Sorry, in this time of my life, retired now, it is so far out of reach - Icom hasn't noticed the cheaper-work better- radios coming out of China... My set up for HF and Satellite use with my monies into antenna systems and preamps outperforms these overpriced rigs. Besides, No HEO birds in the near future and if the manufacturers don't see that on the horizon, they will leave that area void of announced moderately priced equipment for the mainstream hams. No, I think the IC-9100 is a great rig, just not affordable by "Joe" ham. Dee
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On Behalf Of John Geiger Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 2:38 PM To: K5OE Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Question about radios The Icom 9100 isn't overpriced at all considering all it does. If all you want to use it for is the satellites, there are cheaper alternatives. However, it also does true dual receive on HF (something the Yaesu FTDX5000 and Icom 7600 don't do), it has the roofing filter options for increased HF/6m performance, plus several other nice features. If you want a good, high performing HF/VHF/UHF rig, it is a great bargain. 73s John AA5JG On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:10 PM, K5OE <k...@aol.com> wrote: > > I can tell already this is an old thread that will go on for a while. > > Money is almost never "not an issue," so fitting the radio to the user > is always a matter of preferences and priorities. If you want HF + > satellite in one rig, the TS-2000 and the FT-847 work, but not the > IC-910. If you want 23 cm in the rig, the TS-2000 and the IC-910 work, but not the FT-847. > If you want to power your preamp(s) without any external wiring, the > FT-847 and IC-910 work, but not the TS-2000. If you want a built-in > antenna tuner (HF), or a built-in TNC, or built-in voice recorder, > then only the TS-2000 works. If you want lots of 3rd party software, > then the FT-847 is your best bet. > > I agree with Ed, the IC-9100 seems priced outrageously for what it > is-reminiscent of the IC-970H. Maybe I've just lost a sense for the > market-look at the price of new cars! For a strictly satellite rig, > an IC-821H is still a very good radio selling for half the price of a > used IC-910 (and just a bit more than a FT-736-the FT-847 of a > previous generation). > > A decade ago I bought a TS-2000 for a number of reasons, including the > ability to work the HF satellites (RS-12/13 and AO-7) in one rig. I > sold an FT-990 and an IC-820 and had money left over. I still > consider it really good value. While I have never liked the controls > as well as my Yaesu HF rig(s), I came to really appreciate the DSP > functions and the CW features and had great fun with the TNC on the > ISS, pacsats (especially UO-22, RIP), and APRS. I added 1.2 GHz when > AO-40 was launched. I scored higher in HF contests with it than I > ever had with the non-DSP Yaesu rig. I wasn't bothered (too much) by > the infamous birdie because I could tune around it with the > combination of a high-gain UHF antenna and a preamp, but do consider > it a fatal flaw to anyone considering the radio for use on AO-27 or SO-50 with a low-gain antenna system. > > I'll end with an echo of Dee's comment below: spend your time and > money on the antennas, as almost any radio will work with a good signal. > > 73, > Jerry, K5OE > > --- original message --- > Having the FT-847 since early 1998 and observing the IC-910 I would > recommend both over the TS-2000 or new IC-9100 on basis of bucks > spent. I realize both the 847 and 910 are out of production but good > used units are available for <$900. > > The TS-2000 "birdie" issue is unforgivable for the money spent (Unless > you are not interested in satellites which the FT-857/897 would then > be my choice). The IC-9100 is outrageously expensive and would only > be a choice if you have no HF equipment. It is still too new for a > complete opinion (for what you spend you could have top notch > transverters and a new K3*, or buy two FT-817 with amps for a lot > less). > > *Note: the K3 is not able to do duplex at this time, but I have an > idea how it could by using the dual receiver IF. > My K3 with DEMI transverter is much superior to the FT-847 on 2m, but > that is only for very weak-signal applications (satellites are on the > strong side of weak-signal if you get my drift), and use on HF (which > is not the question that was asked). > > 73, Ed - KL7UW > > > At 06:46 AM 5/3/2011, Dee wrote: > >Andrew, > >Being in this end of the hobby for "many" years, I have learned that > >sometimes the choice comes down to what you can afford. While the > >TS2000 > is > >a nice radio, with the birdie problem, it leaves a question. Ihave > >had 2 Icom 910's for many years and even have one of them adapted > >with the > 1.2ghz > >module. Both have worked flawless and have been more than adequate. > >The new ICOM 9100 (which you ask about) is a bit pricey for the bands > provided. > >I have been following the production of the 9100 and it has become > >out of > an > >average hams price range. While the specs are very good, you can > >achieve the same effect with a TS2000 - Icom 910- Yaesu 847 and even > >the older > icom > >820 (?) - > >Once again, I have always advised sat ops to spend the money on the > antennas > >and coax as this is where you'll find the most advantage for your > operation. > >Good luck and go to the AMSAT website to obtain a truck load of info > >pertaining to satellite station construction and operating advice. > >73, > >Dee, NB2F > >NJ AMSAT Coordinator > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] > >On Behalf Of Alvaro Gaviria > >Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 4:51 PM > >To: amsat-bb@amsat.org > >Subject: [amsat-bb] Question about radios > > > >Hello all, > > > > > > > >Can someone tell what is better for satellite work, the Kenwood > >TS-2000X > or > >the Icom IC- 9100 ?? > > > > > > > >Best regards > > > > > > > >Andrew > >HK4MKE > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
