D
DaveNF2G
Guest
What are the practical differences between these receivers? Has anyone run any two or all three of them head to head?
- Status
R71A, R72 and R75. Compare
Well other than aging components and hard to get parts the 71 and 72 series were very well made. The 72 was more popular in Europe never really caught on here in the US like the 71-75.
My current 75 is without the best of all three. Twin preamps all sorts of noise reductions. I did have the Kiwa am sync done. The 71 was such a great rx that both the US. and several European and Asian government services used them for years before sat comms and encyryption.
Having all three at one time about 10 years ago the 75 pulled can more signals that the 71/72
The 75 did and still does an excellent job on elusive hard to hear DX with many features for tweaking signals as compared to the other two and some high end commercial Rx's. Easy be filter changing.
Eham has some great reviews on each clearly the 75 is a standout receiver well made supported and loads of features.
73
John
Well other than aging components and hard to get parts the 71 and 72 series were very well made. The 72 was more popular in Europe never really caught on here in the US like the 71-75.
My current 75 is without the best of all three. Twin preamps all sorts of noise reductions. I did have the Kiwa am sync done. The 71 was such a great rx that both the US. and several European and Asian government services used them for years before sat comms and encyryption.
Having all three at one time about 10 years ago the 75 pulled can more signals that the 71/72
The 75 did and still does an excellent job on elusive hard to hear DX with many features for tweaking signals as compared to the other two and some high end commercial Rx's. Easy be filter changing.
Eham has some great reviews on each clearly the 75 is a standout receiver well made supported and loads of features.
73
John
Last edited:
ridgescan
Member
having both the r75 and r71a here in constant use, I cannot disagree with this. The 71a is venerable, but dammit if that r75 doesn't have way more moves you can make to bring up desired stuff out of the muck.
k9rzz
Member
I've had the R71a, R71E, and R75 and while I'm a big fan of the R71a/e, I'm loving the versatility of the R75. I've got the memories set up so that I can quickly run through longwave through 6 meters to get a quick glimpse of how everything sounds, then settle in on what's hopping. With a simple 20 meter vertical dipole, I was listening to some aurora QSO's on six meters as well as weakly hearing a longwave broadcaster on 171khz and some ham lowfer on 428khz cw.
The R75 is gaining my vote as most favorite.
The R75 is gaining my vote as most favorite.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Thanks for the responses. I will probably have to replace my R-71a as I keep running into problem after problem with it. The R-75 looks like a good bet.
I don't believe the R-72 has filtering as good as the R-71 or R-75.
Turbo68
Member
Hi David i got the R70,R71A,R75 (2) did have the R72 regret selling it main intrest for me is monitoring aircraft on hf all perform excellent with the right antenna.
Regards Lino.
Regards Lino.
I've had all three here, either I owned them (Lots of 71A's and one 72), or fixed them, and the 75 gets my vote over the 71A, by a small margin. The 72's I've used are definitely a step down from the 71A, let alone a 75. The 75 still being in production is a big plus too.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Except for the price. LOL.
k9rzz
Member
I found mine on ebay and did a 'local' pickup. Had to drive 100 miles but I'm sure happy with the deal.
Is there a significant performance advantage in using either the R71 or R75 instead of the general coverage receivers in rigs like the IC-706MkIIg or equivalent? I have not used any of the communications receivers and I don't have a feel for how much difference there is between them and reasonably new ham rigs.
Thanks,
WG
Thanks,
WG
thomast77
Member
Yes, Amateur Transceivers are built with the ham bands being the main focus. If you are an SWL only you should go for a receiver vs an Amateur Transceiver. There is a difference on the shortwave bands.
ridgescan
Member
All due respect, but you're gonna get people who disagree. There are some TXers that have kickasss triple or quad conversion receivers, some with roofing filters and waterfall displays,, that rival the high end receivers we use like the r71a or r75 etc. just saying..
to WilburG I run both the r71a and r75 here every day for years now. I love the hell out of my r71a because of its analog nature and beautiful SSB capabilities. But the r75 has a few more ways to refine a weaker signal and pull it up from the swamp. There is my experience.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Bottom line, a transceiver with a general coverage receiver that is equivalent to a standalone receiver will cost more. Why buy a transmitter when you don't want/need one?
k9rzz
Member
If you know how to use the radio, and by that I mean you've logged enough hours on it that you don't have to fumble around trying this and that to peak the signal, then I would say NO, you can do just as well with the 706MkIIg as the R75 or R71 (I've had all these). The 706 has band pass tuning and you can tune tight shortwave bands in USB or LSB. It is rather deaf on longwave, but not any more so than the others and with enough wire, it hears well enough. I was plenty happy with my 706 when I had it and would love to put one back in the car if I could afford it now.
My videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TbnCxc-_p8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cem63cD5fXk
My videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TbnCxc-_p8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cem63cD5fXk
Last edited:
- Status
