75

The R8 series is only WAY better
then the R-75 for one thing and one thing only. And not... not
program
listening. With my Kiwa mods and external speaker, it does well
for
program
listening. Although not too many people mention it when comparing
the
R8
with the R-75 because everyone is pointing out the synch thing, the
R-75
SUCKS ON ICE for medium wave DX'ing. It's way too noisy. I loved
using
all
of the R8 series for MW, especially the R8b. I thought the R8b's
AM
synch
was the cats ass.

Regardless, you cant tell me the R8 or R8a or R8b is better at SW
DX'ing
then the R-75.

I believe I already did. Several times!


Tell me again and tell me why.

Haven't I wasted enough time on you already? You really need to learn
how
to pay
attention.

Start off by gazing at that front panel and try to commit to memory the
fact
that you're using a R75 vs. an R-75.


Oh... the front panel. I see it... Your wrong again... It reads
"IC-R75".

I wasn't wrong at all, 'tard boy... PLEASE try to pay attention. It DOES
NOT say
R-75 does it, 'tard boy?


It doesn't read R75, nimrod. If you insist on mocking people for a petty
oversight, I suggest that you should take more care not to make any
oversights yourself as you have just done. It reads IC-R75. Now be
reasonable and stop casting stones from your glass house.

Simply put to your stone casting frustration... The IC-R75 is a better
radio for DX'ing and SSB/utility then the R8 series.

Yield to the facts. I promise you'll feel better once you do so.

Your facts have no basis in reality. Feel better?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Lucky wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in
message
...

"Lucky" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in
message
m...

"Michael" wrote:


I find that there isn't anything that I can hear with
the R-75 that I can hear with more expensive radios.

That's true. Images, birdies, artifacts,
intermodulation
products --
it's all there.

The R-75 is dumpster fodder. Value? yep. Value for
money?
yep.
Absolutely a good value? Not even close.

You need to experience a truly good radio. See
http://www.sherweng.com for some guidelines.



I personally think you made a fool out of yourself with
your
drivel
and
that's about it.

Lucky


You can believe that all you want. I owned an R75 for
years.
When
I
was selling it at a hamfest, Bob Sherwood came by and I
offered
it
to
him, and he just laughed.

I'll say it again: It *is* value for the money, but it is
*not*
an
absolute value.

For me, the issue that is important is front-end overload.
There
are
several flamethrowers that put millivolts worth of signal
on
my
antennas. I don't have problems with close-in dynamic
range...
no
one
should really have problems with sensitivity on HF.

The R75 was nothing but images below 10 MHz without both
preamps
off
and the attenuator on.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940


Hi

I have about 10 radios. For $425, the R75 is my best rig.
I
have
no
problem with images here in Miami. There are many Hams
down
here
and
lots
of the time the bands are terrible. But, with my R75, I
can
clean
the
signal up very well and enjoy the conversations. I can't
do
this
with
my
other rigs. Here they. They are not all very good but I
started
out
as
a
novice.

1] Kenwood 5000
2] Lowe HF-150
3] JVC NRD 525
4] Yaesu FRG-7
5] TenTec 320-D for DRM
6] Yaesu FRG-7700
7] Nasa Target HF3
8] Kenwood QR-666 {really the R300}
9] Degen 1103
10] Icom R75

I would say the next best rig is the HF-150 then the 5000
and
525
are
about equal with the 525 giving you a few more options. If
I
mean
business I use the R75. All I know is that I bought a
brand
NEW
radio
with **DSP and **dual PBT plus easy computer control for
$425.
Just
being
able to mix and match filters is superb. The built in 2
level
pre-amp
works great.

How in the freaken world can you argue this point? How?
Point
me
to
a
decent receiver for $425. Please, show me so I can buy it.



Not to state the obvious, but he did concede that, for
the
money,
R-75
is a value. What he's saying, what I've said, and what has
been
repeated
here over the last few years, is that R-75 is not an
absolute
value.
For
$425, yes, it's a good deal. But as an absolute value, it's
like
most
ICOM's (of which I've owned several and loved every one of
them):
It's
potential is not realized until it's been modified. No one
is
saying
that
it's a bad radio. No one is saying that it's not worth
having,
and
that
it's not a strong player, and to reiterate for those in Rio
Linda,
FOR
THE
MONEY, it's a good value.

It's just not all it can be.

As much as I loved my R-71, I was very much looking
forward
to
R-75's
release. And was ready to close a deal with Universal as
soon
as
it
was
available. But after playing with one for the better part
of a
day,
I
was
less than impressed. And went in another direction. A
direction
I've
been
very pleased with. In fact, I've not bought a new radio
since.

I liken ICOM's to cars at the drag strip. Do you know why
there
are
so
many Fords and Chevy's are used as racing platforms? Ånd
you
don't
see
so
many Lincoln's and Cadillacs? Not because the Fords and
Chevy's
are
superior, but because they're a good buy for the money. For
an
economical
outlay, you can buy a platform, that when modified to taste
becomes
precisely the car you want. Exactly built and tuned to the
application
you've chosen for it. A Lincoln would be a better platform.
Sturdier,
more
finely tuned suspension. But with fewer mods available, and
at
dramatically higher cost.

I"ve seen Lincoln's at the race track. And I watched one
mop
up
a
Taurus
in the quarter mile, but at 20 times the outlay for a
dragstrip
car.

ICOMs are solidly built, and decent performers. Like
entry
level
domestic cars, their design has great potential for
performance.
But
production cost shortcuts and economies produce a product
that
could
be
far more than it is. Requiring modification to extract the
performance
built into the design. When you're finished, add up price
of
the
radio,
the cost of the mods, shipping, old battery and recappable
tires,
and
you've got a radio that's actually more expensive than it
would
have
been
had they not cut the production corners in the first place.

But then, at least, the absolute value of the radio would
be
established.

There's nothing wrong with you loving your R-75. And as
Eric
has
said
more than once, it IS a good value for the money.

It's just that as it comes out of the box, it's potential
is
not
realized. And for many users, that's a deterrent to
ownership.


Not only is the R-75 a good value for dollar, it is a good
absolute
value
as
well. Price aside, it is a good radio period. It is well
built,
sensitive,
selective, has a good user interface, is adequate for program
listening,
can
be very good for program listening with simple mods, and it
is
outstanding
for utility and DX'ing. For me, it doesn't make the sense god
gave
a
mule
to
malign the R-75 because after market mods can improve the
performance
of
the
audio definition and the function of the sync detector should
you
decide
to
do so. The R-5000 is a great radio and it doesn't even have a
sync
detector.
The NRD 545 is a good radio and to my ear, even through an
external
speaker
the audio is hollow and tinny for any radio, let alone one
with
a
price
tag
that is so high.

I have used the R-75, R-5000, R8, R8b and have some time on
an
NRD-545.
Going by actual usage, I can honestly say that NONE of those
radios
are
"WONDER RADIOS" in comparison with the others. The all have
their
strengths,
but none of them will work miracles in comparison to other
ones.
They
are
all capable radios. Of all of those radios, the one that I'd
prefer
to
have
for DX'ing and or utility would be the R-75. For program
listening,
I'd
take
the R8b. The audio quality itself is not all that much better
then
my
Kiwa
modified R-75, but the ssb selectable AM sync on the R8b can
be
a
marvel
for
cutting out not just fade distortion but cutting out QRM
completely
from
a
signal above or below. I can also do the same thing with QRM
using
my
Sony
7600gr too !!!!

So.... Those are facts. The R-75 is a good performer in some
categories
and
an OUTSTANDING performer in most others. How can you say it
is
not
an
absolute value ???

In reading posts from people that COMPULSIVELY malign the
R-75
and
obsess
over the perceived AM sync deficiency ad nausium, it seems
like
it
is
the
self justification of a person who spent way more money then
the
R-75
costs
on their rig.

Or is it self justification on your part because you either
don't
have
or
don't
want to spend the money for a better rig?

No... Not true at all. I'd spend more money on a better rig. I
was
going
to buy an NRD-545 not too long ago. I tried one out on loan
from a
friend.
Although I loved the way it looked and I loved the way the
controls
were
set
up, I thought the weak audio was a serious distraction.
Still...
That
is
not why I didn't get one. I was primarily looking for a better
DX'ing
radio. I'd deal with lesser audio if the DX'ing abilities were
better
then
my R-75. I came to the realization after testing out the
NRD-545
that
noting could help me DX' any better due to the high noise floor
here
in
north NJ. I dont need a new rig, I need to move to another
area.

I always did want to see the American southwest. May be Arizona
:-)

Yes, it's an OK radio, but come on...

OK.. I know you like your R8 series, but do you really think the
R8
series
is better then the R-75 for DX'ing. ???

Absolutely. If they weren't I'd have been one of the first to get
R75

The R8 series is only WAY better
then the R-75 for one thing and one thing only. And not... not
program
listening. With my Kiwa mods and external speaker, it does well
for
program
listening. Although not too many people mention it when
comparing
the
R8
with the R-75 because everyone is pointing out the synch thing,
the
R-75
SUCKS ON ICE for medium wave DX'ing. It's way too noisy. I
loved
using
all
of the R8 series for MW, especially the R8b. I thought the
R8b's
AM
synch
was the cats ass.

Regardless, you cant tell me the R8 or R8a or R8b is better at
SW
DX'ing
then the R-75.

I believe I already did. Several times!


Tell me again and tell me why.

Haven't I wasted enough time on you already? You really need to
learn
how
to pay
attention.

Start off by gazing at that front panel and try to commit to memory
the
fact
that you're using a R75 vs. an R-75.


Oh... the front panel. I see it... Your wrong again... It reads
"IC-R75".

I wasn't wrong at all, 'tard boy... PLEASE try to pay attention. It
DOES
NOT say
R-75 does it, 'tard boy?


It doesn't read R75, nimrod.

Sure it does 'tard boy... look at it again! It sure as hell doesn't say
'R-75' now
does it?

If you insist on mocking people for a petty
oversight, I suggest that you should take more care not to make any
oversights yourself as you have just done. It reads IC-R75. Now be
reasonable and stop casting stones from your glass house.

Like I said, your skull sure is thick!

Simply put to your stone casting frustration... The IC-R75 is a better
radio for DX'ing and SSB/utility then the R8 series.

Your fantasy, not mine!

Yield to the facts. I promise you'll feel better once you do so.

I faced up to the facts many, many, years ago, 'tard boy. That's why I
don't use
ICOM radios!

Get a frickin' clue, and try not to cry yourself to sleep tonight.

Clearly, your prone to antagonistic gestures when your compulsion drives
you agaisnt facts. Your commentary is a Freudian delight. It's crawling
with clues.

I strongly recommend you relax your compulsion and spend a few hours with
the R8 and the IC-R75. Do a few side by side comparisons for DX'ing and
utility. I promise that self discovery will be far more fullfilling over
denial.

Michael


LMAO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"I swear by, not at, Drake receivers" ©

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

Michael wrote:

Other then a few computer controlled alternatives, there are no other
choices other then the R-75. That's the larger point.

The radios in the list I'm asking for don't have to meet your
"PRACTICAL improvement" criteria.

What does "statistically significant PRACTICALLY speaking" mean?

craigm

Meaning exactly as stated. Here is an example:

The Drake R-8 was tested to have a sensitivity of 0.25 and 0.18 with
the pre amp on.

The R-75 was tested to have a sensitivy of 0.5 and .02 with the
first level pre amp on

The Kenwood R-5000 was tested to have a sensitivity of .02

The NRD-525 was tested to have a sensitivity of .02

OK, what do you say ???? You can see what receiver gets the better
test numbers here. Think it matters PRACTICALLY speaking given what
typical noise floors are ??? Would you feel it was worth it to spend
a few thousand dollars to get that extra decimal ??? This applies
equally to other values.
Do you understand my point yet ????

Michael

Hold it Mike. Didn't you say that you are in a noisy area? Sensitivity
(then) becomes the least important papameter you should consider (it's
actually not a very important parameter for most of us since we are usually
limited by atmospheric noise that is much greater than the receiver noise
floor). Worry more about ultimate selectivity, dymanic range, etc.

Also I think you have your decimal points badly screwed up above. (.02
should be 0.2)

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

In article ,
"Brian Denley" wrote:

Michael wrote:

Other then a few computer controlled alternatives, there are no other
choices other then the R-75. That's the larger point.

The radios in the list I'm asking for don't have to meet your
"PRACTICAL improvement" criteria.

What does "statistically significant PRACTICALLY speaking" mean?

craigm

Meaning exactly as stated. Here is an example:

The Drake R-8 was tested to have a sensitivity of 0.25 and 0.18 with
the pre amp on.

The R-75 was tested to have a sensitivy of 0.5 and .02 with the
first level pre amp on

The Kenwood R-5000 was tested to have a sensitivity of .02

The NRD-525 was tested to have a sensitivity of .02

OK, what do you say ???? You can see what receiver gets the better
test numbers here. Think it matters PRACTICALLY speaking given what
typical noise floors are ??? Would you feel it was worth it to spend
a few thousand dollars to get that extra decimal ??? This applies
equally to other values.
Do you understand my point yet ????

Michael

Hold it Mike. Didn't you say that you are in a noisy area? Sensitivity
(then) becomes the least important papameter you should consider (it's
actually not a very important parameter for most of us since we are usually
limited by atmospheric noise that is much greater than the receiver noise
floor). Worry more about ultimate selectivity, dymanic range, etc.

Also I think you have your decimal points badly screwed up above. (.02
should be 0.2)

Don't confuse him with facts as he is on a good rant besides this is a
your radio sucks thread now.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

dxAce wrote:



Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Lucky wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...

"Lucky" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
m...

"Michael" wrote:


I find that there isn't anything that I can hear with
the R-75 that I can hear with more expensive radios.

That's true. Images, birdies, artifacts, intermodulation
products --
it's all there.

The R-75 is dumpster fodder. Value? yep. Value for money?
yep.
Absolutely a good value? Not even close.

You need to experience a truly good radio. See
http://www.sherweng.com for some guidelines.



I personally think you made a fool out of yourself with your
drivel
and
that's about it.

Lucky


You can believe that all you want. I owned an R75 for years. When
I
was selling it at a hamfest, Bob Sherwood came by and I offered it
to
him, and he just laughed.

I'll say it again: It *is* value for the money, but it is *not* an
absolute value.

For me, the issue that is important is front-end overload. There
are
several flamethrowers that put millivolts worth of signal on my
antennas. I don't have problems with close-in dynamic range... no
one
should really have problems with sensitivity on HF.

The R75 was nothing but images below 10 MHz without both preamps
off
and the attenuator on.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940


Hi

I have about 10 radios. For $425, the R75 is my best rig. I have no
problem with images here in Miami. There are many Hams down here
and
lots
of the time the bands are terrible. But, with my R75, I can clean
the
signal up very well and enjoy the conversations. I can't do this
with
my
other rigs. Here they. They are not all very good but I started out
as
a
novice.

1] Kenwood 5000
2] Lowe HF-150
3] JVC NRD 525
4] Yaesu FRG-7
5] TenTec 320-D for DRM
6] Yaesu FRG-7700
7] Nasa Target HF3
8] Kenwood QR-666 {really the R300}
9] Degen 1103
10] Icom R75

I would say the next best rig is the HF-150 then the 5000 and 525
are
about equal with the 525 giving you a few more options. If I mean
business I use the R75. All I know is that I bought a brand NEW
radio
with **DSP and **dual PBT plus easy computer control for $425. Just
being
able to mix and match filters is superb. The built in 2 level
pre-amp
works great.

How in the freaken world can you argue this point? How? Point me to
a
decent receiver for $425. Please, show me so I can buy it.



Not to state the obvious, but he did concede that, for the money,
R-75
is a value. What he's saying, what I've said, and what has been
repeated
here over the last few years, is that R-75 is not an absolute value.
For
$425, yes, it's a good deal. But as an absolute value, it's like
most
ICOM's (of which I've owned several and loved every one of them):
It's
potential is not realized until it's been modified. No one is saying
that
it's a bad radio. No one is saying that it's not worth having, and
that
it's not a strong player, and to reiterate for those in Rio Linda,
FOR
THE
MONEY, it's a good value.

It's just not all it can be.

As much as I loved my R-71, I was very much looking forward to
R-75's
release. And was ready to close a deal with Universal as soon as it
was
available. But after playing with one for the better part of a day,
I
was
less than impressed. And went in another direction. A direction I've
been
very pleased with. In fact, I've not bought a new radio since.

I liken ICOM's to cars at the drag strip. Do you know why there
are
so
many Fords and Chevy's are used as racing platforms? Ånd you don't
see
so
many Lincoln's and Cadillacs? Not because the Fords and Chevy's are
superior, but because they're a good buy for the money. For an
economical
outlay, you can buy a platform, that when modified to taste becomes
precisely the car you want. Exactly built and tuned to the
application
you've chosen for it. A Lincoln would be a better platform.
Sturdier,
more
finely tuned suspension. But with fewer mods available, and at
dramatically higher cost.

I"ve seen Lincoln's at the race track. And I watched one mop up a
Taurus
in the quarter mile, but at 20 times the outlay for a dragstrip car.

ICOMs are solidly built, and decent performers. Like entry level
domestic cars, their design has great potential for performance. But
production cost shortcuts and economies produce a product that could
be
far more than it is. Requiring modification to extract the
performance
built into the design. When you're finished, add up price of the
radio,
the cost of the mods, shipping, old battery and recappable tires,
and
you've got a radio that's actually more expensive than it would have
been
had they not cut the production corners in the first place.

But then, at least, the absolute value of the radio would be
established.

There's nothing wrong with you loving your R-75. And as Eric has
said
more than once, it IS a good value for the money.

It's just that as it comes out of the box, it's potential is not
realized. And for many users, that's a deterrent to ownership.


Not only is the R-75 a good value for dollar, it is a good absolute
value
as
well. Price aside, it is a good radio period. It is well built,
sensitive,
selective, has a good user interface, is adequate for program
listening,
can
be very good for program listening with simple mods, and it is
outstanding
for utility and DX'ing. For me, it doesn't make the sense god gave a
mule
to
malign the R-75 because after market mods can improve the performance
of
the
audio definition and the function of the sync detector should you
decide
to
do so. The R-5000 is a great radio and it doesn't even have a sync
detector.
The NRD 545 is a good radio and to my ear, even through an external
speaker
the audio is hollow and tinny for any radio, let alone one with a
price
tag
that is so high.

I have used the R-75, R-5000, R8, R8b and have some time on an
NRD-545.
Going by actual usage, I can honestly say that NONE of those radios
are
"WONDER RADIOS" in comparison with the others. The all have their
strengths,
but none of them will work miracles in comparison to other ones. They
are
all capable radios. Of all of those radios, the one that I'd prefer
to
have
for DX'ing and or utility would be the R-75. For program listening,
I'd
take
the R8b. The audio quality itself is not all that much better then my
Kiwa
modified R-75, but the ssb selectable AM sync on the R8b can be a
marvel
for
cutting out not just fade distortion but cutting out QRM completely
from
a
signal above or below. I can also do the same thing with QRM using my
Sony
7600gr too !!!!

So.... Those are facts. The R-75 is a good performer in some
categories
and
an OUTSTANDING performer in most others. How can you say it is not an
absolute value ???

In reading posts from people that COMPULSIVELY malign the R-75 and
obsess
over the perceived AM sync deficiency ad nausium, it seems like it is
the
self justification of a person who spent way more money then the R-75
costs
on their rig.

Or is it self justification on your part because you either don't have
or
don't
want to spend the money for a better rig?

No... Not true at all. I'd spend more money on a better rig. I was
going
to buy an NRD-545 not too long ago. I tried one out on loan from a
friend.
Although I loved the way it looked and I loved the way the controls were
set
up, I thought the weak audio was a serious distraction. Still... That is
not why I didn't get one. I was primarily looking for a better DX'ing
radio. I'd deal with lesser audio if the DX'ing abilities were better
then
my R-75. I came to the realization after testing out the NRD-545 that
noting could help me DX' any better due to the high noise floor here in
north NJ. I dont need a new rig, I need to move to another area.

I always did want to see the American southwest. May be Arizona :-)

Yes, it's an OK radio, but come on...

OK.. I know you like your R8 series, but do you really think the R8
series
is better then the R-75 for DX'ing. ???

Absolutely. If they weren't I'd have been one of the first to get R75

The R8 series is only WAY better
then the R-75 for one thing and one thing only. And not... not program
listening. With my Kiwa mods and external speaker, it does well for
program
listening. Although not too many people mention it when comparing the R8
with the R-75 because everyone is pointing out the synch thing, the R-75
SUCKS ON ICE for medium wave DX'ing. It's way too noisy. I loved using
all
of the R8 series for MW, especially the R8b. I thought the R8b's AM
synch
was the cats ass.

Regardless, you cant tell me the R8 or R8a or R8b is better at SW DX'ing
then the R-75.

I believe I already did. Several times!


Tell me again and tell me why.

Haven't I wasted enough time on you already? You really need to learn how to pay
attention.

Start off by gazing at that front panel and try to commit to memory the fact
that you're using a R75 vs. an R-75.

Mostly because they are IC-R75 (and IC-R8500). There's a hyphen in
there, somewhere... I need the "R" to distinguish between the R8500
and my FT-8500, just in case I get confused. :-)


That would be a good start. Now you get back to me tomorrow and we'll see if
you've made any progress and then perhaps we might proceed from there.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Okay, if you want to dig into the stone age, you can go look up

Message-ID:

Where I had the R75 and the R8B side-by-side under the bad conditions
that soured me on the R75. While the R8B couldn't handle the
situation well there, either, it handled it a great deal better than
the '75.

The R8B is also noted to have a better choice and better shaped
filters.

Finally, the audio is far superior on the '8B.

Me, the '8500 has wonderful audio. ****ty filters, wonderful audio.
:-) Can't have everything...


Now a comparable new product to the '75 would be the WR G303. Yes, it
needs a computer, but the SDR has incredible capabilities. It also
has similar weaknesses to the '75, so if you have no problem with the
'75 you'll have no problems with the '303... plus you'll have
incredible filters and audio as good as your sound card (which can be
very good).

An old product? Well, my R-392 is the Ultimate Bulletproof Receiver
with all those tuned stages in it. It's also portable, especially
compared to the better big brother R-390. Mine cost $100.

....you can always add a sherwood engineering detector, connect it to
the I.F. out, and get that sync detector you want. You get a better
sync detector, too... :-)


--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

"Lucky" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
D Peter Maus wrote:

Nothing replaces good basics.


Amen. I agree with that last sentence wholeheartedly.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

So true. You can have the best rig money can buy but without good basics,
the money is wasted on it.

Well, "the best rig money can buy" ought to have good basics, or, by
definition, it isn't "the best rig."

Say rather, a $5000 radio with a fatal flaw in the basics is sorrier
than a $700 radio with the basics right but no frills.

My FRG-100 was that radio. Not as pretty as the '75...

I think many people leave the hobby or not get
into it because they didn't set things up right. I know I did a lot of
things wrong when I first started out and I'm still learning.

Lucky


--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

"Michael" wrote:



Clearly, your prone to antagonistic gestures when your compulsion drives
you agaisnt facts. Your commentary is a Freudian delight. It's crawling
with clues.

Okay, you two, lollipops all around. You're just getting into weenie
waving wars at this point.


I strongly recommend you relax your compulsion and spend a few hours with
the R8 and the IC-R75. Do a few side by side comparisons for DX'ing and
utility. I promise that self discovery will be far more fullfilling over
denial.


I did just that. I also posted a link to it. My admittedly
radio-hostile environment was the subject; the question was (at the
time), what the hell is wrong here?

Ironically, the radio-hostile environment was swamping the radios
with RF on a...


....wait for it...


....radio quiet zone!



--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

Telamon wrote:

Don't confuse him with facts as he is on a good rant besides this is a
your radio sucks thread now.

....beats the hell out of a your political party sucks thread...


--
Eric F. Richards

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a
chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill, from RNW