[CQ-Contest] RE: [UK-CONTEST] FT1000 or FT1000MP? (LONG) - SUMMARY/DECISION

[Steve Jones]

Happy New Year to all, and thanks to all your helpful replies to my
original questions. Here is a shortish summary of what I got / have
concluded:

A number of people replying advised me to keep the ft1000 and sell the
MP - including some who had bought an MP and/or a Mk5. I received some
good advice regarding the mods to cure the main weaknesses of the
ft1000.

Of those that had switched to an MP, some mentioned that they found the
IMD problems less with the MP - although at least one person found it
was worse and several said that the MP was little or no improvement over
the ft1000.

Of those that had switched to the Mk5 from an MP, the majority referred
to the loss of the filter selection method that is on the MP. Some
mentioned a slight improvement in the dsp operation on ssb, but most
people said there was little or no move forward in the areas that are
most important to contesting. A number of people who had the 200w mk5
said they would buy the field if buying again. A number also said that
they would buy original MPs if replacing their SO2R stations rather than
mk5s, having seen little advantage following their purchase of a mk5.

On transverting options, clearly the MP and mk5 have facilities whereas
the ft1000/d does not. I have been advised that there is a mod to add a
transverter output onto the ft1000d - so if anyone has information on
this or where I can find it please let me know by direct email.

Myself and some friends here locally on Anglesey compared the following
radios during one long afternoon session over the holiday - my ft1000,
MP, IC7400, and a loaned ic756proII. We tested them on receive only,
using the same bandwidth, no dsp, into a variety of appropriate
antennas, on 10m, 80, 15m and (crucially)40m. The bottom line was that
in terms of hearing weak signals all four radios were good, with
virtually nothing between them. The only real difference we encountered
was on 40m cw, where the ft1000 seemed to suffer more than the other
three radios from an adjacent strong cw stations clicks (500hz filter
was employed on all four radios). This confirmed that the ft1000 would
need to be modified if it is to stay, to improve in this area - info I
received pointed to the possibility of a 20% improvement if one of the
well known mods is implemented. 

We also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the ergonomics of
all four radios, and the second rx issue in respect of the ft1000 and
the MP. As I am interested in spending more time on the low bands over
the next cycle minimum, the ability to have antenna diversity reception
as well as mode and bandwidth diversity is considered important.

We concluded that (not surprisingly) you could live with any of the four
radios tested for contesting/dxing. It largely comes down to personal
preferences, flexibility, whether you need a 200w radio for SO2R as you
only have one pa etc etc.

FWIW, my decision is that I can live with either the FT1000 or the MP as
my main radio, but that there is insufficient advantage in buying a mk5.
If I did buy a mk5 it would be the field version, as I have a pa and
don't intend to implement SO2R yet. If I wanted to implement SO2R at
present I would keep both the ft1000 and the MP, running the former as
the second radio (barefoot), or I would sell the ft1000 and buy another
MP (I am finding it confusing using the different models on the bench,
and can see the advantage of having the two same radios, not just the
same manufacturer).

The bottom line is that the MP is going and the original FT1000 is
staying, and will now (post 2 year warranty) be the subject of a series
of mods to improve the IMD, tuning rate, synchro the two vfos, cure the
key clicks on tx, and possibly add a transverter output. 

WHY? 

I think the FT1000 (modified) will be a better contest radio and lf
dxing radio for me.

DSP has not yet come of age (although Icom are nearly there it appears)
and everyone I received replies from confirmed they were reliant on a
full set of filters.

The diversity reception option and 2nd rx implementation in the ft1000
is better suited to my contesting and lf dxing ambitions.

Pure personal preference - I like a lot of things about the original MP,
but I HATE staring at that display, and I don't think anyone will build
another radio to the same physical quality as the ft1000/d - plus I find
that when I am in the middle of a big contest the simplicity and
convenient location of the controls of the ft1000, plus the sound of its
audio on both ssb and cw is less tiring.

So there you have it - its very much a personal decision at the end of
the day. It will be interesting to see if Yaesu bring something out to
compete with the new Icom on its way here - maybe an original FT1000
quality build radio, with all the imd and other problems sorted at the
design stage, and an IF DSP system that actually makes a significant
difference on ssb? In the meantime people's experiences with the Ten Tec
Orion will make interesting reading.

Thanks again for all your input (on and off board). My mint condition
FT1000MPac with Inrad board, box etc goes on sale via the g3cwi website
tomorrow or sometime soon.      

Steve GW0GEI


-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: 30 December 2003 12:00
To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Cc: uk-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] FT1000 or FT1000MP? (LONG)

Seasons greetings to all.
 
I would appreciate people's view as to whether I should keep my 2 year
old FT1000 (non D) radio, or the mint condition FT1000MP which I bought
in December
SNIP
I am particularly interested in hearing from contesters who switched
from the 1000 to the original MP - what were the perceived advantages of
switching, and did your view change with the benefit of hindsight?  Do
you find the dsp useful with ssb contesting? 

I am equally interested in honest opinions from people who have switched
from the MP to a MK5 or
MK5Field recently - ie perceived advantages and the actual experience
after switching.