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

[Mike Schatzberg]

Hello Rob:

This issue about the processor is a real show stopper.  The Mark V with
about 3 dB average compression, perhaps 5 dB max peaks, 100 watts pep
output, will produce 50 watts average power.  With the processor off, it
produces about 25 watts average at 100 watts pep.

There is no distortion at this compression level.

The FT2K after upgrade, will be distorted at every processor setting.  The
audio is excellent with the processor off, using a MD 200 with factory
default settings.

Increasing the processor setting only increases distortion, with no
resulting increase in average power output.

This same result has been reported globally for the earlier radios.  There
may be a hardware change which Yaesu implemented for the later production
radios.  Since they have not announced the firmware upgrade on their
website, last time I looked, I guess I would not expect them to announce a
hardware change.

I will contact the factory and try to find out what might be needed for this
serial number.

The receiver seems greatly improved after the firmware upgrade, and some
significant menu adjustments.  More about all that latter after more
experience.

The FT2K is set up side by side my Mark V, 200 watt radio, with an A/B
antenna relay switch to pop back and forth under identical operating
conditions.

Time will tell more.  Meanwhile, I want to find the same performance level
for the processor as in the Mark V.  I am looking for good articulate audio,
with plenty of punch for DX operations.  I'll see what Yaesu says.

73 and Happy DXing,

Mike
W2AJI
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Atkinson" <k5uj at sbcglobal.net>
To: "All about Yaesu 1000mp" <1000mp at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [1000mp] Subjective Comparison of FT 2000 to Mark V


>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 1000mp mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/1000mp
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:1000mp at mailman.qth.net