[Yaesu] FT-920 IS Good, but Not Best

[Nate Bargmann]

* WD8ARZ <WD8ARZ@IX.NETCOM.COM> [2002 Mar 03 06:48 -0600]:

Points well taken, Bill.

> Actually there is not a filter or dsp setting in the FT-920 that you can not
> set in the FT-1000MP. The variable adjustment for the Dsp on the 920 is
> great and convent, and I wish it were on the MP, but there is no room on the
> large control panel. But the same adjustments can be made in the menu
> section of the MP that are obtained with the variable adjustment of the 920.

I guess Yaesu made the design decision to hide the true functionallity
of the radio in the menus instead of hiding some of the current buttons
there to make room for the '920 style DSP controls.  Maybe they have
market information that "real" contesters won't buy a radio with two
concentric knobs on it!  ;-)

My experience tells me that when band conditions change, you are much
more limited by some preset than having a wide range of near infinite
adjustment at your finger tips.

> Choice of settings in the MP can be pre-setup.You can have pre-selections
> groupings set up that meets most conditions. There are three levels of
> adjustments. One affects dsp options when Dsp is off. Yes, you can set some
> of the detector and filter width options for fall back when DSP is off.
> Second group of settings kick in when turning on just the DSP 'on button',
> but not having any DSP panel options switched in. The last grouping allows
> different settings when the DSP is on, AND a DSP option is selected. Each
> mode has its own adjustments of course. The first grouping is set for about
> the widest options wanted for each mode. The second grouping is tighter,
> with a noticable change in band width narrowing down from the first
> grouping. The third set is the tighter grouping (not neccassarly the
> tightest options - the user option button can be set up for that if needed
> (thus a 'fourth' leval, or make manual changes in the menu). Many user's set
> 'all' MP menu options for the widest available choice, and that is
> incorrect. Were not looking for FM quality here under all conditions, but
> signal to noise intellagibility. The end result is a much improved listening
> quality that conciderably reduces listener fatique.

Okay, but how quick/easy are those selections when you'd like a bit more
DSP on a moments notice?  Not having three or four days to learn the MkV
prior to last year's SS (I was at the other guy's shack) these features
were not obvious.

> The end result is much the same as the 920 of having Dsp settings from the
> front panel that meet your most common conditions. How often do you change
> your settings on the 920? .... not often, and there is a tendency to use
> about the same set up for the same similar conditions. The same is now met
> on the MP when it is configured as above.

Actually, I found I jump around quite a bit.  In all fairness most of
my '920 usage is centered around working a net.  While that may not seem
"serious" it does give me an opportunity to use the DSP quite a bit.  I
know the limitations of the '920 DSP lie in the fact it works at AF and
is out of the AGC loop.  Here the MkV has a real opportunity to shine
and I didn't find it last fall.

I had high hopes given the hype surrounding the MkV the past couple of
years, but I'd venture that we'd have done no worse had we used my
FT-890 as we had in years past, and perhaps may have performed better as
we ran into some issues that wouldn't have arisen with the '890.

In fairness, I stepped into the shack expecting to be able to belly up
to the radio and just use it.  It seems the MkV requires some tweaking
and hacking to get the most out of it, much like the Linux computer I'm
using right now.  Once configured it will run like a charm, straight and
true.

I guess I aproach this discussion from the angle that the radio is a
means to an end and not the end to itself.

>From your description it seems like a lot of work to get the MP/MkV to
work up to the level of the "inferior" '920.

> Lets also point out that Dsp, Noise Blanker, I.F. Notch, Width and Shift
> controls increase in performance as better filters are selected for the mode
> in use, and the band conditions encountered.  The MP has dual I.F. stage
> filter options that is one of the main reasons why it performs so well in
> strong signal environments. Filters not only improve the bandwidth choice
> being used, but the signal to noise ratio as well. This dual I.F. stage
> filtering option is just not available in the FT-920. The 920 just doesn't
> have the filter selections of the MP, and tests have indicated the filter
> stages in the 920 are not up to the performance that they should have
> (switching diode leakage, pcb layout ??).

I won't argue that.  I've discussed the filter blowby issue in this
forum previously and I understand well the limitation imposed by only
having filtering available in one IF.  I debated long and hard over
replacing a TS-850SAT with the '920.  Since I have done so, I have not
regretted it.  I do plan to add another INRAD filter (SSB as I have a CW
filter already, what a difference!) or two when I re-assemble my shack.

> Sorry, in the heat of the battle of band conditions, the 920 is not the same
> apple as the MP. Nice rig but just not the same. Otherwise why don't you
> hear the big guns in the dx pile ups using FT-920's?? 

Ummm, what do they use?  We know what the folks on the major DXpeditions 
are using as that is usually well publicized by the manufacturer that
donates the use of the radios.  What the stations on this end are using
is anyone's guess as the QSOs are generally too short to find out.  It
would make for an interesting survey, though.

The gentleman who owns the MkV I operated currently stands 4 countries 
away from the top of the honor roll.  His current position was acheived 
with a TS-440, arguably a much inferior rig to either the '920 or the MP.
Also, he has usually been one of the first to work the DXpeditions from 
the middle of the USA.  In his case he has the time, the antenna system,
the skills, and the desire to be there.  All, IMO, much more important
than the radio he uses.  My guess is he would be where he's at with an
HW-101, or worse!

> Unfortunatly, the MP
> menu system is one heck of a learning curve, and the factory default
> settings are just not optimum for the best performance.

Of the MkV owners, I wonder how many have bothered to engage this
learning curve?  Another interesting question, particularly for Yaesu's
engineering dept, I'd bet.

Sorry, but for my money, I would look hard at a 1000D and outboard DSP
rather than an MP or MkV.  On the other hand, I don't live in that price
range so the '920 is a great value for me.  I think Yaesu is selling
the '920 at about 60% of its true value.

Isn't it great that we can like a radio not just for its technical
merit, but for a host of subjective and non-measurable reasons?  At the
end of the day, to stay on my bench, a radio should be fun to use and
enhance the fun I derive from amateur radio.

73, de Nate >>

-- 
 Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB          | "We have awakened a
 Internet | n0nb@networksplus.net               | sleeping giant and
 Location | Bremen, Kansas USA EM19ov           | have instilled in him
  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | a terrible resolve".
             http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/           | - Admiral Yamomoto