David Eduardo wrote:
"John Plimmer" wrote in message
...
Whew! pretty awesome!
Guess what farmer Christmas will put in some lucky fella's stockings

But why, oh why, do Icom have to attenuate the MW band reception? - never
figured them out - they do that to all their radio's.



They do this to prevent front end overload for users in high MW
signal areas. There are some areas of the Windy, for instance, that are
a veritible RF 'Little Big Horn' of huge signals (50 kw).
It's not a problem for many users, but when it's a problem, it's
usually a big problem.

Padding the MW band is a lot easier and a lot less expensive than
increasing the headroom to accomodate signals 100 times or more hotter
than the average DX signal.




Do you suppose there will be a mod possible to defeat this unfortunate
design "benefit?"
--


There usually is. Most of the time as simple as jumping a pad.

Except in the case of the R-75. A bit more complicated...




"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news
David Eduardo wrote:
"John Plimmer" wrote in message
...
Whew! pretty awesome!
Guess what farmer Christmas will put in some lucky fella's stockings

But why, oh why, do Icom have to attenuate the MW band reception? -
never
figured them out - they do that to all their radio's.



They do this to prevent front end overload for users in high MW
signal areas. There are some areas of the Windy, for instance, that are
a veritible RF 'Little Big Horn' of huge signals (50 kw).
It's not a problem for many users, but when it's a problem, it's
usually a big problem.

Padding the MW band is a lot easier and a lot less expensive than
increasing the headroom to accomodate signals 100 times or more hotter
than the average DX signal.




Do you suppose there will be a mod possible to defeat this unfortunate
design "benefit?"
--


There usually is. Most of the time as simple as jumping a pad.

Geez I might get divorced over this one!

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

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
And I'm certain you'll pay a respectable price as well. My guesstimate of
the
price is $4500 (or more!).

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Brian Denley wrote:
Geez I might get divorced over this one!

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

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
And I'm certain you'll pay a respectable price as well. My guesstimate of
the
price is $4500 (or more!).

dxAce
Michigan
USA



BD,

Oh Yeah, My Ex-Wife !

Now what was her name . . .

just for the fun of it ) ~ RHF

Brian Denley wrote:
Geez I might get divorced over this one!

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



Just be sure you get the divorce before you buy the receiver...assuming
you want to keep it.

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

Brian Denley wrote:
Geez I might get divorced over this one!

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



Just be sure you get the divorce before you buy the
receiver...assuming
you want to keep it.

Heh, I wonder if anyone has done a study of the
stuff that eBay sells to find out how much of it
comes from divorce proceedings...

--Mike L.

John Plimmer wrote:

Whew! pretty awesome!
Guess what farmer Christmas will put in some lucky fella's stockings


I would imagine it's far too cold for normal farming at the North Pole.
They most likely use the heat provided by the seemingly limitless coal
seam which has provided my stocking stuffings for the last decade.







mike

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:57:23 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



bpnjensen wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Email from Universal after I inquired as to the price:

"Thanks for the email. We are aware of this new receiver but at this time
Icom has not released any information . We will post it on our website
as soon as we receive it. Sure looks like a nice one."

dxAce
Michigan
USA

It'll be a nice one if the daggone sideband-selectable S-AM works as
advertised.

And I'm certain you'll pay a respectable price as well. My guesstimate of the
price is $4500 (or more!).

dxAce
Michigan
USA


Waaal, with the 7800 transceiver at $10,000 plus, $4500 sounds
downright reasonable, and maybe a little low.

Does this puppy have selectable roofing filters?

bob
k5qwg

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

http://ndl-dx.se/icom_r9500/icom_r9500.pdf

and at:

http://ndl-dx.se/icom_r9500/
(via Bernt-Ivan Holmberg, Möklinta, Sweden, dx_india)

I'm not a fan of wide bandwidth receivers as the design usually favors
the higher end communication bands and scanning functions.

Looks like they paid more attention to the front end then normal with
RF relay switching and (relatively) large toroid coils instead of
smaller chip inductors that can more easily saturate. Although the
toroids are self shielding they look a little to close together on that
BPF board for my tastes and causes me to wonder if enough attention was
paid to isolating the sections. I'd need a closer view of the board and
layout to know what was up with it.

The relays are a better RF solution than switching diodes but the unit
will be making clicking sounds when you scan across bands and wear the
relays out so I expect that the operating manual will advise against
doing that.

At 70 watts whether it is on or off means it will run hot. The case
looks like it is meant to travel and sit on a desk but you may want it
to be in a rack with cooling. To get a feel about this imagine placing
a 70 watt bulb inside the case. The receivers I have take 30 to 40
watts and are ballpark around the same size so for the ICOM to stay as
cool it will all depend on that fan in the back, which will collect
dust over time.

With the USB and ethernat ports on the back means it could be controled
with National Instruments software instead of generating computer
control software from scratch. ICOM may even have a driver written for
it.

Nice looking unit and display. Looks like it belongs on a lab bench.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Remember the Red River Valley and the Cowboy who loved you so true.The
Grapes of Wrath movie has just now wound up,untill next time.
cuhulin