What is the difference between a reciever and its transciever look alike?

[APSN556]

I hope the topic wasn't too confusing, let me explain. Ive noticed many receivers that I am in the market for have an identical model that is a transceiver. In some cases, the transceiver version is cheaper and easier to come by. Example, the Icom R75 and the Icom IC-718. Or the Kenwood R5000 and TS-440S. Is their an advantage over the receive only versions? My list of comparisons could go on forever!

[n5ims]

A receiver is just that, a receiver. It will only receive signals.

A tranceiver is a combination transmitter and receiver and will handle two way communication. Most often these are designed for the amateur radio market.

In general, there is more of a market for amateur radio equipment than for short wave listening equipment. This makes the receivers harder to find and at times more expensive. It is quite easy to find a selection of amateur transceivers on the used market, while finding a SW receiver isn't always that easy. That can often make the transceiver less expensive as well.

[APSN556]

Originally Posted by n5ims

A receiver is just that, a receiver. It will only receive signals.

A tranceiver is a combination transmitter and receiver and will handle two way communication. Most often these are designed for the amateur radio market.

In general, there is more of a market for amateur radio equipment than for short wave listening equipment. This makes the receivers harder to find and at times more expensive. It is quite easy to find a selection of amateur transceivers on the used market, while finding a SW receiver isn't always that easy. That can often make the transceiver less expensive as well.

lol, Im well aware of the obvious difference between the receiver and transceiver... My question is more along the lines of which one is a better performer for HF listening, such as in the case of the Kenwood R5000 or the Kenwood TS-440S. Is the TS-440S the exact same radio as the R5000, but with a transmit function?

[nickcarr]

In short, no.

With today's technology, there's almost no difference. The older the radio, the chances are that their *could* be a difference, but not as likely.

In the past, the true high-end consumer or professional "receivers" had better filtering elements in the circuitry. Back when I purchased my first Drake R-8 back in 1994, it was considered "Top of the Line" because it had several "receive-only" features. (This was before DSP.)

So, in short, the newer HF transceivers (amateur) that you see today are very, very good receivers as well. A good example is the Icom R75 and IC-718. They look to be the same technology - they use the same components. So either would make an effective SWL radio.

My case in point: I purchased an Icom IC-7000 as my main SWL radio last year (early 2008.) It was rated to have an excellent receive unit with very high-end features that most traditional SW radios could only dream about. For me, it was a no-brainer - as I'm a HAM as well. Transceiver that covers HF thru 70cm. Excellent receiver with DSP. No special filters to buy, etc. For $1200 it was a steal.

One fact to remember: the radios you mentioned are very good. And most HF transceivers in the last 15 years are still very good receivers. Some of those do not employ DSP at all (or at least not in the same way as they do now.)

To answer your question about the Kenwood radios - you would need to compare their respective dates of manufacturer -- and their obvious features. If they are of the same year, then yes, most likely they are of the same circuitry. Again, it just depends on what extra features Kenwood employed with the R5000 (e.g. filters, etc.)

In a technical frame of mind, the pure receivers are much easier to modify. This is why some love pure receivers - not a lot of extra circutry to get in the way.

Some other obvious key differences: built-in antenna tuners (on xcvrs), power consumption differences, number of antenna jacks, DC power connectivity, antenna connector types, hi-Z antenna connector, physical size/weight (portability), etc.

~~

Side note: Depending on your personal hearing preferences, some people prefer the older HF receivers and transceivers. DSP technology is a love/hate relationship. Listening to say a Kenwood R5000 and my Icom IC-7000 would be very obvious. To me, DSP has a way of making the sound somewhat tinny and artificial sounding. The non-DSP receivers tend to be more warm or softer in terms of the audio. The audio generally has more bass and sounds more natural. I can't help but wonder if this is because the speaker quality has dropped or if it's really the non-DSP electronics.

Hope this helps.

[kc2rgw]

Have to mine the specs.

Generally speaking now, they are just missing the power amplifier and modulation stages.

Other nits, the receivers have general coverage enabled....in the past you used to have to modify radios to receive continuously. Again, current transceivers generally have general coverage receive now anyway.

Sometimes they have wider optional AM receive filters in the receiver only models and possibly synchronous AM modules that aren't generally in the 'ham' versions.

It all 'depends' and really you have to mine the spec sheets and poke around reviews.

You can get a better bargain often with older ham transceivers vs a dedicated receiver. Just watch for a good wide enough AM filter for decent fidelity if you are an SWL more than a DXer. That's the biggest audio quality difference with a strong signal...having a wide enough passband to hear the full audio range of the broadcast...when the broadcast station actually passes a nice wide signal.

If it's in the budget at all, you cannot go wrong with an SDR receiver. They are simply incredible. Yes, they require a computer to run them, but they are stunning and I'm forever ruined now that I use them.