Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site anasazi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!john
From: john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re:  Scanner antennas
Message-ID: <379@anasazi.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Nov-85 10:10:54 EST
Article-I.D.: anasazi.379
Posted: Fri Nov 29 10:10:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 08:39:19 EST
References: <3484@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore)
Organization: Anasazi, Phoenix Az.
Lines: 43
Keywords: Scanners Battery-backup

In article <3484@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@ALMSA-2.ALMSA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
>Not to beat a dead horse, but remember that the Icom R-7000 has the same
>bad design as the R-71, and other current Icom products, with a "dynamic"
>chip requiring continuous power to maintain the radio's basic operating
>system parameters and allow it to work at all. This means mandatory 
>maintenance (replacing the backup battery, either by expensive service

It seems to me that replacing a backup battery is hardly a difficult
job. I replaced the one performing the same function on my Azden PCS-3000
and it took all of 10 minutes. Big deal.

>In addition to the sort of design faults mentioned before, reviews

I would like to hear from someone who has tested the R-7000 since I
am considering buying one. A friend purchased an FRG-9600 for his
communications company, and the RF quality was so bad that they
sent it back. Anyone with good experience with this?

>indicate that performance quality certainly doesn't seem to be good
>enough to justify the prices.  I would give the technology a few more
>(If everybody realized this, and nobody bought these boxes, those remaining

It is true that the R7000, the FRG9600, and the SX-400 (with adapters
to make it wide coverage) are a bit expensive, but they do an awful lot
compared to the $289 class of scanner. The MX-5000 & MX7000, purchased
from mail order houses, are so inexpensive that this comment is completely
wrong.

>told that these were not selling because they just were not good enough,
>not that there was no market for such devices. Then they'd have an
>incentive to continue R&D and come up with something better to supply

Or decide that high performance scanning receivers simply don't
have a high enough demand, and drop the whole idea. Remember the
Bearcat which had computer control? It was dropped because no one
bought it. The manufacturer then concluded that computer control was
-- 
John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO)
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john
{hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john
terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
(602) 952-8205 (day or evening)
5302 E. Lafayette Blvd, Phoenix, Az, 85018 (home address)