[1000mp] Pro III -- FT1000MP comparison

[Win]

Thanks for the observations, Earl.  I, for one, have never had the 
opportunity to play with any of the IC-756 series transceivers.

I suspect that the Pro3 is actually several years ahead of the MP in some 
technologies, like DSP.

I thank you, again, for sticking your neck out and giving us this reports.

Win, w0lz



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Earl W Cunningham" <k6se at juno.com>
To: <1000mp at mailman.qth.net>; <tod at k0to.us>; <w0lz at winlyn.us>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [1000mp] Pro III -- FT1000MP comparison


> 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
>
>
> -- 
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.3/281 - Release Date: 3/14/2006
>
>