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

[Billy Cox]

Not in any form of a contest with you Scott,
but there are views other than yours and the
data is there to support such. Like it or not.

As to showing an attitude ... you win that one. 

>I've read Sherwood's data and it's different that
>W8JI's. Sherwood sells receiver improvements, 
>Tom doesn't. 

Not so fast ... Tom sells "kits" for the FT1K and 
I didn't find anything for the FT2K on Rob's site,
so your point here is what? You cited Tom and
I cited Rob ... both are very good engineers and 
both have provided good data for consideration.

>>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.

I believe you might be the one missing the point. One
does not get to pick and chose only the data you like.

Comparing one rig with it's "3 kHz" roofing filter
and another with it's "4 Khz" filter seems close ...

You stated the FT2K is better than the previous series
of receivers ... yet, the hard numbers seems to differ.

> 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.

Which ones? You are being way too vague now. 
I cited two points ... are they both corrected now?

>Even if I am wrong, I hardly think my explanation is rubbish, 
>at least to anyone who's been involved in product development.

No, what you just did is change your story and dates as to when 
the league changed the numbers they measure by ... it's rubbish.

And BTW, I do have experience in electronic product
development, and NOT related to amateur radio ...

>>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.

HUH ... look who is bringing in other, higher dollar rigs into this?
You are contradicting yourself here again as to what the purpose is.

Or are you saying the 3 kHz filter is really "ad copy" and no more.

>> 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.

Certainly and per your post, we are talking about how the FT2K,
not any other rig .. is a better transceiver than the one it replaced.

I like the new readout, I like 6m being added ... but not at the
price of the main receiver now having lower performance and
the new challenges with some of the bells and whistles. 

And I do think many are watching the K3 ... and how it's
DSP features overcome some of the present challenges
as found in other offerings in the marketplace right now.

At this point ... the jury still seems to be out as of yet.

> 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.

No need to ask him anything Scott, as the FT2K is 
clearly listed in his published tables. 

"Added 9/22/07
Yaesu FT-2000"

You sure seem to have a problem with Rob, but the
data is there for all to see, and has been out there.

The other documents have also been public for some time.

>"I'll translate for you, since you didn't get it the first time:"

OK, there's an example of what I am talking about ... Nice, very nice.

> Yaesu claims it' sthe same as 1.34.

Yet ...

>I haven't hinted at anything and I never claimed that 
>the FT2K was without flaws.

You need to go back and re-read your posts perhaps?

I posted public information and links with measured data 
by an engineer with the proper equipment. Let each person
read the ALL facts, and then decide what they chose to.

> We can agree that John has done a fine job.

Yes we can. He did not try to hide the 'warts'. Well done John.

>... 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.

So why are the numbers better than the FT2K? ... I am sure 
that all of the FT2K owners will feel good about the "parts
being left out" and their receiver performance being less. B-)

I'll repeat what I said to you at first ... I am glad you are happy
with your new radio and it meets your expectations. However,
that may not hold true for everyone, and for many it has not.

Enjoy your FT2K ... I'll sit on the sidelines and use the MPs
for a bit longer and wait and see if Yaesu steps up and makes
the FT2K a measureable step forward and without the current
level of receiver weak spots that many have found unfavorable.

73 de Billy, AA4NU