[Elecraft] FT-1000D A/B Test Results

[WQ8Q]

 . . . . and ain't that scientific . . . . .


----- Original Message -----
From: <k6se@juno.com>
To: <1000mp@mailman.qth.net>; <topband@contesting.com>;
<TenTec_Orion@yahoogroups.com>; <elecraft@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:32 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] FT-1000D A/B Test Results


> Today Bill, W6FW (DXCC standing 335/373) brought his 1991 vintage
> FT-1000D over to my QTH to compare with my FT-1000MP.  The 1000D is
> Bill's primary radio for DXing.  Three sets of ears judged the results of
> the A/B tests: W6FW, N6JZ (DXCC standing 331/350) and K6SE (DXCC standing
> 326/338).
>
> The narrowest CW filter in Bill's 1000D is 250 Hz, so the initial tests
> were made with my 1000MP's 250 Hz filters and no DSP filter.  The IPO
> switch was turned off on both radios (i.e., the preamps were on) during
> the tests.
>
> On 160-meters, all three of us agreed that there was absolutely no
> difference between the two radios on how the weak signal could be copied.
>  If the INRAD 125 Hz filter was selected on the MP, it was better.  Ditto
> if the 60 Hz DSP filter was used on the MP.  It is assumed that if a 125
> Hz filter could be installed in the 1000D or if an outboard DSP filter
> was used with it that it would still equal the MP on copying the weak
> signal.
>
> On 10-meters, using only the 250 hz filters in both radios, the MP beat
> out the 1000D by a very noticeable margin, which all three sets of ears
> agreed on.
>
> Because of the different results on 160m compared to 10m, and because I
> conduct these tests mainly to compare receivers on 160m, the ratings from
> now on will be based on the 160-meter A/B tests only.  The same
> differences have been noted by me in the past with some radios checked
> where they performed better on 160m than on 10m compared to th MP.
>
> I should mention here that the comparison between the MP and the K2 were
> done using all of the receivers' resources.  The MP was using it's 125 Hz
> xtal filter and 60 Hz DSP filter while the K2 had its variable xtal
> filter set to 100 Hz and it audio filter was set to AF2 (80 Hz).  Both of
> those receivers are equal on both 160m but the MP is slightly better on
> 10m.
>
> Because the FT-1000D does not have a built-in DSP filter, I'm rating it
> in 3rd place just behind the MP and K2 which are tied for 1st place.
>
> Here is the updated list of receivers checked so far at K6SE, in order
> from best to worst:
>
>  1) Yaesu FT-1000MP (with INRAD mod)
>  1) Elecraft K2 (tied for first place)
>  3) Yaesu FT-1000D
>  4) Kenwood TS-830S
>  4) Kenwood TS-870S (tied with the TS-830S)
>  6) Yaesu FT-1000MP (without the INRAD mod)
>  7) Yaesu FT-757
>  8) Icom IC-775DSP
>  9) Ten-Tec Omni VI+
> 10) Icom IC-756
> 10) Ten-Tec Orion
>
> As more radios are A/B tested, I'll update the list.
>
> 73, de Earl, K6SE
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
> to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> You must be a list member to post to the list.
> Postings must be plain text (no HTML or attachments).
> See: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Elecraft Web Page: http://www.elecraft.com