[1000mp] Subjective Comparison of FT 2000 to Mark V

[Rob Atkinson]

I generally agree with this however there can be some rigs where a 
problem can be so obvious it leaps out at you and does not require 
protracted use to become evident.

rob / k5uj



On Wednesday, February 21, 2007, at 06:25 PM, Scott Manthe wrote:

>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> John,
> There is no way to adequately  judge the performance of a rig as 
> complex as the FT-2000 by playing with one in the  store.
> The QST review states this plainly, which is why the reviewers don't 
> sit down in the showroom and do the review.
> I quote, from the QST review, by Joel Hallas, W1ZR, QST's Technical 
> Editor, "This is a radio you need to spend time getting to know and 
> love. It seems easy to get going and make contacts, but that's just 
> the beginning! There are many subtle operating skills that will be 
> gained over time as you carefully note how this radio plays."
>
> So, the technical editor of QST needed to take time to figure out how 
> to use the FT-2000 well enough to write a review, but you could glean 
> everything you needed to know to post your impressions from 20 minutes 
> in the showroom?
>
> Think about it for a minute: Did you figure out in a "brief use" how 
> to most effectively use all of the features of your Mark V Field? I 
> certainly didn't. In fact, I've owned three over the years, and still 
> find new ways of making mine work better. The FT-2000 has all of the 
> features of the Field and quite a few more, so it might be best to 
> actually give this rig some time before posting a review.
>
> The FT-2000 might indeed need tweaking, but it's probably not 
> something you can tell by playing with one at the store.
>
> 73,
> Scott, N9AA
>
> John, W3ULS wrote:
>> Hi, Mike:
>>
>> I can offer two cents based on a brief use of an FT-2000 at HRO 
>> Woodbridge.
>>
>> In short, not ready for prime time. There were crackles and pops (CW 
>> mode) when using the filters, notch, and noise reduction together. My 
>> feeling was that the software is not yet refined. I never had a 
>> 756PRO, but I did own a 756PRO III, where virtually all of the DSP 
>> artifacts reported by users of the earlier versions had disappeared. 
>> (I sold it because I still like my mostly analog Mark V Field :-))
>>
>> My sense is that the present 2000 is in the same category as the 
>> original 756PRO and will require continuing tweaking by the 
>> Vertex-Standard engineers to eliminate the artifacts.
>>
>> 73,
>> John, W3ULS