[1000mp] Mark V Field vis a vis other transceivers

[John, W3ULS]

The recent go-round involving the FT-2000 prompts the following
observations, based on my use of various other transceivers.

My principal observation is that in the Mark V Field the Vertex/Yaesu
engineers "went about as far as they could go" in terms of producing a
top-notch, dual receive ham rig using a single 16-bit processor and
mainly analog circuitry. The hybrid "4th IF" that incorporates noise
reduction and narrow CW filters  is a good example. Taken all in all,
what the engineers came up with is a rig whose features and standards of
performance were quite high and whose price at the time production
ceased was reasonable. In fact, IMHO, all other rigs I've tried have not
measured up. (I'm not talking about the ORION, FTdx-9000, and IC-7800
which have their own niche.)

In fact, when I owned a 756PRO III, it seemed to me the ICOM engineers
finally had succeeded in mimicking the features and performance of the
MK V Field, but without surpassing them. In owning a PRO III what you
got was a very good analog/DSP design using much more advanced firmware
and software that in the end provided much the same performance--at a
higher price. For the added dough, you got a very nice full-color LCD
panel with a real-time band scope, but you did not get better
performance. (You also got ICOM's "dual watch" in place of the MK V's
dual receivers.) Of course, when INRAD's roofing filter is added to the
MK V (something I have not yet required at my QTH),  the MK V beats the
pants off the PRO III in BDR and IMD3 performance. As far as ergonomics,
I favor the MK V.

As far as CW, I'd say the two rigs are a dead heat. Yaesu finally fixed
the transmit key clicks and has also all but eliminated (in my 7/04 rig)
any clicks or thumps in the headphones. QSK is silent, while the PRO III
almost is. About the only area in which the PRO III has a clear
advantage is its sophisticated noise reduction feature, but it took ICOM
four or five years to get it right, and in real world use I find the MK
V does OK. (It sounds like Yaesu fixed the NB problem that so concerned
W8JI.)

With regard to the FT-2000, it is, like the PRO III, way more advanced
in firmware and software. It will, IMHO, require more tweaking to bring
it up to the PRO III's level, and then what you'll have in the end is a
transceiver that in all important respects mimics the MK V. I expect the
single-receiver Ten-Tec OMNI VII to fit in the same category as these two.

My bottom line: no persuasive reason not to stick with the Mk V.

73,
John, W3ULS