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

[Jerry Spring]

Scott,

Thanks for taking the time and making a sincere effort
to clarify the issues.  Comments like, "it stinks" or
"it is the best in it's class" are meaningless unless
backed up by hard data.  I see you've tried to compare
apples to apples with the various stock versions,
which is the only way to be objective.  

As for the FT-2000, it sounds like it should come with
a supplementary setup manual, which allows the
operator to logically and systematically adjust the
menus to achieve the desired performance.  From where
I'm sitting on the sidelines, it sounds like many
units were removed from the box and expected to be
ready to go.  While this may give "satisfactory"
results, it appears that a significant amount of time
and effort needs to go into tweaking things such as
AGC, audio quality, speech compression, filter
settings, etc.  

I've noticed that many of the frustrated and
disenchanted FT-2000 owners have claimed to have read
the manual several times and played with the rig for
weeks or even months.  Yet it must be pointed out that
this does not imply that they understood the manual or
exactly what they were doing.  On the other hand, one
might conclude if the radio is that difficult to
understand (and hams tend to be a fairly intelligent
bunch), perhaps there are better choices out there.  

I'm still wondering if I should upgrade from my MP to
a FT-2000, or stick with the MP and buy the roofing
filter.  From the recent feedback, it sounds like I
should stay with what I've got and do the mod.  And if
I want more power output, buy an amp (forget the
FT-2000D).  

Thanks again for all the specifics.

Jerry
VE6CNU


--- Scott Manthe <n9aa at arrl.net> wrote:

> 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
> 
>
______________________________________________________________
> 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
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs