I'll keep my BC125AT anyday!!
I agree that it is expensive (mine cost $503 from Moonraker, all-inclusive). But it's the best analog scanner I've ever had. For those of us who spend our time between 118 and 500MHz, it can't be beat.
I would love for somebody to to do a side by side with a BC125
Build quality is great, too. Very tough unit.
finally looked at this. Interesting information. Not familiar with mr mccreadie but may I assume he works for Icom so as you say a walkthrough and a rundown in basic features and a small sales pitch! As I have said, a very nice radio but only for specialized needs since there are so many others that do similar things. If Icom made a full multi digital, truly wide frequency coverage similar handheld receiver I would most likely buy immediately even at 100s of dollars more.
Wow , wouldn't that be interesting!
bearcatrp
Member
Can anyone do a quick video of the waterfall in action? Or a link to a web site showing it in action.
Bingo. It's certainly not for everyone, but it is a fantastic piece of hardware that those with certain requirements will feel is well worth the money.
This perpetual price bashing is getting old - shall we go over to the Motorola forum and start bashing APX prices now? Or have we finally realized that not every radio/scanner/receiver is intended for EVERY possible person? If you don't want to buy it, don't buy it.
I don't have one personally, but a railfan friend who purchased an R15 to replace his BC125AT has already noticed a marked improvement in both reception and audio quality.
I agree, having bought an IC-R15, it is expensive, and I am very happy with it, great quality, performance and features.
As I said, I fully support anyone‘s choice and your comments except I was not price bashing…obviously price to an individual is relative to function. All comments should be heard…that is the purpose of a forum. I have purchased radios with prices far in excess of the r15 and not uniden…such as other icoms and AOR and, yes. Motorola that many would call overpriced and I would certainly understand others disagreeing . So I get it. May everyone get the same pure pleasure I get out of buying and using a new radio!,
Today, I tried a Watson 901 SMA antenna on the IC-R15...what a huge disappointment, could not pick up ATIS from my house which the Icom FA-B02AR & Signal Sticks have been able to pick up, so far the Icom FA-B02AR has been the best with the Signal sticks in a close #2 place. I should be getting the Comet AB35WS in a couple of weeks and will report back on it's performance.
I have spent years and many$$ experimenting with handheld antennas(many are in a drawer not being used) and if there is no issue as far as height, for most reception especially below 500 mhz a simple adjustable collapsable antenna like the diamond rh-789 adjusted to the frequency being listened to has always been equal to or better than any other rubber duck. Yes, people will argue there is no gain ete etc but supposed gain antennas never made any listenable difference in comparison to the collapsables. Gain can be a factor in rooftop yagis and directional antennas but companies claiming ridiculous gain for handheld receiving antennas is ”smoke and mirrors”. A handheld antenna at the specific resonating frequency always works equal to or better…yes there are handheld duck antennas that are ‘tuned’ to the range of frequencies but again they cannot receive any better than a collapsable. We cannot argue with physics!
Look at all the money I could have saved!
From the ARRL antenna handbook….
“The salient point here is that the more capture area you have, the stronger your received signal will be. All other things being equal, it’s fair to say that the longer the antenna, the better it receives. This is consistent with the concept of Total Copper (or aluminum) Content (TCC) as a yardstick of overall Amateur Radio station performance. The more copper (or aluminum) you have in the air the better you’ll talk and the better you’ll hear!”
Having said all this, I realize there is a convenience factor for using smaller antennas and I use them on my handhelds all the time…but if I need that extra edge, I use the collapsable set to the frequency.
Look at all the money I could have saved!
From the ARRL antenna handbook….
“The salient point here is that the more capture area you have, the stronger your received signal will be. All other things being equal, it’s fair to say that the longer the antenna, the better it receives. This is consistent with the concept of Total Copper (or aluminum) Content (TCC) as a yardstick of overall Amateur Radio station performance. The more copper (or aluminum) you have in the air the better you’ll talk and the better you’ll hear!”
Having said all this, I realize there is a convenience factor for using smaller antennas and I use them on my handhelds all the time…but if I need that extra edge, I use the collapsable set to the frequency.
G7RUX
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2021
- Messages
- 507
To be honest this doesn't surprise me. The aperture of the 901 is fairly small and it is a VHF/UHF shortened monopole. When I tested my one its match was not terribly good for VHF airband and pretty much awful for UHF/Mil airband. The SignalSticks are similarly designed for amateur bands but do a little better in general for airband as they have a larger aperture; they are both the wrong antenna. I made a pseudo-signalstick cut for VHF airband and it is really rather good.
I received my Comet AB35WS today and....it is another terrible disappointment, it is just as bad as the Watson 901. The signal sticks dual band is so much of a better performer and the Icom FA-B02AR coming out on top. I think I have finally found my king of handheld antennas...the Icom FA-B02AR. If I need to improve the reception any better, I will bring out the Taco D-5076 mounted on a tripod.
Unfortunately, I do not have the test equipment to do so. The Icom FA-B02AR at 203mm is even shorter but a spectacular performer...must be the Icom secret sauce.
palmerjrusa
Member
HRO is now showing the IC-R15 in stock😀...
Are you going to get one at $559...$110 more expensive than EU
