But if the 746PRO lacks this function, that feature alone is worth quite a lot, since the circuitry that makes it happen is quite elaborate. It also has a really good 'MONItor' function, and I don't recall if the 746PRO even has a MONItor function - don't have one to look at, right now. It also has more front-panel control functions, with less need to resort to menus to make routine changes.

It has a nicer display which is more functional, attractive and easier (for me) to read - but of course a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man. It is larger, and has better spaced panel controls. Peter is at like the IC-756PROII better, from a user perspective and not necessarily any objective analysis. I would like to hear any and all opinions, ideas, criticisms, in comparing the 756 Pro II with the 746 Pro. Is the scope option really worth the extra kilobuck? Are you using it?Īre there clear QC issues that make it worth it?Īre there mechanical differences in the main tuning knob mount and operation that make the 756 Pro II superior here? Is it really worth spending the extra kilobuck to buy the 756 Pro II? These problems were not noted in 756 Pro II reviews, which were almost all highly favorable (Avg = 4.8 out of 5). In eham reviews, fellows found the 746 Pro had knob wobble and binding problems, and in several cases, Xmit failed after two weeks (Avg = 3.8 out of 5). If anything, the 6M receiver in the 746 Pro is hotter. Compared the Rx and Tx numbers in QST reviews, and they are identical considering measurement error and expected variability from rig to rig. Could not hear receiver differences on the air.

Went to Denver HRO and tried both 756 PRO II and 746 Pro.

Compare icom 756 pro ii & iii