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

[Scott Manthe]

Billy,
OK, this might be easier. Go to this page: 
http://www.w8ji.com/receiver_tests.htm

Check the table comparing the FT-2000 to the UNMODIFIED FT-1000D, MP, 
Mark V and Mark V Field. While you're there, you can check how the FT2K 
2kHz BDR and IMDR receiver numbers stack up against the Icom IC-7800 and 
756Pro, as well as the Ten Tec Orion. It is not the best receiver in the 
table, but it is not a "step backward," at least not when compared with 
UNMODIFIED rigs.

I continue to stress how the FT-2000 stacks up against unmodified rigs, 
because that is the only fair way to compare them.

The real problem is that the FT-2000 was obviously designed to have 
really good 5kHz receiver numbers, so it would look good in the ARRL 
review. Unfortunately for Yaesu, with the review for the FT-2000, the 
League started publishing 2kHz receiver numbers and the Yaesu looked bad 
when compared to the published 2kHz numbers for other rigs, including 
those for Yaesu rigs with various mods, including the Inrad roofing 
filter and W8JI's (and others) NB mods. So, many people think, based on 
those numbers alone, that the receiver in the FT2K stinks.

Well, it's not quite as simple as that, because most people don't 
install these mods. If you look at W8JI's chart, the FT2K's RX 
specs,including 2kHz BDR/IMDR, are actually superior to the stock 
FT-1000MP, FT-1000D and stock Mark V. When comparing apples to apples, 
the FT-2000's receiver is hardly a step back.

Rob Sherwood's comments about AGC were not directed at the FT-2000- they 
were directed at ALL DSP-based receivers. Sherwood's tests also show 
that the IC-706MK2G has a superior RX to the IC-781, based on 2kHz 
dynamic range. Make of this what you will.

I have never claimed that the FT2K is without fault, only that it is a 
CAPABLE REPLACEMENT for the Mark V series, with improved ergonomics and 
added features. Unfortunately, I think Yaesu designed a radio that many 
hams are either too lazy to use, or incapable of using. By making so 
many parameters user adjustable, including various AGC settings, as well 
as the different transmit audio settings, along with all of the user 
adjustable settings, Yaesu made the radio too complex. The speech 
processor interacts with the parametric equalizer, which is not clearly 
explained in the manual. This makes it difficult to adjust the 
processor. Firmware (the last of which was in October) updates have 
vastly improved the speech processor, DNF and some other bugs. I expect 
we'll see another upgrade fairly soon.

I don't want to be put in the position of being a cheerleader, I just 
want people to be fair and compare apples to apples. While it's 
certainly OK to point out a rigs flaws, bashing it because it doesn't 
stack up against modified or far more expensive radios is just unfair.

73,
Scott, N9AA

Billy Cox wrote:
> Scott,
>
> I am glad you are satisfied with your FT2K.
>
> I hope it provides you with many hours of
> enjoyment of the hobby.
>
> I have read the owner's manual, and the service
> manual, and tried 2 different NEW FT2Ks and ended up saying "No Thank 
> You" both times.
>
> And I am not the only one who has done so.
>
> The receiver performance has been found to
> be a step backwards ... see W2VJN, ARRL,
> and others as to actual measured results.
>
> The processor is still a problem, the DNF is
> still a problem, the AGC per Sherwood has
> issues. Does the 3 khz roofing really work?
> Why are the key receiver numbers so low?
>
> Why wasn't INRAD able to improve upon
> the low numbers with an aftermarket roofing
> filter ... is it due to the basic receiver design?
>
> Why does it seems some of the FT2Ks are
> in need of re-alignment, right out of the box?
>
> Even Yaesu has agreed that the measured rcvr
> numbers are what they are. And they are LOW
> compared to the older series or other brands.
>
> The firmware updates (and how many months
> has it been since the last real one?) have yet to IMPROVE the rig, 
> rather seem to be small
> efforts to address things that should have been
> considered BEFORE the model was released.
>
> MONITOR on RTTY would be an example.
>
> RF damage to the receiver from using an external receive only antenna.
>
> And how long has the FT2K been for sale?
> Why have the above issues NOT been fixed?
>
> Where in basic performance features does the
> FT2K REALLY shine above the older series?
>
> Several contest ops have SOLD theirs and gone back to the older series 
> due to the above.
>
> Look at the number of F2K offered for sale and note the low prices for 
> such a new piece of gear, and you have to wonder ... is this a good 
> investment at this time over the MP?
>
> My conclusion remains for me, it is NOT and
> I will stay with my original FT1000MPs.
>
> Again, I am glad you are pleased with yours,
> but that may not hold true for everyone else.
>
> 73 de Billy, AA4NU