[Kenwood] 480, or 2000

[J. Moen]

I like the sound of the 480's received audio, but for weak signals, or for 
selectivity, the TS-2000 appears to be somewhat better.

The TS-2000 has so many additional features, including band coverage to 440 
mhz (or 1.2 ghz for the X version), cross-band repeat, DX Cluster, Satellite 
mode, a second receiver for VHF/UHF, remote control over RF (Sky Command), 
internal TNC -- that is why many of us like the TS-2000.  But if all you 
want is a very good HF transceiver, and one with a very small footprint to 
boot, the 480 is ideal for you.  Plus, the 480 has some interesting features 
of its own, in particular remote control over a network or the internet. 
The 480 is also really easy and comfortable to operate.

Both are good radios, and it depends on what you plan to do.

  Jim - K6JM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe" <n3ain at hotmail.com>
To: <kenwood at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:23 PM
Subject: [Kenwood] 480, or 2000


> Hi. Any of you out there have both rigs to compare them? I heard the 
> receive on the 480 is hands down better than the more expensive 2000 with 
> better dynamic range. If that's the case, why spend the extra money for 
> the 2000. Of course, I'm just asking about HF. performance since I know 
> the 480 doesn't have VHF. In my research, it seems like having VHF in the 
> rig is the only plus for buying the 2000 if in fact you want everything in 
> one rig. If any of you have ever compared these two back to back, please 
> let me know. I want more than just opinions. Thanks and 73. Joe.
>