[1000mp] Pro III -- FT1000MP comparison

[Earl W Cunningham]

Win, W0LZ, asked the following:

"You could comment on how the following features and specs compare."
 
Sensitivity:
----------
The only thing related to sensitivity comparisons I've done (on many
receivers) are side-by-side A/B tests on determining how well the
receiver digs extremely weak CW signals out of the noise on both 160 and
10 meters.  My IC-756 Pro3 does this slightly better than my FT-1000MP. 
My MP has the INRAD front end mod in it.  If it had the INRAD roofing
filter mod, it might be better than the Pro3.
==========

Selectivity:
----------
One reason the Pro3 does better in the above tests I've done is that I
can narrow the DSP filter down to 50 Hz, which is a tad better than  the
MP's 60 Hz EDSP audio filter.  The extremely weak CW signals always ae
heard better with the narrowest selectivity possible because that
provides the best receive S/N ratio.

On SSB, I use the Pro3's 1800 Hz DSP filter, which is significantly
better that the MP's stock 2400 Hz filters.
==========

Reliability:
----------
I've not had any failures on either the Pro3 nor the MP (both were bought
new).  Both hold up on contest weekends without a glitch.
==========

DSP:
----------
The DSP noise reduction in the Pro3 is far superior to the EDSP noise
reduction in the MP.  There's no comparison.
==========

Filter Options:
----------
Unlike the MP, there's no need to buy filters for the Pro3.  You can set
the filter bandwidth to anything you want to with the Pro3 -- it's
built-in.
==========

Value of Band Scope in a pile:
----------
The Pro3's band scope is useful in determining where the pileup is when a
DX station is operating split.  Once in a while you can even spot the
signal the DX station is working.  However, it's always best to use the
sub VFO to monitor the calling stations, just as it is with the MP's sub
receiver.

Someone commented that he would never give up his MP's sub receiver for
the Pro3's dual watch.  Dual watch works fine when you want to listen on
both VFOs as far as I am concerned.  Other buttons on the Pro3 allow
other ways to do this effectively while operating split (main/sub,
change, xfc).
==========
The MP is the better receiver as far as IMDDR and BDR are concerned (per
ARRL lab tests).  Where BDR is concerned, I've never had any signal
strong enough to cause receiver desensing during contests with my MP nor
with my Pro3, even with local stations within a few miles of my QTH.

On my MP, I have to use 6 dB of front panel attenuation to eliminate the
bleeps and bloops heard on CW during contests when the band is loaded
with strong signals.  My Pro3 requires 12 dB of front panel attenuation
to do the same, indicating that the MP is ~6 dB better in this category. 
However, with 6 DB attenuation cranked in on the MP requires that the AF
gain control is at max to hear those weak ones.  The Pro3 has ample
receiver gain where the AF gain is plenty when it is set to less than 12
o'clock (even with 18 dB of attenuation).

Speaking of audio, the audio from the Pro3 is much cleaner than the mushy
sounding audio from the MP, particularly on CW.

73, de Earl, K6SE