Category Archives: Reviews

Grundig G6 vs CC Skywave: Post Reader seeks a travel radio

The Grundig G6 (top) and C.Crane CC Skywave (bottom)

The Grundig G6 (top) and C.Crane CC Skywave (bottom)

Many thanks to SWLing Post reader, Neil Bernstein, who writes:

I travel quite a bit for my job and I want your opinion and your readers’ opinions on whether it is more important to have the NOAA weather radio stations or shortwave radio (with or without SSB), in a compact travel emergency radio.

At this point I’m trying to decide between the CCrane Skywave and the Grundig G6 Aviator.

Any input would really be appreciated.

Ah, the travel radio! One of my favorite topics, Neil.

I’ve used both the Grundig G6 and CC Skywave during domestic and international travel. In my opinion, both are great receivers, especially considering the compact size of each. Here are a few things to note about each radio…

(And Post readers, you’re most welcome to comment with your own additions and views.)

The Grundig G6

2012-03-09_08-53-50_742

  • A great little unit, albeit no longer in production; you can buy a used unit on eBay or similar sites. A quick eBay search reveals that prices vary between about $75-150 US. Note: Personally, I believe anything over $80 shipped is probably asking too much for a used G6.
  • Like other Grundig portables of the era, the G6’s rubberized coating will eventually become sticky/tacky. But fortunately, we’ve posted a few proven remedies.
  • Re emergency use: this one offers SSB, but lacks NOAA weather bands

The C.Crane CC Skywave

CCrane-CC-Skywave

  • Currently in production––and supported by C.Crane
  • Great overall sensitivity and selectivity (read our full review)
  • No external antenna jack
  • Mutes between frequency changes
  • This unit offers weather frequencies, useful in emergencies, but lacks SSB mode

Since the CC Skywave hit the market, it’s been my go-to portable for travel at least 80% of the time. Of course, I still pack the Grundig G6 occasionally, and even my Sony ICF-SW100.

Personally I prefer the Skywave because, frankly, it’s just better tailored to one-bag travel. I like listening to the airport tower and other comms while traveling. Since most of my travel is in North America, I appreciate the weather radio frequencies as well.

I suppose if all of my travels were outside North America, I might lean slightly toward the Grundig G6 just so I could have the added benefit of SSB reception. In truth, however, I rarely listen to SSB while traveling.  SSB may possibly be useful during civil/communication emergencies. If SSB reception and portability is important to you, another radio worth considering would be the CountyComm GP5-SSB–though, like the G6, it also lacks weather frequencies.

My opinion?

Grab a CC Skywave. It’s a great performer, very compact, and–unlike the Grundig G6–is currently in production. I’d only buy a new CC Skywave, however, since some of the early models were prone to overloading. The current production run incorporates an update which remedies this.

Post readers: Please comment with your thoughts and suggestions! What radio do you pack for travels, and why?

Guest Post: Patrick compares four receivers

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Patrick Canler who writes to us from France and shares the following guest post which he translated into English:


4 rec

The number of receivers on the market is quite large, and all are sold to be the “best”. I have thought it useful to compare materials using them in the shack as a neophyte SWL; going beyond the features in the brochures to talk about everyday utility. This article does not pretend to do “scientific” testing of the four receivers–skills and special equipment are needed and some specialized laboratories already do it.

The four receivers cover thirty years of electronics manufacturing; four different brands with their own technology and specifications. Over such period, technologies and innovations have evolved. One of the questions I had was: “Does efficiency give any receiver an advantage?”.

The Contenders:

NRD-535 from Japan Radio Company.

nrd535

A reference of the 90s! It received 5 stars from WRTH (which publishes annually the almanac “World Radio and TV Handook”). The NRD-535 has conventional construction with an electronic card per function and discrete and analog filters.

This is a home station receiver, weighing in at 10 kg. The NRD-535 ceased to be produced in 1996, and its value second hand is growing due to its reputation.

AR7030 from AOR

ar7030

Designed by the engineer who developed the LOWE receiver line, the AR7030 is also famous for its reception. It uses special ergonomics and a hybrid of software menus and conventional controls. Quite small, it is easily transportable, due its design that already uses SMC but keeps the analog filters.

IC-R75 ICOM

ICR75

Modern device, classical format and renowned–the R75 is the only receiver tested that is still in production [Note: it was recently removed from production]. It uses CMS, combines analog and DSP filtering (the DSP option is present on the device under test). Its ergonomic design is intuitive and so too are controls and menus.

1102S RADIOJET Bonito,

SDR windows

The 1102S RADIOJET is the only unit in this comparison that is produced in Europe!
The Radiojet includes the latest developments in technology, its performance is simply stunning on the data/spec sheet. The application includes many tools (spectrograph, digital filters, IF and AF recorders, decoder, list of broadcast stations, etc.). It brings together all the SMC receiving electronics in a small box that can fit in a pocket.

SSDR box

The commands and tools are assigned to a software (highly evolved) that runs on the PC which is connected the SDR. The power of the PC also brings graphics, memory, recordings etc.

Why these four rigs?

In the beginning, and it was it which led me to be SWL, I acquired the RADIOJET based on its announced characteristics: sensitivity of “secret services”, adaptable to all cases with filters, graphics tools–“Star Wars equipment” is not it! Later I learned about 50 MHz and at the same time I was struggling to exploit the Radiojet SDR.

A good opportunity to purchase an ICOM R75 brought me back to conventional radio ergonomics. As time passed, I felt my listening skills improved with these 2 receivers and the receiver syndrome grew! A Kenwood R5000 joined the others for its VHF potential and HF reputation.

Then I discovered an NRD-525 on Ebay at a fair price point (rare)–it joined the group of receivers. The latter two were sold and replaced respectively by an AOR 7030 and by NRD-535. I really enjoyed the 525, but the 535 is even better.

In use, the RADIOJET and R75 have always posed problems with settings and sound quality. Kenwood reassured me about the fact that we could get some nice reception without fighting against the controls. validated by the AOR, the NRD 525 & 535. Perhaps I did not understand the manipulation of digital filters???

Now to the shack!

The four receivers are placed side by side, but arranged so as not to disturb each other (eg. the display of the ND535 disrupted the RADIOJET).

The antenna is a 25m random wire oriented East/West with 9:1 balun and its own ground. The passage from a receiver to the other is done by a conventional antenna switch.

All the tests were performed in one evening for constant conditions, there was a fairly present QRM which, was not too bad for comparison purposes. The tests were made in SSB or AM. Preliminary tests had shown that the results in digital modes (PSK31, JT65, ..) relied more on the decoder performance of the PC rather than the receiver. The tests increased from the lowest frequency detected this evening (Europe 1-163 kHZ) to the highest (Foreign Broadcast =15,545 MHz).

The highest frequencies, up to 30 MHz, were deserted in phone, at least for my installation.
The procedure was:

  1. Signal is detected from the spectrograph SDR: it typically “sees” almost inaudible signals.
  2. The candidate frequency is tuned on all four receivers
  3. I listening to all of the signals on all receivers, seeking to get the maximum performance, using all possibilities (notch, passband, IF Shift, integrated amplifiers, attenuator, etc.)
  4. Results are reported in the table below.

One can notice rather quickly:

  • that age is not a handicap
  • the number of functions is not always an advantage
  • 1102S RADIOJET
    Performance and capabilities above the rest (on paper) and requires being connected to a PC. At the present time, on an old Celeron 2Gb ram, the RadioJet’s application never saturated the CPU. The band spectrum display allows one to find the QSO, to filter theoretically perfectly, but it does not always equate to the understandability of the signal or give a pleasant audio. And the number of software features and functions complicates the signal manipulation. The sound is still a little metallic, perhaps due to the signal processing software. Its small size makes it a unbeatable mobile receiver for travel, functions are incredibly useful for those who master the RadioJet application.
  • AOR AR7030
    Inherently simpler at face value–the AR7030 is ultra easy to use. It makes it easy for the user to find and tweak a candidate signal. It’s intuitive and has essential functions only. It has well-designed electronics. The AR7030 is also best receiver tested for handling strong signals without overloading (broadcasts stations or nearby hyper-kilowatted amateur radio operators) which seems to prove that it is designed for these stations. Its limit is the lack of adaptive notch filter types to clean the noise, which is still quite present when the QRM is there. (The newer version 7030+ has added features to help). Finally, it is the smallest stand-alone, portable and with 3 options of antennas connections.
  • ICOM R75
    The R75 climbs up the frequency band all the way to 50 MHz, the only receiver tested with this frequency range. It enjoys an excellent reputation, and can be equipped with a DSP (digital signal processing) on audio. The DSP provides adaptive noise reduction and automatic notch, but has a relative effectiveness which is not always successful in clarifying the signal. Sometimes it adds an unpleasant “rattling”. In use, the interface is pretty intuitive–mixing commands by buttons and menus. Twin pass band tuning (PBT) is effective and allows for IF Shift and/or notch. The speaker is (very) small and gives an aggressive/harsh sound. This receiver is relatively small in size and lightweight. It has a mobile stand and is designed for a 12-14V power supply.
  • JRC NRD-535
    The NRD-535 is the oldest tested–indeed, it was already discontinued before the other receivers were in production. A solid and reliable construction, good ergonomic with conventional front panel controls, good sensitivity, and a decent sized speaker have earned it status as a benchmark in its time. Very sensitive, it extracts the signals and, once found the right filter, gives it pleasant audio. Some signals are not completely cleaned but it does rarely less than others. The NRD-535 is designed for home use: it is heavy, almost 10 kg, and is contains several circuit boards which should not be too exposed to excessive shocks, especially considering they’re over 20 years old.

Summary

My ranking is as follows:

  1. JRC NRD-535 for its ease of use and ability to dig out a usable signal from the QRM.
  2. AOR AR7030 for its simplicity, portability and the fact that it extract good sound/audio quickly, even if a little noisy at times.
  3. Bonito RADIOJET for its small size and its extensive feature set. It is ultra-mobile with a laptop.
  4. ICOM R75 does the job and covers a wide frequency range. But lags in performance relative to the other receiver tested, with a “nasal” sound and a DSP that does not keep its intended promises.

About digital filters: the SDR and ICOM have them, the possibilities are extensive and allow adaptive filtering that others do not with analog filters. By cons they give a dry sound and sometimes add “snap” under whistles. Listening is overall less pleasant in comparison.

Receivers Advantages + / Disadvantages –

Bonito RADIOJET
+ Top technology, visual and many new features over the others on this point
– Complicated, metallic sound, emphasizing the sometimes painful receiver interaction with a computer mouse

Icom R75
+ Great value at the present time
– Audio and imperfect signal cleaning

AOR AR7030
+ Simple and effective
– Ideal companion if it had a notch filter: noise is present

JRC NRD-535
+ Effective sensitivity and clean audio
– Older technology, less portable

Note that this is a personal opinion: a computer geek will certainly get the most of performance and possibilities from an SDR like the Bonito RadioJet.

The NRD-535 shows its age, will one day reach the end of its useful life despite its robust construction. ICOM can cover up to 6m remaining mobile and has a good filter possibilities (DSP). The AOR is easy, fast and gives a correct listening, general purpose. It is the only one to pass the VLF.

The ideal then?
* RADIOJET for sensitivity,
* The RADIOJET for tools/features and functions
* AR7030 for the lower bands
* Icom for the higher bands
* NRD-535 for ergonomics
* AOR for portability

Personally, I use the NRD-535 for DXing (due to superior audio), the AR7030 for digital modes,
the RADIOJET to visually search for signals, and to sometimes clarify the signal even better and because it’s ultra-mobile and always in my PC case.

73,
Patrick F61112


Thank you, Patrick!

I should mention that I think you did a fine job translating your article into English for us! I would not be as successful writing an article in French!  

I’ve never owned a JRC of any sort. If I ever found an NRD-535 for a good price, I would purchase one without hesitation. I’ve never spent much time on the AR7030 either. It’s simple “Lowe-like” front panel is quite appealing for field use. I found that the RadioJet audio is quite nice when paired with a good set of headphones. 

Dave’s review of the Icom IC-7300

Icom-IC-7300-Front

Many thanks to SWLing Post contributor, Dave Zantow (N9EWO), who shares a link to his excellent review of the Icom IC-7300:

Click here to read Dave’s review.

I can tell Dave has put a lot of time and thought in this evaluation of the IC-7300–it’s a worthy read, especially if you’re considering an IC-7300 yourself.

Overall, Dave’s impressions of the ‘7300 are similar to mine (click here to read my ‘7300 review). The IC-7300 is a great rig and (though there are a few minor tweaks needed) the general coverage receiver is sensitive and selective enough to satisfy even the seasoned SWL DXer. Dave even pits the ‘7300 against the WJ-8711A commercial receiver.

Note Mike commented in a previous post that the IC-7300 had difficulty coping with the RF-dense environment of Field Day, but in truth, that is one of the most difficult environments for any ham radio transceiver.

If you own an IC-7300 and have any comments or impressions, please share them with us!

Jeff reviews the Sangean WR-2

Sangean-WR2

I’ve just learned that my buddy Jeff, over at the Herculodge, has reviewed the Sangean WR-2.

Jeff writes:

I haven’t had a Sangean WR-2 in a year because a year ago Southern Cal Edison fried all the electronics on our block doing unauthorized work. They had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to residents. I was paid about $400 for the loss of some of my electronics, including my Sangean WR-2.

[…]I decided to get my beloved black WR-2 back. This radio, which I first purchased in 2005, is one of those radios that marks my entry into being “radio-minded,” a guy who is very aware of the radio performance hierarchy.

Click here to read Jeff’s full review on the Herculodge.

A review of the Icom IC-7300 direct RF sampling transceiver

Icom-IC-7300-Front

In August 2015 at the Tokyo Hamfair, Icom debuted a new type of transceiver in their product line––one featuring a direct RF sampling receiver. Essentially, it was an SDR tabletop transceiver.

At about the same time that the IC-7300 started shipping around the world, Icom pulled their venerable IC-7200 off the market. Yet the IC-7200 was established as a well-loved product, due to its highly sensitive receiver, its relatively robust front end, and its quality audio. Moreover, it was simple to operate, which made superb as a Field Day or radio club rig.

Therefore, even though the IC-7300 promised much more versatility than the IC-7200, for its price point it had a tough act to follow.

So, of course––even more so than with any other radio Icom has introduced in the past few years––I was eager to get my hands on a IC-7300.  I’m very fortunate that my good friend, Dave Anderson (K4SV) was one of the first purchasers of the IC-7300, and that he didn’t mind (after only having the rig perhaps one week!) allowing me to borrow it for a several weeks for evaluation.

Note:  I should state here that since this rig was loaned to me, I evaluated it based on the firmware version it shipped with, and made no modifications to it.

Icom-IC-7300-FrontThis review primarily focuses on the receiver’s performance, functionality and usability.

Introducing the Icom IC-7300

In recent years, the “big three” ham radio manufacturers have been using color displays, and––Icom most especially––touch screens. While I’m no fan of backlit touch screens in mobile applications, I  think touch screen displays make a lot of sense in a base radio. If carefully designed, a touch screen can save an operator from heavily-buried menus and decrease the number of multi-function buttons on the front panel.

The challenge, of course, is making a display with intuitive controls, and one that is large enough, and with sufficient resolution, to be useful to the operator. In the past, I’ve been disappointed by many displays; the most successful have been incorporated in DX/Contest-class (i.e., pricier) transceivers, meanwhile, entry-level and mid-priced transceiver displays often seem half-baked. While the graphics may be crisp, spectrum displays at this price point are often too compressed to be useful, and if not a touch display, force the user to pause operation in order to find the correct knob or button to change settings. In such cases, I find myself wondering why the manufacturer went to the expense of a color display at all––?

Icom-IC-7300-Display

But what about the C-7300 display?  I’m thoroughly pleased to report that Icom did a fantastic job of balancing utility and function in design of the IC-7300’s color touch display and front panel. There are  number of ways you can chose to display and arrange elements on the screen–since I’m an SDR fan, I typically chose a display setting which gave the waterfall the most real estate. Of course, one can chose to give the frequency display priority or a number of other arrangements.

User interface

I can tell that Icom built upon their experience with the IC-7100––their first entry-level touch screen display transceiver.

I was able to get the IC-7300 on the air in very little time. Within five minutes of turning on the IC-7300, I was able to:

  • change the display to feature a spectrum waterfall;
  • change the span of the waterfall display;
  • adjust the TX power output;
  • change the filters selection and the transmit mode;
  • change bands and make direct-frequency entries;
  • adjust notch, passband, and filter width;
  • adjust AF and RF gain;
  • set A/B VFOs and operate split;
  • change AGC settings;
  • turn on Noise Reduction/Noise Blanker, and
  • adjust compression.

Basically, I found that all the essential functions are clearly laid out, accessible, and highly functional.  Impressive.

The IC-7300 ships with a manual–– aptly titled, the “Basic” manual––and a CD with the full and unabridged operations manual.  The Basic Manual covers a great deal a lot more than the manual which accompanied the Icom ID-51a. If you read through the manual, you’ll readily familiarize yourself with most of the IC-7300’s higher function operations, and especially, you’ll be able to adjust the settings to your operation style. The Manual is written in simple language, and includes a lot of diagrams and graphics.

If you’re like me, you will find you’ll also need to reference that unabridged manual, so hang on to the CD, too.

Still, I imagine there’s a large percentage of future IC-7300 owners that will never need to reference the manual––especially if they don’t care about tweaking band edges or similar settings. Yes, believe it or not, it’s that easy to use.

Operation

Icom-IC-7300-Function-Buttons

While I spent a great deal of time listening to CW and SSB in various band conditions and at various times of day, I spent less time on the air transmitting.

With that said, all of my transmitting time was in CW since the IC-7300 mic was accidentally left out when my friend loaned me the rig.

I’m please to report that CW operation is quite pleasant. All of the adjustments––RF Power, Key Speed, and CW Pitch––can be quickly modified using the multi-function knob. While in CW mode, you can also toggle full break-in mode, which is quite smooth, via the function button and touch screen.

SSB functions are similar. While in  SSB mode, the multi-function knob allows you to change the tx power, mic gain, and monitor level. The function button opens an on-screen menu with VOX, compression, TBW, and the monitor toggle.

Here’s a short video I made with my phone while I made a few adjustments to the IC-7300:

Of course, my smartphones’s microphone can’t accurately reproduce the audio from the IC-7300, but you probably get the idea.

The only annoyance I noted––and perhaps I’m more sensitive to this, being primarily a QRPer––is that the 7300’s cooling fan starts up each time you key up. It even comes on when transmit power is at its lowest setting. I find this a little distracting in CW.  Fortunately, however, the 7300’s fan is fairly quiet and operates smoothly.

Receiver performance and reader survey results

Since our radio comparison shoot-outs have been particularly popular (and useful; check out our shoot-out between top portables, and ultra-compact radios, and others), I decided it would make sense to invite our informed readership to evaluate the Icom IC-7300’s performance in a series of blind, informal tests. (For information about these surveys, please read the first survey.)

Below, I’ve matched the labels (Radio A/Radio B) with the radio models.  I’ve also included pie charts which show the results from the survey.

Icom IC-7300 vs. WinRadio Excalibur

Weak Signal CW (40 meter band)

Icom IC-7300: Radio A

WinRadio Excalibur: Radio B

CW

Based on listener comments, those of you who preferred the ‘7300 did so because the CW was more interpretable and stable.

Some of you noted that I didn’t quite have CW at the same pitch on both rigs. I believe this is because the IC-7300’s calibration was ever so slightly off. This has since been addressed.

Weak/Strong SSB QSO (40 meter band)

Icom IC-7300: Radio A

WinRadio Excalibur – Radio B

SSB

This result was almost tied. The Excalibur’s audio––without any adjustments––has a fuller and “bassier” sound. The ‘7300 can be adjusted to have similar characteristics, but the default EQ settings produce very flat audio. Many of you commented that the IC-7300 more faithfully produced audio optimized for SSB.


Shortwave Broadcast recordings

The following recordings were made on the 31 meter broadcast band in the evening. Both radios had the same filter width: 9 kHz and 8.2 kHz.

Weak Shortwave AM (Radio Bandeirantes 31 meter band)

Icom IC-7300: Radio A

WinRadio Excalibur – Radio B

Weak-SW-AM

There was a noticeable preference for the WinRadio Excalibur in this particular audio set. Even though the Excalibur’s audio splattered a bit, the content was more interpretable. The IC-7300’s audio sounded flat in comparison––again, something that can be adjusted quite easily in the ‘7300’s audio settings.

Strong Shortwave AM (Radio Romania International, French 31 Meter Band)

Icom IC-7300: Radio A 

WinRadio Excalibur: Radio B

Strong-SW-AM

Once again, the Excalibur won favor, but I imagine results would have been closer had I adjusted the ‘7300’s audio EQ.


Mediumwave Broadcast recordings

Note that the following mediumwave recordings were made during the morning hours (grayline). The strong station is the closest AM broadcaster to my home; it’s not a blow-torch “Class A” type station, merely the closest local broadcaster.

In the “weak” sample, I tuned to 630 kHz where multiple broadcasters could be heard on frequency, but one was dominant.

Both radios are set to a filter width of 9.0 kHz.

Strong Mediumwave AM (1010 kHz)

Icom IC-7300: Radio A

WinRadio Excalibur: Radio B

Strong-MW-AM

Two out of three listeners preferred the Excalibur in this example.

Weak Mediumwave AM (630 kHz)

Icom IC-7300: Radio A

WinRadio Excalibur – Radio B

Weak-MW-AM

In this particular example, the IC-7300 could not pull the strongest broadcaster out of the pile as well as the WinRadio Excalibur. In fairness, the Excalibur was using AM sync detection, something the IC-7300 lacks.

Icom IC-7300 vs. Elecraft KX3

IMG_20160424_105444629

I also decided to pit the IC-7300 against my well-loved Elecraft KX3.


Audio Clip 1: CW (20 meter band)

Elecraft KX3: Radio A

Icom IC-7300: Radio B

Elecraft - CW

Based on comments, readers who preferred the IC-7300 felt the CW sounded more pleasant and stable.


Audio Clip 2: Weak Signal CW (20 meter band)

Elecraft KX3: Radio A

Icom IC-7300: Rado B

Elecraft - WeakCW

Your comments indicated that the CW seemed to “pop out” of the noise slightly better with the IC-7300.


Audio Clip 3: Weak/Strong SSB
(Sable Island working Asia/Pacific on 20 meter band)

Icom IC-7300: Radio A

Elecraft KX3: Radio B

Elecraft SSB

These results were spilt in the middle. Again, I believe this comes down to personal preference in the audio. And again––in both radios––the audio EQ can be adjusted to suit the operator.


Receiver performance summary

I enjoy producing audio clips for readers to compare and comment upon. Each time I’ve done so in the past, I’ve had listeners argue the virtues of a particular audio clip while others have the complete opposite reaction to that same clip. Not all of us prefer our audio served up in the same way. No doubt, there’s a great deal of subjectivity in this sort of test.

I’ve had the IC-7300 on the air every day since I took possession of it. I’ve listened to SSB, CW, and lots of AM/SW broadcasters.

And here’s my summary: the IC-7300 is an excellent receiver. It has a low noise floor, superb sensitivity and excellent selectivity. I even slightly prefer its audio to that of my Elecraft KX3, and I’m a huge fan of the little KX3.

I’ve written before about how difficult it is to compare SDRs; the problem is that there are so many ways to tweak your audio, filters, AGC, noise reduction, etc. that it’s hard to compare apples with apples.

In the audio samples above, the IC-7300 and WinRadio Excalibur were both set to their default audio settings. In SSB and CW, the IC-7300 excels, in my opinion. CW seems to pop out of the noise better and SSB is more pleasant and interpretable. The Excalibur has a better audio profile for AM broadcasters, though. Its default audio simply sounds fuller–more robust.

The audio from the IC-7300 on AM sounded absolutely flat. However, if I tweak the audio of the ‘7300, adding more bass, it instantly sounds more like a dedicated tabletop receiver.

Here’s a recent example of Radio Romania International:

I should also mention that while the IC-7300’s built-in digital recording is a fantastic and effective feature, it doesn’t produce audio true to what’s heard through headphones live. This is especially the case when you add more bass and treble response as in the RRI example above. When the audio EQ is set to a default flat, it’s quite accurate.

To be clear:  for broadcast listening, I’ll still reach for my SDRs (the Excalibur, FDM-S2, TitanSDR and CR-1a).

If, however, I have limited space and/or budget for multiple receivers, I’d be quite happy using the IC-7300 as a broadcast receiver on the HF bands.

Speaking from the Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) perspective, meanwhile, am I pleased with how the ‘7300 handles the broadcast bands?  Most definitely.

And as a ham radio operator, am I pleased with the IC-7300’s receiver––?  Absolutely.

In short:  the IC-7300 seems to have some of the best all-around receiver qualities of any transceiver I know under $2,000.

Summary

Every radio has its pros and cons. When I begin a review of a radio, I take notes of my initial impressions. Here’s my list for the IC-7300:

Pros

  • Excellent sensitivity and selectivity
  • Excellent, highly-customizable RX and TX audio
  • Color touch screen interface
    • Spectrum display is large enough to be useful
    • Intuitive functions
  • Twin PBT is both intuitive to operate and effective
  • Effective RF gain to compensate for noisy band conditions
  • Built-in RX and TX recording, file transfers via common SD card
  • Front panel knobs and buttons are spaced appropriately and easy to use
  • Quiet cooling fan (see con)
  • Decodes RTTY on screen
  • Built-in ATU
  • Antenna analyzer function (not tested)

Cons

  • Lacks secondary receive antenna jack on rear panel
  • Cooling fan immediately starts up on CW/SSB transmit at any power setting (see pro regarding fan noise)
  • Occasionally you may get lost in deeper customized functions
  • Supplied printed basic owner’s manual, while well-written, doesn’t fully cover the IC-7300s functions and options; you must explore the digital owner’s manual in supplied CD.

Conclusion

In a nutshell: Icom has hit a home run with the IC-7300.  If I didn’t already have an Elecraft KX3 and K2, I would buy the IC-7300 without hesitation.

Though the price point is a little high for an “entry level transceiver,” it’s worth every penny, in my opinion. For $1500 US, you get a fantastic general-coverage transceiver with an intuitive interface, nearly every function you can imagine, and performance that would please even a seasoned DXer.

Though I haven’t done and A/B comparison with the IC-7200, I imagine the IC-7300 would prevail in a test. The IC-7300 would certainly wipe the floor with it’s more economical brother, the IC-718.

Radio clubs, take note:

In my view, the IC-7300 has the makings of an excellent radio club rig in which performance, functionality, as well as ease of use are important. I expect that the IC-7300 will not only cope very well with crowded and crazy Field Day conditions, but it will also give any newcomers to the hobby a little experience with a proper modern transceiver. The fact that you can view signals so easily on the spectrum display means that it will be easier to chase contacts and monitor bands as they open and close. Indeed, what better way to mentor a newly-minted ham in modes, contacts, carriers, QRN, QRM, and so forth, than to simply point these out on the IC-7300’s bright, clear display––?

If your club is considering a transceiver upgrade or purchase, do seriously consider the IC-7300. I think you’ll find this rig is up to the task.

And for home? The Icom IC-7300 may be all of the rig you’ll ever need.