ICOM R-8600 or not - That is the question!

[Gatorman]

BTW, have Icom R7000, PRO-2045s. I find the 2045 to be one of the best receivers for airband based on speed of scanning and ease of use. Can't comment on sensitivity comparitively speaking other than R7000. Can't tell the difference other than UHF aero where I feel the 2045 has the edge.

 

[Token]

Anyone expecting the Icom 8600 or any modern SDR type radio to out perform a old analog radio on low bands will be very disappointed !!

Odd, I use several SDRs, including the Icom R-8600, that perform just as well, or even better, in every quantifiable way, than some very good "old" analog radios.

I would place the Icom R-8600, the WinRadio G33DDC, and the WinRadio G35DDC, all three of them receive only SDRs and all covering HF, among the best HF and MF radios I have ever used.

Radios in my collection (or that I have used extensively if not still in the collection) include things like the Collins R-390A, 75a2, Drake R-7 and R-4B, many Hallicrafters including things like the SX-28, SX-42, SX-117, etc, many Hammarlunds, including things like the SP-600, HQ-180, Nationals including the NC-183, NC-300, and NC-400, Kenwood TS-950, TS-590, TS-480SAT, TS-450s, JRC NRD-535, Yaesu FT-950, FTdx-5000, FT-2000, WJ HF-1000, etc.

So I have some basis for comparison.

To be fair the rig sounds much better then a cheap SDR as the audio is processed by the rig and not the PC However when you run programs like HDSDR or others using the IQ (You just turned your $2300 rig into a Cheap junk $20 SDR ) Don't do that !

What an SDR sounds like is not a function of "using the IQ". The R8600 "uses the IQ" all the time, and yet you say it "sounds much better than a cheap SDR". What an SDR sounds like is a combination of software settings, soundcard settings, and amplifier / speaker features. The R8600 does the exact same thing, the same processes, just all internal to the box.

Having your PC use the IQ and process the audio is not, necessarily, a bad thing at all. Properly configured it can perform very well and sound outstanding. By the same token, it is possible to mess it up big time.

When the radio does it all, demod, process, amplify, shape, there is, typically, less for you to mess up.

Now far as the stuff you guys are talking about ( sensitivity ) on the( Low Bands) I just always find it funny how people try to compare a SDR like the ICOM8600 to a real radio sorry to say it but that just cant be done ! here is just one example I have a have a old kenwood 440 made way back in the 80s and it even has better sensitivity then the Icom and much better audio quality ! I know it sounds crazy but its true old analog radios just sound better then the New SDR type rigs no mater how you use all the gimmicks that comes with them the Sound quality is just not up to par with real radios !! who knows maybe someday ??

Got any scientific basis for any of that statement? By the way, I especially like the "real radio" comments, it took me a minute to try and figure out whether that was sarcasm or trolling or what. If by "real radios" you mean traditional superhetrodyne receivers then I like real radios, I have been using and collecting them since the 1960's. But the R8600 is no less a real radio than your Kenwood example.

You say the TS440 has "better sensitivity" than the Icom R8600. That just is not so. The 440 has a published spec (in SSB) of 0.25 uV (10 dB S/N) across the upper MF and entire HF range, and having had one or two on the bench over the years that seems about right, possibly a little better, maybe on the order of 0.2 uV. The R8600 is speced at 0.19 uV and has been measured at 0.12 uV. In SSB demonstrably, by design, in print, and by third party measurements, the R8600 is at least as sensitive as the TS440, and probably more so. The TS440 may have a slight advantage in AM mode. But realistically the radios are so close that in either mode you probably cannot tell a sensitivity difference in real world over the air application, especially below 10 MHz where other factors, rather than raw sensitivity, become larger contributors.

"Audio quality" is often based on opinion and can be a hard to define aspect. Of course, certain things can be measured, but that does not tell the story of how you perceive it. You say the TS-440 has better audio quality. Put the two radios into the same headsets and see if that is still true. The R8600 has a typical, to me, solid state sound, and it does not, to me, compare to the warmth of tube radios, but I really can't tell much difference, on AM, FM, or SSB audio and once the filters have been adjusted to comparable settings, between the R8600 and many solid state "real radios".

You may not like SDR. You may not have optimized your SDR setup and use. You may prefer the simplicity of a "real radio". And I certainly prefer the sound of a good tube receiver vs a solid state receiver. But realistically there is no reason a well designed upper end SDR (either stand alone or tied to PC) cannot sound as good and perform just as well as any "real radio".

T!

 

[Token]

Great thread. I just checked in. Looking at the 8600. I have a variety of HF receivers. Most interested in VHF/UHF, especially UHF/VHF airband. I have outdoor antennas, 65', somewhat concerned about reported lack of sensitivity on these bands.

Thanks much.

Not sure what to say about any reported lack of sensitivity on the VHF or UHF air bands. I have the R2500, R7000, R7100, R8500, and R8600, as well as a few other radios capable of receiving these bands. In general anything I can hear, and understand, anything on the R8600 that I haveon other radios.

There are times with the R8500 when I can tell a signal is present (breaks squelch) before I can on the R8600, however these signals are often below usable levels. By the time it is usable on the 8500 it is at least as usable on the 8600. And often the versatility of the 8600 can make signals cleaner at lower levels (so detected earlier on the 8500, understood earlier on the 8600). But who has the time on these freqs to be tweaking the radio? So realistically the R8600 seems to be as sensitive as any radio I own on VHF/UHF. However, in my opinion the 8600's features just do not make it shine on VHF/UHF air, it is good, but not exceptional, there. It starts to excel in other realms, HF and weak signal (not AM mode) VHF/UHF work.

T!

 

[prcguy]

I see audio quality being mentioned on why an old analog receiver is "better" than an SDR. Audio quality is certainly something to consider, but it has nothing to do with the fact that the R8600 and many other new breed SDR receivers are far superior as receivers in signal handling capability, IF filter shape and effectiveness, overall performance and the ability to dig a weak signal out between very strong signals.

I've had lots of high end analog receivers like the Harris RF-590 and 590A and others from Racal, Cubic, Collins, Hammerlund, Hallicrafters, etc. I will admit its hard to beat the audio quality from an RF-590 on AM BCB with headphones or a good amplified speaker. Or some of the older tube sets with their velvety smooth audio and huge speakers. But all those radios fall short of the R8600 in actual reception.

I have not tried using the low level audio out on my R8600 to feed a separate audio amp and speaker but I suspect it will improve the audio quality and bring it closer to some of the old time radios. Otherwise I agree with Token that the R8600 is the best performing HF receiver I've ever owned or used. Plus it receives to 3GHz!

Odd, I use several SDRs, including the Icom R-8600, that perform just as well, or even better, in every quantifiable way, than some very good "old" analog radios.

I would place the Icom R-8600, the WinRadio G33DDC, and the WinRadio G35DDC, all three of them receive only SDRs and all covering HF, among the best HF and MF radios I have ever used.

Radios in my collection (or that I have used extensively if not still in the collection) include things like the Collins R-390A, 75a2, Drake R-7 and R-4B, many Hallicrafters including things like the SX-28, SX-42, SX-117, etc, many Hammarlunds, including things like the SP-600, HQ-180, Nationals including the NC-183, NC-300, and NC-400, Kenwood TS-950, TS-590, TS-480SAT, TS-450s, JRC NRD-535, Yaesu FT-950, FTdx-5000, FT-2000, WJ HF-1000, etc.

So I have some basis for comparison.



What an SDR sounds like is not a function of "using the IQ". The R8600 "uses the IQ" all the time, and yet you say it "sounds much better than a cheap SDR". What an SDR sounds like is a combination of software settings, soundcard settings, and amplifier / speaker features. The R8600 does the exact same thing, the same processes, just all internal to the box.

Having your PC use the IQ and process the audio is not, necessarily, a bad thing at all. Properly configured it can perform very well and sound outstanding. By the same token, it is possible to mess it up big time.

When the radio does it all, demod, process, amplify, shape, there is, typically, less for you to mess up.



Got any scientific basis for any of that statement? By the way, I especially like the "real radio" comments, it took me a minute to try and figure out whether that was sarcasm or trolling or what. If by "real radios" you mean traditional superhetrodyne receivers then I like real radios, I have been using and collecting them since the 1960's. But the R8600 is no less a real radio than your Kenwood example.

You say the TS440 has "better sensitivity" than the Icom R8600. That just is not so. The 440 has a published spec (in SSB) of 0.25 uV (10 dB S/N) across the upper MF and entire HF range, and having had one or two on the bench over the years that seems about right, possibly a little better, maybe on the order of 0.2 uV. The R8600 is speced at 0.19 uV and has been measured at 0.12 uV. In SSB demonstrably, by design, in print, and by third party measurements, the R8600 is at least as sensitive as the TS440, and probably more so. The TS440 may have a slight advantage in AM mode. But realistically the radios are so close that in either mode you probably cannot tell a sensitivity difference in real world over the air application, especially below 10 MHz where other factors, rather than raw sensitivity, become larger contributors.

"Audio quality" is often based on opinion and can be a hard to define aspect. Of course, certain things can be measured, but that does not tell the story of how you perceive it. You say the TS-440 has better audio quality. Put the two radios into the same headsets and see if that is still true. The R8600 has a typical, to me, solid state sound, and it does not, to me, compare to the warmth of tube radios, but I really can't tell much difference, on AM, FM, or SSB audio and once the filters have been adjusted to comparable settings, between the R8600 and many solid state "real radios".

You may not like SDR. You may not have optimized your SDR setup and use. You may prefer the simplicity of a "real radio". And I certainly prefer the sound of a good tube receiver vs a solid state receiver. But realistically there is no reason a well designed upper end SDR (either stand alone or tied to PC) cannot sound as good and perform just as well as any "real radio".

T!

 

[Token]

I have not tried using the low level audio out on my R8600 to feed a separate audio amp and speaker but I suspect it will improve the audio quality and bring it closer to some of the old time radios.

And that is my default mode of operation for my 8600 and most of my non-tube radios including all of my PC tied box SDRs. Line level audio out to a mixer, mixer to audio amplifier, monitor speakers beside the monitoring desk. The multi buss mixer also allows me to send any audio to any one of several recording computers, in addition to recording the IQ of the SDR tied to each specific hosting PC.

T!