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

[Mike Schatzberg]

Hello John:

Nicely summarized.

You will find that the Inrad roofing filter, besides improving IMD
performance, and reducing whiskering from strong adjacent signals, will also
quiet your receiver.

There are a few dB of net gain, after the two stage low noise amplifier
makes up for the insertion losses of the new 1st IF filter.  That net gain
allows you to decrease the IF gain setting in menu 9-1, and further reduce
the noise floor.

Your are exactly correct about the noise reduction in the Mark V, it doesn't
work well.  It reduces noise and reduces clarity of the desired signal.  The
newer active DSP algorithms are far superior.  For this reason, I installed
the BHI DSP module between the radio and speaker.  The improvement is really
impressive.  Please see the March QST for more details about the ANEM, on
page 51.  The article can also be downloaded from my W2AJI page on my
website.

73 and Happy DXing,

Mike
W2AJI
http://home.earthlink.net/~cherokeehillfarm/id2.html
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John, W3ULS" <w3uls at 3n.net>
To: <1000mp at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: [1000mp] Mark V Field vis a vis other transceivers


> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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