Argonaut VI Sherwood data.

[KB3LAZ]

Now, I take these stats with a grain of salt as in reality they mean little to me. Particularly to my ears. That being said, it seems to be a common area of discussion and I know there are more than a few members that are following this particular rig, myself included. So, I figured I would bring it up.

It appears that the new little TT placed one slot above the Eagle.

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

I suppose the good thing about all of these comparisons and the close number is that one really has to be nit picking to decide on one radio over the other on RX specs.

[PA5COR]

As i said iin my other post, i didn't buy a new radio based on the Sherwood list.
I got the middle of the road FT 2000 - D because of ergonomics, 225 watts output that lets me use the HEathkit SB-1000 less, and all that nifty lists don't make sense listening to your setup at home.

It might make a small difference in fild day use lots of power and radio's together needing a bombproof frontend for overloading.
In daily use you won't hear a peep of difference.
I had the FT 9000 here with all updates comparing it to the FT 847 with Collins filters i had, and i didn't work 1 station more with it switching from 9000 to the 847.

The FT 2000 - D is good enough for me, cost 1800 euro's 2 years old, and the FT 847 is spare radio now.
Even the little FT 100 with XF am filter did fine compared to the FT 9000 battleship.
Sherwood never tested the FT 2000 ( D) with the PEP upgrade that transformed th reciever considerably.
The only draw back is i ave to use the FT 2000 - D with mains power to feed it for the 50 volt FET P.A.
But then if i need anything on 12 volt the FT 100 or the FT 847 will do.

I find the Sherwood lists severely overrated, better antenna's will do a world more for your set up, as any of the main battleships with high numbers.
I don't brag about my setup either, i was just as happy with the FT 847 with collins filters, but after using that for 13 years or so it was time to get something newer and the size is what i like as well ergonomics.

What i do hear over the bands with people always buying the latest newest gadget is that after the initial joy wears out the comments are the same, yes it is a god rig, but i don't seem to work more stations as with the other radio.
No, a good or better antena setup will do that for you.
Having a Ferrari on bycicle tyres doesn't do the car well, having a decent radio with small antenna's will do the same.
Best investment is your outdoor antenna setup, feedlines low loss, and the last bit is th radio.
Not the other way round.

[KB3LAZ]

As i said iin my other post, i didn't buy a new radio based on the Sherwood list.
I got the middle of the road FT 2000 - D because of ergonomics, 225 watts output that lets me use the HEathkit SB-1000 less, and all that nifty lists don't make sense listening to your setup at home.

It might make a small difference in fild day use lots of power and radio's together needing a bombproof frontend for overloading.
In daily use you won't hear a peep of difference.
I had the FT 9000 here with all updates comparing it to the FT 847 with Collins filters i had, and i didn't work 1 station more with it switching from 9000 to the 847.

The FT 2000 - D is good enough for me, cost 1800 euro's 2 years old, and the FT 847 is spare radio now.
Even the little FT 100 with XF am filter did fine compared to the FT 9000 battleship.
Sherwood never tested the FT 2000 ( D) with the PEP upgrade that transformed th reciever considerably.
The only draw back is i ave to use the FT 2000 - D with mains power to feed it for the 50 volt FET P.A.
But then if i need anything on 12 volt the FT 100 or the FT 847 will do.

I find the Sherwood lists severely overrated, better antenna's will do a world more for your set up, as any of the main battleships with high numbers.
I don't brag about my setup either, i was just as happy with the FT 847 with collins filters, but after using that for 13 years or so it was time to get something newer and the size is what i like as well ergonomics.

What i do hear over the bands with people always buying the latest newest gadget is that after the initial joy wears out the comments are the same, yes it is a god rig, but i don't seem to work more stations as with the other radio.
No, a good or better antena setup will do that for you.
Having a Ferrari on bycicle tyres doesn't do the car well, having a decent radio with small antenna's will do the same.
Best investment is your outdoor antenna setup, feedlines low loss, and the last bit is th radio.
Not the other way round.

Yep, as I said one radio over the other does not make a lot of difference. Receiver spec wise anyway.

[W3WN]

Considering that the Argonaut VI and the Eagle essentially share the same receiver, seeing one of them one notch above the other on the list isn't surprising. Indicates to me an essentially insignificant difference... two different radios off the assembly line might have gone in reverse order.

[KB3LAZ]

Considering that the Argonaut VI and the Eagle essentially share the same receiver, seeing one of them one notch above the other on the list isn't surprising. Indicates to me an essentially insignificant difference... two different radios off the assembly line might have gone in reverse order.

You know, I was just thinking about that. I need to take a trip to TT when I get back and do some playing. I have heard so much about the wonderful audio on the eagle an Id like to give it a test drive.