ICOM R or pcr1500 deaf on HF ?

[greenmamba]

I have seen this posted a couple of times and now that I own both an ICOM 7000 transeiver and R1500 I can state that the R1500 hears very well on HF.

I can place the 1500 on my PROPERLY tuned HF antenna and it performs as well as my new icom 7000 all mode transeiver does.

Each and every time the signals were as strong or better on the 1500.

May be because the owners expect steller performance on HF using a less that steller antennas ?

I also hear the same about 2Ghz and above, and from what I read require specialized antennas are required ?

 

[ka3jjz]

I think at least part of the time, it's a newcomer to HF who has not taken any time to read up on the effects of solar weather - or lack of same. Propagation right now is the pits - and it won't really start to perk up for another couple of years. Signals on HF work very differently than on the V/UHF bands - sometimes I think they expect too much.

In addition, I think you're also correct - less than stellar antennas tend to produce less than stellar results. On the other hand, a less than stellar antenna can be compensated for, in part, by skill and knowledge - and taking the time to actually spend some time tuning the dials, so to speak. Lots of condo and apartments dwellers can attest to that, whether they own the new Icom or not.

73s Mike

 

[Navairboss]

I have seen this posted a couple of times and now that I own both an ICOM 7000 transeiver and R1500 I can state that the R1500 hears very well on HF.
I also hear the same about 2Ghz and above, and from what I read require specialized antennas are required ?

Hummm, "greenmamba" and what does one expect to hear above 2 GHz? Answer --> nothing. You can put the greatest antenna in the world and your still going to hear --> nothing. What few signals could be heard are digital and no decoders are available in the public domain.

This is one of the great mysteries of the radio hobby. Why do manufacturers continue to battle the frequency coverage wars when any coverage above 1.3 GHz is pretty much useless. I would rather see these folks add listening capability (digital and trunk capability) and improve the overall dynamic range and sensitivity by cutting back on the freq coverage
to these wideband radios rather than this stupid freq wars they seem to have locked themselves into these days. Guess they figure the average radio hobbyist aren't to bright and that freq range is the only thing we can focus on. ;-(

Education folks and a bit of activism. We need to voice these sort of concerns to the folks who make our radios. I just don't get anyone buying a radio today that does not include trunk/P25 capability. Anything else is just dumb. ;-))

73 de Larry

 

[steve_s]

Hummm, "greenmamba" and what does one expect to hear above 2 GHz? Answer --> nothing. You can put the greatest antenna in the world and your still going to hear --> nothing. What few signals could be heard are digital and no decoders are available in the public domain.

This is one of the great mysteries of the radio hobby. Why do manufacturers continue to battle the frequency coverage wars when any coverage above 1.3 GHz is pretty much useless. I would rather see these folks add listening capability (digital and trunk capability) and improve the overall dynamic range and sensitivity by cutting back on the freq coverage
to these wideband radios rather than this stupid freq wars they seem to have locked themselves into these days. Guess they figure the average radio hobbyist aren't to bright and that freq range is the only thing we can focus on. ;-(

Education folks and a bit of activism. We need to voice these sort of concerns to the folks who make our radios. I just don't get anyone buying a radio today that does not include trunk/P25 capability. Anything else is just dumb. ;-))

73 de Larry

There actually are quite a number of interesting signals above 1.3 GHz. For example, if you are interested in radio astronomy, 1.4 GHz is a very popular frequency . At around 1.6 GHz you will find the high resolution weather satellites. A little higher, at around 2.4 GHz there are a number of Amateur Radio satellites. A GOOD, high gain, steerable antenna is the key to success at these frequencies. Also, although there are a number of SSB and CW signals on the 2.4 GHz Ham bands, probably 70% of the signals are digitally modulated. For these signals you can get inexpensive software for your computer, which then decodes the signal and displays the contents on the computer monitor. For some signals (weather satellites, for example), you need additional hardware decoders, but most of them are quite affordable. To each his own of course, but for me it is just as exciting to receive a high resolution image of the clouds and terrain of the area I am living in, or a call from a ham 2000 miles away than it is to listen to a routine police call.
The region above 1.3 GHz is a "different world". However, it is full of signals to be explored. That is where you really need a communications receiver (like the PCR 1500 / 2500), rather than a scanner.
Steve
KD7KK