[1000mp] possible 1000MP upgrade - FT-2000? NO!

[Scott Manthe]

Mike,
You had a 6J SN FT-2000, without all the updates. Which updates did it 
have? The processor issue has been addressed.

Did you test the FT-2000 against an unmodified Mark V? After all, a 
heavily modified R4 with W8JIs mods can be turned from a piece of junk 
into a world class receiver.

What was your test methodology? You Blocking dynamic range numbers are 
significantly different than W8JI's, Rob Sherwoood's or the ARRL's, both 
in respect ot the positive number attributed to you Mark V, but the 
relatively poor numbers attributed to the FT-2000. I'd be willing to 
post multiple examples of this, if you'd like.

I respect your work on this reflector, but this comparison isn't really 
valid. Sorry, but comparing a heavily modified rig, which has far 
superior receiver specs than a standard, unmodified Mark V against 
standard FT-2000 without software updates is just a bit disingenuous.

73,
Scott, N9AA


Mike Schatzberg wrote:
> Hello 1000MP Fans:
>
> During March of last year, I had FT 2000 Serial Number 6J030184 here on my
> workbench. I had intended to write a side by side comparision article,
> comparing the new radio to the unit it was designed to replace, the 
> Mark V.
> Unfortunately, due to a hospitalization, that article was never 
> finished, and the radio
> returned.
>
> I was rather astonished to find that this radio, in my testing, did 
> not represent an upgrade
> from the Mark V, 200 watt radio. There are several issues which arise, 
> when comparing
> the FT 2000, to a modified Mark V containing most of the well known 
> mods, including
> my own modification to the Inrad Roofing Filter Board to improve 2 Khz 
> spacing BDR numbers.
>
> Below follow some of my original notes on this subject, which I have 
> previously shared with the
> Yaesu design team for the FT 2000. Please remember that although 
> several firmware updates were
> released and installed during this time, the radio did not have the 
> most current software which is now available.
>
> Please also note that this radio is not a SDR, but rather, a software 
> controlled radio. It will take
> hardware changes to make these necessary significant changes to 
> produce a true competition grade
> radio.
>
> *_Transmitter Speech Processor_*
> **
> The speech processor does not raise the average power output of the 
> transmitter, for any given maximum PEP output. The use of perhaps an 
> average of 3 to 5 dB of compression, should yield a significant 
> increase in the average power output. With 100 Watts PEP output, with 
> no speech processing, the average output is now about 25 watts. With 
> the processor on, with 3 to 10 dB compression, 100 Watts PEP output, 
> the average power output is still about 25 watts.
> Low levels of compression do not distort the audio, higher levels do 
> distort. But there is no level which will increase the average power 
> output.
> By comparison, the FT 1000MP Mark V, with 3 to 6 dB of compression, 
> will output on the average about 50 Watts, while the PEP is 100 Watts. 
> This is double what the FT2K can produce. The linear amplifier does 
> not work as heavily either, producing hundreds of watts less average 
> power when driven by the FT2K.
>
> *_SSB Talk Power_*
>
> White noise applied to the microphone input. Level set according to 
> the operator’s manual. Power out set to 100 Watts PEP. Average power 
> measured at 7050 kHz with a Bird Wattmeter.
>
> Setting Processor Off Processor on.
>
> FT 2000 17.5 Watts Average 21 Watts Average Processor set to +10 dB Bw 
> set to 4-26
>
> FT 1000 MV 22.5 Watts Average 45 Watts Average Compression set to +6 dB
>
> The speech processor does not increase average power as well as the 
> best contesting radios.
>
> *_Transmitter Monitor when Processor is on_*
> **
> Any setting of the speech processor when it is engaged, will result in 
> distortion as heard via the monitor in the second receiver. The speech 
> is entirely clear in the monitor when the processor is off. Low levels 
> of processing do not distort the SSB signal, only the audio heard in 
> the monitor is distorted.
> The monitor function should work as it does in the FT 1000MP Mark V, 
> which is to be undistorted with or without the processor on.
>
> *_Receiver Blocking Dynamic Range_*
>
> Weak signal set to 10 dB below the AGC threshold. Strong signal from a 
> low noise crystal oscillator.
>
> Tone spacing 5 kHz 20 KHz
>
> FT 2000 101 dB 109 dB 3 kHz roofing filter selected.
>
> FT 1000 MV 123 dB 150 dB Inrad roofing filter in place. Please note 
> the comparison is to a modified Mark V.
>
> Blocking dynamic range is not as high as other contest grade radios.
>
> These are some starting points for the major issues in the radio. The 
> minor issues involve things such as the DNR, and factory default 
> settings for such things as the contour control. But more on those 
> items later. Above I have tried to explain the biggest issues with the 
> radio, that need serious attention.
>
>
> The Mark V with modifications, and particularly with improved DSP 
> (please see
> my March 2007 QST article also available on my website), represents 
> one of the
> all time best investments in radio. Purchasing as current a 
> manufacturing date radio
> as possible, would be an added plus due to the addition of the key 
> click improvements
> by the factory.
>
> Although my main transceiver here is an Orion II, I will never part 
> with my Mark V. It is one
> super machine.
>
> 73 and Happy DXing,
>
> Mike
> W2AJI
> Administrator: 1000MP Reflector
>
>