I won't repeat the previous posts on the topic, except for this... "DSP receivers with wide roofing filters can be a problem..." For anyone with a 756PRO, if you haven't modified the receiver, I can
Very interesting Jim. That's another good case the ARRL publishing close-spaced testing. The symptoms sound like what the FT1000's (and other Yaesu rigs) do except in them it is caused by IM products
On a related topic, I just got done "declicking" the local club's Yeasu FT-1000 per the procedure on Tom's website. In order to see just how dramatic the improvement was, I decided to do a pre and po
problems would be corrected. Manufacturers will only test the parameters that get headlines in reviews, so the real key is getting the ARRL to publish close-spaced test data and occupied bandwidth da
"...I ran the numbers, and sure enough, an S-9 +30dB signal from an FT-1000 would have composite noise sidebands that would be 20dB above the rigs minimum discernable signal...." "...I would sure hat
I'll let Mike answer, but I was assuming he was referring to the original FT-1000, NOT the MP/MkV. I've heard many FT-1000(D) transmitters on the air that have been burdened by noisy sidebands, and s
Some 1000MP transmitters hiss a lot more than others. I think there was something on this reflector about proper alignment a year or so ago. I believe a K7 had a rig back to Yaesu a few times, and th
This is becoming more and more interesting. I have to agree, the IMD products in my FT1000MP provide anomalies in the form of clicks and thumps continuously during a contest. So, given that informati
On Feb 4, 2004, at 8:25 AM, Barry N1EU wrote: I'll let Mike answer, but I was assuming he was referring to the original FT-1000, NOT the MP/MkV. I've heard many FT-1000(D) transmitters on the air tha
Hi Joe, You are correct. Close spaced performance has long been neglected for both receivers and transmitters. That's why it important we keep pressure on the ARRL to publish close spaced results in
At 03:43 PM 2/4/04 -0500, Tom Rauch wrote: In the FT1000MP MK V, you have to go into a menu and change a NB setting to reduce NB gain. The only reason the MK V tests so much worse than other top-end
Yes, that is correct, Barry. The rig I was referring to is the original FT-1000. The noise sidebands I measured were pretty consistent with the TX composite noise measured in the ARRL test report, so
Steve, When I installed the Tom, W8JI's click mod into our club's FT-1000 last weekend, I noticed the same thing. Most of the screws holding the AF and IF boards to the chassis were barely snug. Now
Can any one offer a reason why we get the following differences between the MK5 and the Field: FT-1000MkV 69 100 Elecraft K2 66 115 TS-870 63 87 FT-1000Field 60 88 I was under the impression that the
MK5 and the Field: Clive, I would also add the original MP to your query: Radio IMD BDR FT-1000MP* 78* 108 FT-1000MkV 69 100 FT-1000Field 60 88 *FT-1000MP IMD at 2 kHz and BDR at ~500 Hz per KC1SX. T
On my MkV setting A/B gain to minimum was not enough. This probably depends on individual transistor characteristcs. Safe way is to do the mod. 73, Sinisa YT1NT, VA3TTN ______________________________
How about unit-to-unit variation and measurement uncertainty? Parameters in question are not adjusted/tested/guaranteed by manufacturers, so the values "just happen". 73, Sinisa YT1NT, VA3TTN _______
I don't think they will. Anything more than about 80-90dB down is virtually never a problem. My own FT1000 only raises my own very quiet noise floor by about 25dB with 1/2 mile antenna separation, a
It's because of the noise blanker fellows. I can make a FT1000 series or almost any Yaesu test anywhere from 60- 80 dB for IM3 by fiddling with the bias on the NB amplifier FET. That why the best pol
virtually Tom, For folks in rural areas like yourself that are fairly distant from other amateurs, you are probably correct that 80-90dB is sufficient. Try living on the side of mountain in a metrop