[bitnet.swl-l] Differing opinion on: Info on Kenwood R-5000 and ICOM R-71A

Eric Roskos <roskos@IDA.ORG> (02/22/90)

narayan@photon.tamu.edu (Sriram Narayan) writes:

>Thanks to everyone who responded to my request for their
>comments on the ICOM R71A and Kenwood R-5000. The gist of
>it is that the ICOM is a slightly more professional receiver,
>but the Kenwood is without doubt, better in terms of audio
>quality. Also, the service of Kenwood left a lot to be
>desired (very long response times) and many swore they
>wouldn't buy another item from Kenwood.

It is best to post the hilights of individual comments and leave the
debate unsummarized following such a survey since you will offend those
of us who have the differing opinion :-).  The Kenwood is a newer
receiver; it uses a newer technology.  It also supports the VC-20 VHF
option internally, so you can receive 2 meter ham communications (and
nearby public service bands) with the same receiver you use for HF.  The
maintenance manual is excellent.  And it has its program in ROM, not in
RAM which gets lost when the battery runs out, requiring you to send the
receiver back to the manufacturer for reprogramming, as is the case with
the R71A.  The main thing I liked about the R71A, the continuously
variable bandpass filter, was deleted about a year ago, supposedly
because of alleged patent infringements (according to an article in one
of the SWL magazines).  I like the S-meter that reads in microvolts and
millivolts on the R5000, too, and the remote control relay and timer,
which is useful to turn a tape recorder on and off.  I wish the timer
was a multiple-event timer that could switch the frequency, though.

I don't understand the comment "slightly more professional" since
neither is a professional receiver.

I would certainly buy another item from Kenwood, except that at present
I have no need for another, since the R5000 is sufficient for all my
needs but WEFAX, for which I use a receiver made for that purpose.

I would, nevertheless, be happy to own either of them, and am only
disappointed to find Kenwood criticised in this way.
--
Eric Roskos (roskos@IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL)