[1000mp] FT1000MP vs. 756PRO

[Earl W Cunningham]

John, NE0P wrote:

"Has anyone on the list had the chance to do a side by side comparison of
the FT1000MP or MKV with the Icom 756PRO or PRO2?"
==========
I have an original MP (bought in 1998) which I A/Bd with a Pro2 (bought
in 2003).

Being a 160-meter DX enthusiast, my comparisons were on CW only with my
primary interest in seeing which receiver would best pull weak CW signals
out of the noise using all the tricks available on the receivers.  I made
the comparisons on both 160m and 10m.

First, about the FT-1000MP.  When I first got it, I A/Bd it with my old
TS-830S, the Kenwood was slightly better than the MP on both 160m and
10m.  Then I installed the INRAD "front end" mod (which was popular then
-- now the INRAD roofing filter mod is in vogue) and the MP was slightly
better than the Kenwood on both bands.

I found the MP to do the job best using the "flat" preamp on 160m and the
"tuned" preamp on 10m.  The A/B tests were always done on an "empty"
band, so IMD3 and BDR were no concern (more on that later).

When I bought the Pro2, one of the first things I did was do the same
comparison with the MP.  The Pro2 proved to be slightly better than the
MP.  On 160m, the Pro2's preamps were off and on 10m preamp 2 was best.

Then I compared the MP and Pro2 during 160-meter CW contests when the
band is crowded with strong signals.  On the MP (with the flat preamp
on), I had to use 6 dB of front panel attenuation to get rid of the
bleeps and blurps heard which were due to the IMD3 of the receiver.  On
the Pro2 (preamp off), it took 12 dB of front panel attenuation to
accomplish the same thing.  BDR was never a problem with either radio.

Although the MP has the better receiver with respect to IMD3, its overall
gain is such that, when using any front panel attenuation, there is
insufficient audio output into the headphones, even with the audio output
control fully CW when using narrow CW filters (I have the INRAD 125 Hz
filter installed in the MP's 455 kHz IF).  On the other hand, the Pro2
has ample overall gain so that its audio output control is quite
sufficient even with 18 dB of front panel attenuation on 160m and when
using the Pro2's 50 Hz filter and with the audio output control at 9
o'clock.

I now have a Pro3, which I like better than the Pro2.  A/B tests with the
Pro3 vs the MP are the same as with the Pro2, and the Pro3's IMD3 appears
to be the same as the Pro2.

73, de Earl, K6SE