Choice between Icom and Standard Horizon fixed mount VHF's

[plebian99]

Most marine radios use the same internal electronics. They also have enough receiver performance. There is no need for super high performing ultra sensitive receivers since we only talking about line of sight communications.

What is a very important specification that nobody talks about is the ability of the receiver not to overload or distort. In places like Asia and Europe you have a lot of crowding and RF spectrum overload. The cheaper radios just overload in port and cause all sorts of spurious products in the receiver. This is unlikely to be encountered in the USA but in places like Europe or any port near a big city this can be an important design specifications that most sailors would not consider.

With this in mind Icom and Furuno have an advantage over the many mass produced consumer grade VHF radios. If you study the front ends of these radios you will understand why.

[continuouswave]

Originally Posted by plebian99

,,,Icom and Furuno have an advantage over the many mass produced consumer grade VHF radios.

Why is ICOM not a mass-produced consumer-grade radio? That description seems to fit ICOM quite well.

[plebian99]

That is a fair point and no doubt Icom's marketing intent is to sell as many radios across all markets. In that sense they are mass produced.

There is however a big difference between a professional communications company that designs and manufacturers its own product in house. This in house engineering expertise produces products of excellent specifications that sets them apart from the run of the mill mass produced re-badge market.

If you look at companies like Icom, Furuno,JRC, Kenwood, Vertex etc they all produce products with excellent performance. They meet many standards that are not even needed for the marine communications market at a mass produced price.

Many of the discounted marine VHF radios are produced in a common factory and are just re-badged to be sold as cheaply as possible under many different brand names. They use generic COTS hardware that lacks performance. The new generation of Chinese radios are an example, they all pigs with pretty lipstick.

If you have ever opened a Icom VHF radio and compared the construction with a generic VHF marine radio you will soon know what quality is. Then if you can take it to the next level and look at a circuit diagram of a sophisticated Icom product you will know that these products were designed by very skilled communications engineers. In particular the front end and receiver performance are way in ahead in design methods.

I am not trying to be pro Icom but they do know how to produce well engineered products at a good price.

Originally Posted by continuouswave

Why is ICOM not a mass-produced consumer-grade radio? That description seems to fit ICOM quite well.

[Sandero]

Originally Posted by ka4wja

Sandero, et al,

a) many coaxial cable connections are poor....some were never all that good, but many have deteriorated over time as well...
b) once moisture seeps into the coaxial cable (from the poorly weather-proofed connections), the cable ages rapidly and the cable's loss increases...

So, when someone buys a new radio, I usually recommend they change the cable/connectors (and antenna) as well...
It's labor intensive....but not expensive...
If you cannot install proper connectors (not the "marine store" crimp connectors), properly....then hire a pro, or buy pre-assembled cables...


Fair winds...

John

The cabling and the connectors I installed were very high quality. I purchased the RG213 and connectors from a "ham radio supplier" The cable(s) made to order are much heavier and the connectors very robust... I think this probably makes a world of difference. The antenna was replaced as well. It was not inexpensive... but this is money well spent. It will out last me.

[redsky49]

With all the fascination with bells and whistles, I think there is a lack of emphasis on operating ease.

VHF radios are first and foremost a safety device - designed for communication between vessel and second party. My sense is that this primary purpose is being sublimated to accommodate gadgets and secondary uses. Case in point:

I recently replaced my Icom 502 with a Standard Horizon GX 2000. I find the actual transmission/reception performance to be so similar as to defy any clear winner. What is quite different is the ease of use.

My preference is for a knob for channel selection rather than up and down buttons. Both radios accomplish this. Another use I depend on is dual or tri watch - the ability to monitor more than one channel simultaneously. Here, the Icom is clearly easier to operate as it has a dedicated button for the purpose.

To provide for all the additional features these radios tout, they employ "soft buttons". These buttons appear when the required radio "page" is properly displayed. So the practical result is that there are function buttons that may, or may not, be displayed. For a casual user of the radio, or in the event of an emergency use by someone unfamiliar with the radio, simple tasks can become complicated.

Better stated - how often will you have to refer to the manual to perform simple tasks with these newer do-everything radios???

And as more devices are interfaced/interconnected, reliability certainly is not improved.

Radios should be optimized for communication use, not plotting devices, AIS repeaters, etc. I apologize for the hurried response, but my point is clear, and correct.

[continuouswave]

Originally Posted by plebian99

...There is however a big difference between a professional communications company that designs and [manufactures] its own product in house.

In the context of this discussion, which is ICOM v. Standard Horizon, I find that Standard-Horizon meets all the same criteria as you have ascribed to ICOM.

[SailRedemption]

Does anyone know if Icom is coming out with a radio that is comparable to the Standard Horizon GX2200 with GPS and AIS? I know the 506 has AIS but lacks the internal GPS but has N2K. Anything in the works?

[ka4wja]

Ronnie,
Yes, as I pointed out back in post #6, Icom does have a similar radio, the M-605...but it is a serious radio, selling for about $750 to $800....certainly a step above the S/H 2200...

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

Does anyone know if Icom is coming out with a radio that is comparable to the Standard Horizon GX2200 with GPS and AIS? I know the 506 has AIS but lacks the internal GPS but has N2K. Anything in the works?

Have a look at that post #6...
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2377784

And, here is the info on the M-605...
M605 VHF Marine Transceiver - Features - Icom America


Hope this helps...

Fair winds...

John

[SailRedemption]

Originally Posted by ka4wja

Ronnie,
Yes, as I pointed out back in post #6, Icom does have a similar radio, the M-605...but it is a serious radio, selling for about $750 to $800....certainly a step above the S/H 2200...
Have a look at that post #6...
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2377784

And, here is the info on the M-605...
M605 VHF Marine Transceiver - Features - Icom America


Hope this helps...

Fair winds...

John

Thanks John,
I must have missed that page here on Tapatalk and being on ship WiFi. I thought the 506 was the GX2200 competitor but it's more in line with the GX2000. I'll look into the 605. I have a brand new gx2150 that my folks didn't use on their trawler, but I think I want GPS and an Icom. We use Furuno and Icom radios on the ship so I'm more familiar with them. Also, and it may just be me, but the Icom feels a little more robust, ie the mic is heavier and I like the big channel knobs and larger screens on them. Thanks again!

[hsi88]

as I pointed out back in post #6, Icom does have a similar radio, the M-605...but it is a serious radio, selling for about $750 to $800...certainly a step above the S/H 2200...

For the same money why not get the SH GX6500 commercial grade radio and get an AIS transponder in addition to NMEA 0183/2000...certainly a step above the IC M605... ;-)

[puffcard]

I've have had both ICOM and Standard VHF radios. My feeling is the ICOM units are more robust and the Standard has more features. This is only because of my experiences. My boat has been struck twice by lightening and the point of entry was the VHF antenna and the radio was hooked up. Both times almost every piece of electrical equipment was fried. Except the ICOM VHF made it thru still working, except the antenna was gone. That's amazing. I've also dropped an ICOM handheld VHF overboard. Came back next day and went down 9ft and recovered it. Funny it was on and still working. I love the Standard's features like AIS, but my remote mic gets wet in bad weather. It will stop working, till it's dried out. Just my two cents.

[continuouswave]

Originally Posted by puffcard

...My boat has been struck twice by lightening and the point of entry was the VHF antenna and the radio was hooked up. Both times almost every piece of electrical equipment was fried. Except the ICOM VHF made it thru still working, except the antenna was gone. That's amazing....

I agree with your characterization of "amazing." But I don't think it is possible to conclude from your experiences that all ICOM radios will survive a direct hit by lightning on their antenna while other brands will not.

[SoonerSailor]

Icom M605 looks amazing, but look at its receive current draw specs: 8.0 amps. Whoa! That is with 3 remote stations and a loud hailer attached (and presumably in use), but they don't specify a current draw for the base unit alone and squelched, which is something a sailboat guy who is stingy with the power budget while sailing would find important.

The SH GX2200 specifies 0.8 amps for quiescent receive current. Thats more like it. Way cheaper to replace after that lightning strike too!

Not to diss Icom, I too like their gear, but there is a limit...

Chip

[Reiheld]

Thanks to the encouraging words here, I have gone and bought $5 worth of fancy collar for our $2 dog of a homemade houseboat. We now have boxes containing an 8' Shakespeare antenna and a SH 2200 VHF radio, which we will attempt to assemble next time we have a day not otherwise committed. Silly question coming: We had figured to mount the antenna forward, to minimize cable run, on the top deck rail over the pilot house, which is 14' above the waterline. Then came the post about the lightning strike frying the electronics. Gulp... This IS a wooden boat. Do we need to rethink our higher-is-better assumption?

[puffcard]

VHF reception is dependent on antenna height and a lesser degree the dB gain of the antenna. I would put the antenna as high as you can mount it and then dock next to a bunch of big sailboats.