Steve,
A few thoughts about the FT-2000:
I've waited for the folks with more experience with the FT-2000 to
weigh in with their comments. But since you're still wondering if the
MTUs would improve the strong-signal performance, I'll offer these
comments, based on 2 hours experience with the '2000 and a PRO-III at
the HRO store in Burbank a few months ago.
First of all, it didn't take long at all for me to realize I was much
more comfortable with the '2000 than with the PRO-III. I own a MK V,
and I've been able to borrow a PRO-II for a week, so I could have been
comfortable with either radio. The PRO-III required a lot more work
with menus than the '2000 did, and the width and passband adjustment
arrangement on the '2000 seemed much (read MUCH) easier to use than
the equivalents on the PRO-III.
Other pluses: The noise blanker seemed to work better than the one on
the PRO III. Two big tuning knobs is better than one. The "feel" of
the radio, when one turns the knobs is better than that of the PRO
III. (Yaesu has some people who understand the human factors side of
the radio business.) The key click and audio problems of the earlier
'1000 series have, I'm told, been removed or at least mitigated.
Since my experience with the radios covered a couple hours in
mid-afternoon on a Monday, I didn't have many strong signals to listen
around. So I've got to bow to the guys who've tried to use the '2000
in DX and contest situations and found it wanting. I could barely
notice a difference when I switched around among the "roofing filters"
on the '2000. You'd need a crowded band to see what they can do. But
I did notice that, contrary to the reasoning behind their default
settings, the wider ones were better for copying weak signals.
As for the micro-tune units...again, you'd need a crowded band to
appreciate them. But my impression was that they make a more
noticable difference than the ones on the FT-9000DX do (I was able to
borrow one for a few weeks), and the performance of the MTUs on both
of these radios fall short of the VRF feature on the MK V. One reason
for this may be that the MTUs on the '9000 and the '2000 track the
tuning of the main dial, whereas the VRF on the MK V has to be
adjusted manually. The manual adjustment on the MK V allows you to
tune through the sharp peak and hear the sharp response. If I
remember correctly, the manual tuning range on the '2000 is minor and
doesn't give a sense of the sharpness of the filters.
If I were inclined to spend big bucks for the MTUs to upgrade front
end performance on 160, I'd invest it in a Palstar MW550P preselector
instead. It doesn't offer any help on 80 or 40m, but it's a champ on
160. I'd bring my Beverages in through it to the receiver antenna
port.
The IDBT feature of the MK V (which the '2000 doesn't have) lets the
MK V pull ahead, in my estimation. I also find the EDSP functions in
the MK V to be useful when the band is noisy. These are handled
differently in the '2000, and I don't think its DSP works as well.
Bottom line...when the '2000 was announced, I started putting money
aside to buy one. After using one for a couple hours, I changed my
mind. I'll keep my MK V a little longer.
Brad, KV5V
> Well, I got some interesting answers to my original inquiry about the FT-2000
> vs. Orion II.
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|