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

[Scott Manthe]

Billy,
I'm not going to get into a p***ing contest with you. I'm not trying to 
win an argument, I'm trying to give people another viewpoint. That seems 
to bother you inordinately, for some reason. If you're not going to take 
the time to actually read what I wrote, rather than filtering it with 
your prejudices, I find it hard to justify responding. But I'll try... 
(One last time, I'm afraid.)


Billy Cox wrote:
>
> 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

I've read Sherwood's data and it's different that W8JI's. Sherwood sells 
receiver improvements, Tom doesn't. At this point, I'm not sure whose 
data is correct, but either way, I'm not going to waste anymore time 
going point by point with you on this.
>
> 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:

I'm won't play this game. The FT-1000MP series also has crystal and 
mechanical filters, in addition to the Inrad. Others can see my point on 
this, if you can't, that's too bad.
>
> This is an early review by George, W2VJN and
> he had some nice things to say about the FT2K:
>
I've read George's comments. They were made with a very early FT2K that 
had no updates. Many of his points hold true, some don't.
>
> 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?
The 3 kHz filter doesn't work as well as it should because Yaesu 
modified the circuit to lower costs.
> 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.

The ARRL started publishing 5 kHz numbers in their review of the TS-2000 
in 2001. I believe the ARRL first published 2 kHz numbers in their Oct. 
2005 review of the Flex 1000. The narrower-spaced data was available in 
the expanded reports before that, but not in the published reviews. I 
don't receive the RSGB publication, so I'm not sure when Peter Hart 
started publishing 2 kHz data. The FT-2000 was first shown (under glass) 
at the Tokyo Ham Fair in August 2005 and then at Dayton in May, 2006. 
I'm pretty sure it was probably in development before Oct. 2005, but I 
might be wrong. Even if I am wrong, I hardly think my explanation is 
rubbish, at least to anyone who's been involved in product development.
>
> 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?
Because the IC-7800, FTDX9000 and Orion included narrow roofing filters.

>
>> 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?
Probably in the FTDX9000, Orion and K3. You have to keep the price point 
in mind, Billy.
>
> 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. "
I'm aware of Sherwood's comments. The question should be why he hasn't 
put any FT-2000 specifications on his website. You might ask him.
>> 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.
Where in my comment do I say every ham but me is lazy or dumb? I'll 
quote myself here: "...I think Yaesu designed a radio that many hams are 
either too lazy to use, or incapable of using." Read it again if you 
wish. I'll translate for you, since you didn't get it the first time: 
The FT-2000 is a complex radio with many adjustable parameters. Many 
hams don't want to take the time to learn how to use it (lazy) or don't 
have enough experience (incapable) to use it properly. I never said 
anyone was dumb- that was you.
>
> 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."
This is not a defect, it's how the rig works. There is no resolution 
except for learning how to use it.
>
> "Not clearly explained in the manual" ... and so WHO
> dropped the ball on this explaining important information?
Most hams have never used a parametric equalizer. It's different than 
what was in the MP and Mark V series. It takes time to learn. You can't 
put everything in a manual. Sometimes people just need experience.
>
>> 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.
Yaesu claims it' sthe same as 1.34.
>
>> 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.
I haven't hinted at anything and I never claimed that the FT2K was 
without flaws.
>
> John Tait's comparison is more accurate as to comparing
> the 3 generations of gear <FT1K, FT1K MP, and FT2K>
We can agree that John has done a fine job.
>
> 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!"
The ARRL doesn't measure BDR anymore, they measure "blocking gain 
compression" using a different technique than they used to use. IMD DR 
numbers are better. I'll assume that Yaesu put the parts into the FT-950 
that they left out of the FT-2000.

73,
Scott, N9AA