[Yaesu] Yaesu FT920 vs Icom 746: Results of comparison

[W9UUM]

Was it the Icom IC-746 Pro or the old IC-746?
Jim W9UUM

---- W8OKN <w8okn at charter.net> wrote: 
> The Icom has a better receiver, so it is going to pick up more noise. 
> --
> >From the desk of W8OKN, northern Michigan
> 
> 
> ---- John Geiger <n5ten at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> 
> =============
> A couple of weeks ago I posted a message on the list
> asking how the Yaesu FT920 compared to the Icom 746. 
> Since that time I was able to directly compare the 2,
> and here is what I found, in case anyone else is on
> the fence about which one of these 2 to get.  
> 
> After comparing the Yaesu FT920 that I have been using
> to the Icom 746, I decided to keep the 920 and sell
> the 746.  The Icom does have 100 watts on 2m which
> would have been nice, better filter possiblities, and
> is a smaller package for roving and portable use, but
> here is why I decided to keep the 920:
> 
> 1. The 920 has a much quieter receiver.  On 20 and 30
> meters it was as quiet with the preamp on as the Icom
> is when you turn off the preamp.  One Friday morning
> I did an A/B comparison between the 2 rigs on 40 CW
> under the same conditions-preamps off, SSB bandwidth
> but in CW mode, same frequency at the low end of the
> band-and the difference was striking. The Yaesu had
> little or no noise showing on the meter, whereas the
> Icom was showing an S6 noise level.  Yes, part of that
> is due to the S meter differences (The QST reviews
> confirm this) but the Yaesu just sounded much quieter
> also.  While you may be able to use the tools on the
> 746 to dig signals out of the noise, listening to that
> kind of noise level wears you down after awhile.
> 
> 2. The FT920 gives you much more control over the
> level of receive sensitivity.  With the 746, you have
> 3 different possibilities:
>   a) Preamp on, Attenuator off
>   b) Both Preamp and Attenuator off
>   c) Preamp off, Attenuator on
> The Attenuator is fixed at 20db, which is too much
> most of the time.  On the FT920, there is a 3 step
> Attenuator-6db, 12db, and 18db.  You can also have
> both the Preamp and the Attenuator on at the same
> time, so you have a total of 8 different sensitivity
> levels.  
> 
> 3. The internal tuner works better on the FT920.  They
> both worked on 20m OK.  The 920 would load the dipole
> on 30 and 80m whereas the 746 wouldn't.  The 920 also
> loaded the mini quad on 17m where the 746 wouldn't. 
> Neither will load the dipole on 40m.  I did briefly
> try
> 15m and both will load the miniquad there.
> 
> 4. The SWR cutback feature is not near as aggressive
> on the FT920.  The 746 would start cutting back on
> power with a 1.5:1 SWR (which is ridiculous).  The 920
> would still put out full power into a 2:1 SWR.
> 
> 5. The receive audio and DSP sound much better on the
> 920.  I am not one of those hi-fi SSB type guys, but
> to me some SSB audio sounds better than others.  The
> 920 has about the third best received audio I have
> heard, right behind the TS950SDX and TS850.  The DSP
> on the FT920 also sounds smoother-removing the noise
> without adding any digital artifacts or distorting the
> received audio.  It has some of the best AF DSP I have
> heard.
> 
> 6. The 920 has more creature comforts.  The built in
> voice keyer is nice, and you can also record audio off
> the air to listen to again and again, if you like.  I
> like the CW tuning indicator which is useful for zero
> beating CW signals, as well as the spot key which also
> helps for that.  The ability to lower power to 10
> watts with the push of a button is nice for tuning the
> manual tuner-needed only on 40, and 160 due to the
> good internal tuner in the 920.  It just seemed that
> the 920 had the features I liked better.  Having a
> second VFO knob to tune VFO B is more useful than I
> imagined.  
> 
> 7. The noise blanker seems better in the 920
> also-taking out most of the crud I get from the
> neighborhood here.  It is one of the better ones I
> have seen, not quite as good as in the TS2000, but not
> far behind.
> 
> 8. The transmit audio monitor works much better on the
> FT920, and it is nice having the compression level
> control on the front panel, instead of on the rear of
> the radio, as on the 746.  Also, I don't believe the
> meter on the 746 will show DBs of compression, as the
> 920's meter will.  The transmit monitor showed me that
> I shouldn't mess with the transmit EQ settings, as the
> audio sounded best with that off.  
> 
> 9. The FT920 has a receive antenna jack, whereas the
> 746 doesn't.  The 920 also seems like it would be
> easier to use with a transverter as you have more
> control over power settings and such. For example, you
> can set antenna jack 2 to have a max of 10 watts out,
> and then use the RF power control to lower it from
> there.  Also, it seems that it would be fairly easy to
> set up the 920 with an external receiver to do dual
> receive, whereas this would be difficult with the 746.
> 
> Things I liked better on the 746 were:
> 
> 1. 2 meter capabilities, although 2 meter SSB isn't
> too active in my area.
> 2. Smaller size
> 3. The CW memory keyer is easier to program and use
> 4. Much better filter setup
> 5. The audio peak filter is nice on CW.
> 
> Overall, I just felt that the FT920 was a better rig
> for HF/6m given my style of operating, and I haven't
> regretted keeping it instead of the 746.  I still get
> amazed with how good the FT920 is each time I use it.
> 
> 73s John AA5JG
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> Yaesu mailing list
> Yaesu at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/yaesu
> _______________________________________________
> Yaesu mailing list
> Yaesu at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/yaesu