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

[Billy Cox]

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

Independent data is great Scott ... so let's add
in some more data points for this discussion.

Here's Rob Sherwood's receiver ranking ... why is
the FT2K found so low?

http://www.sherweng.com/table.html

And as the FT2K includes a 3 kHz roofing filter
I think it is fair to include the INRAD filter when
comparing the FT2K with the older FT1K series:

This is an early review by George, W2VJN and
he had some nice things to say about the FT2K:

http://www.gofrc.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/newsletters%252edb/October-2006.pdf

However note George's comments in two key areas:

"Blocking dynamic range is not as high as other contest grade radios"

And ...

"The speech processor does not increase average
power as well as the best contesting radios."

The "rules of measurement" for contest grade radios are no secret
so what the heck happened with the design of the FT2K here?

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

I am not comparing the FT2K with anything but the FT1K series.

And I don't think using the FT1K with the INRAD roofing filter goes
outside this 'guideline' rather it keeps this to be apples to apples.

Yet I am left with the question of why the FT2K 3 kHz filter does
NOT seem to work as advertised ... I note you did not reply to my
statement as to even INRAD gave up on this too. I can not recall
any review stating the 3 kHz filter worked as advertised. Why?

Even Yaesu has agreed the posted numbers are accurate and LOW.

What did the ARRL find:

“We noticed little difference in performance between the 3
and 6 kHz roofing filers in any of the FT-2000s tested,
though, at any signal spacing.”

Mnnn ... yet they and Hart COULD measure the difference
with the older series when the INRAD units were added ...

>The real problem is that the FT-2000 was obviously designed
>to have really good 5 kHz 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 2 kHz
>receiver numbers and the Yaesu looked bad when compared
>to the published 2 khz 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.

That's a bunch of RUBBISH!

The 5 kHz verses 2 kHz measurements are NOT NEW, the 2 kHz
and now even 1 kHz measurement points have been used for some
time now by many parties including W8JI, ARRL, Hart, etc.

For you to say that Yaesu ignored sound receiver design to be
better at 5 kHz over 2 kHz is a bit of stretch .. if that's true then
why did they include the 3 kHz roofing filter as stock?

> When comparing apples to apples, the FT-2000's receiver is
> hardly a step back.

And I am still looking for the step FORWARD? Where is it?

Note Sherwood's comments on this:

"On the FT-2000 data recently posted on my web site,
the dynamic range actually dropped from 90 dB at 20 kHz
with the 6 kHz roofing filter to 81 dB with the 3 kHz roofing filter.
At 2 kHz spacing there was minimal difference, 63 dB (3 kHz
filter) and 61 dB (6 kHz filter).  Dynamic range numbers in the
low 60s are not acceptable for serious operators. "

Source: Rob Sherwood ARRL Update 30 Sep 2007.doc
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ft-2000/files/

> Rob Sherwood's comments about AGC were not directed
>at the FT-2000- they were directed at ALL DSP-based receivers.

Actually YES, they are ...

"The IC-7000 is a prime example of a radio that is nearly
useless in QRN, as is the FT-2000."

"On the FT-2000 the impulse noise read S7,
pulse after pulse after pulse. "

Source: Rob Sherwood ARRL Update 30 Sep 2007.doc
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ft-2000/files/

>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.

Just reminds the user that there are MULTIPLE points
of measurement to be considered when evaluating the
relative performance of different pieces of gear.

>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.

Here we are closer than you might think ... the FT1K or
FT1K MP certainly were/are not perfect, and the FT2K
has the POTENTIAL <just not realized IMHO> to be
a better piece of gear and to replace the FT1000MP.

Bu I am not going to replace the pair of MPs for 2 newer
boxes, with a step backwards as to key performance and
have some new weaknesses with the receiver and it also
seems, a fault that will blow the front end if you are using
an external receive only antenna, while the MP does fine.

>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.

You are drifting away OM ... first, you are back into the
every ham but you is lazy, dumb, etc ... that's a bit much.

Next, if rig is that complex, then whose responsibility is it
to provide the needed information to use the gear? Yaesu.

>The speech processor interacts with the parametric equalizer,
>which is not clearly explained in the manual. This makes it
>difficult to adjust the processor.

I thought you posted this was resolved? B-) The reality is
as you stated above ... "difficult to adjust the processor."

"Not clearly explained in the manual" ... and so WHO
dropped the ball on this explaining important information?

>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.

Expect or hope? There are NO promises in this at all,
and how long has Yaesu known about these issues ...

Actually there was a firmware update, 1.35, a few days
ago, but no one really seems to know the details about it.

>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.

Nor do I, but your first post hinting that dumb ops were
the real problem and there are no warts with the FT2K
was NOT an objective posting, it was cheerleading.

John Tait's comparison is more accurate as to comparing
the 3 generations of gear <FT1K, FT1K MP, and FT2K>

I just noticed this off the FT2000 forum ... and it adds to
my position that the FT2K has potential, but it's not there.

Begin quote:
--------------------------------------
"Maybe Yaesu will work on making the 2000 better? We can hope.
I don't know if anyone else noticed this but I can switch to the 6khz
filter and the receiver seems to perform better.

>Well, the ARRL has just released its review of the FT950.
>As expected, the BDR and IMDBDR for the FT950 are significantly
>better at both 5 and 2 KHZ spacings than are the FT2000, and at
>significantly less cost!"
-----------------------------------------
End quote:

Why is the above statement true? "Significantly better".

I looked <and continue to watch> the FT2K as a UPGRADE
to my present setup ... and would prefer to stay with Yaesu as
the various auto-switching drive signals would stay the same.

The reality is ... now in what the 2nd year of production, that for
MY expectations, the FT2K platform is simply still not ready.

And it would appear that many others view this in a similar fashion.

73 de Billy, AA4NU