TopBand: Topband Receiver Survey - Results
Earl W Cunningham
k6se@juno.com
Sat, 07 Feb 1998 18:49:37 EST
Hi, All,
I want to thank all (about 30 replied) who responded to the survey on
receivers used by Topband DX operators.
I've grouped the comments received to the 9 original questions I asked.
If an answer states, "It's the best receiver of the all...", keep in mind
that it's the response to that specific question and not necessarily an
overall opinion.
Here are the questions and comments:
------------------------------------
1) How do you rate the receiver for hearing those weak signals in the
noise?
The TS-870S is the best receiver I have heard for digging out CW signals.
The SPAC DSP is simply the best for CW, and usually offers a subjective
6 db increase in s/n ratio. I occasionally add the Timewave 59 Plus to
the audio side, but the improvement is rarely more than a db or two. --
K4IQ
I use the FT-1000D with a Beverage. I find it hears very well. -- N4XD
My IC-756 is not bad, but not the best. -- KR9U
Here at W8BAR/W8WEJ, we use the Kenwood 940 and 850.. they are excellent
receivers in contest conditions. -- W8WEJ
Sensitivity is NOT a problem on my FT-102, with rx noise well below the
noise level coming in on any antenna. A multiplicity of antennas for rx
makes more difference to dxing than rx sensitivity. -- G3RZP
My TS-940 is better than some I have tried (IC706, TS830, 1000MP), equal
to the Omni VI Plus, maybe a little short of the TS570 for sensitivity
but beats it on selectivity. -- KJ9C
My TenTec Omni 6 and Kenwood TS-930 are both on line at all times. Both
receivers listen equally well. I have never heard anything on one that I
could not hear on the other. -- N4SU
I use the FT-1000MP, had FT-1000D before. The MP is the better one. --
ON4UN
My Omni VI Plus is the best receiver I have ever used in 35 years as a
ham. -- N4ALG
My FT-1000MP has a more rugged front end than my TS-930, but they both
will pull weak signals in. -- W4ZV
The FT-1000MP is as good as any I've heard here when other ops bring
their radios for M/M contesting. -- N6RO
I can usually hear what the other guys are hearing with either my TS-940
or Drake R-4C. -- AA1K
I rate my FT-1000MP as very good. -- ZS6EZ
Since the noise level here is usually very low (S0 is common in winter) I
usually outhear my transmitter anyway. The 500 and 250 Hz filters in my
FT-990 seem to work well without the loss of gain you get in some rigs
when switching to the narrower filters. The SCAF filter on the FT-990
appears to work as good or better as the filtering from an external DSP.
So I would rate the FT-990 pretty good. -- KL7Y
I have 20 working rcvrs or xcvrs, including old Hammarlund SP-600,
R-390As, R-388, 75A4, Drake R-4C, TS-940, Ten Tec Omni 6, etc. My first
choice to pull out a weak sig on 160 is the Omni 6 but it can't do the
job if there's strong adjacent channel QRM. Under these condx the R-4C or
R-390A do a much better job. I might add that the 75A4 does a very good
job also but I tend to use the Drake or R-390A when it gets RUFF. I rank
the top 4 RXs I have as:
TenTec Omni 6 --- Very good
Drake R-4C --- Very good
Collins R-390A --- Good to very good
Kenwood TS-940S --- Good
-- WD4JRA
R-4C, excellent - TS-830S, fair -- K3UL
My IC-735 is mediocore. My Omni VI Plus is the best I have ever heard,
especially with the DSP engaged. -- W7FKF
I'm always looking for the very marginal signals - weak ones that are
just barely readable, and those signals were readable about the same on
either a borrowed Omni VI Plus or my Drake R-4C. -- 4X4NJ
I rate my IC-775DSP fairly good compared to my old Drake R-4C. -- N0TT
My intent with this question was really meant to find out how the various
receivers performed for weak signal reception through use of narrow CW
filters (to enhance S/N ratio) and/or DSP. I agree emphatically with
G3RZP's comments. IMHO, a receiver's RF sensitivity is hardly a factor
on 160m where, even on a quiet night, the atmospheric noise (on any
antenna) is always many dB above any modern receiver's noise floor. --
K6SE
===============================
2) What filter bandwidth do you use for CW to hear those weak signals?
My TS-870S will work well on weak signals with DSP down to about 200 Hz,
but if the signal is a bit stronger, will provide good results at 50 Hz.
-- K4IQ
Filter b/w used on my FT-1000D depends on how crowded the band is.
Typically on a non-contest nite I use 500 Hz. -- N4XD
I usually use the narrowest BW on my TS-850 with audio filters cranked
in. -- N0JK
On my IC-765 I use 500 or 250 Hz, depending on the atmospheric noise. --
KR9U
Most of the time the filter combination I use in my Omni VI Plus is: .5
1st IF, 1.8 or .5 2nd IF cascaded. Very occasionally I use the .250 2nd
IF. For split each VFO remembers its own filter setting, i.e., when
searching the "calling freq" you can leave the 1st IF (nar.) filter out
and make it easier to find the caller. -- N0IJ
400 Hz IRC CW filters, with K6STI DSP Blaster. (TS-930) -- NI6T
In contest conditions, 500hz ...otherwise, whatever we need to crank in.
(TS-940 & TS-850) -- W8WEJ
Selectivity on my FT-102 isn't too bad, but there is some 'creep' around
the filters. Usually, however, the phase noise of other people's rigs
(especially FT1000's!) is more of a problem. I find the best bandwidth
for weak signals is a variable, depending upon the form of the noise that
I'm getting - and it does vary with time. I usually use 800Hz, dropping
to 200Hz when necessary. -- G3RZP
I use both 500 hz CW IF filters in my TS-940, plus VBT cranked down to
maybe 200-300 Hz to knock down the noise. -- KJ9C
On CW I use the narrowest IF selectivity backed up with extreme narrow
400 Hz CW audio from an Autek QF-1A. I have tried audio DSP boxes and
have given up on them. The analog Autek has the advantage that AF gain
is inversely proportional to AF selectivity, i.e., AF gain increases as
AF bandwidth is decreased. This feature yanks very weak sigs right out
of the mud and has impressed visitors here when I switch the Autek off
and on. -- N4SU
Mostly 500, sometimes 250 Hz. Depends. In contests and when not too
crowded 500 is better, to hear those guys that can't zero beat (80 % !!).
Actually it would be nice to have 800 Hz or so in CW as well. When
signals are really weak and when not too much noise you can pull out sigs
on 250 Hz that you cannot hear on 500 Hz (less noise in less bandwidth).
-- ON4UN
In My Omni VI Plus, I use 250Hz with sidetone at 500-600Hz. Looking
forward to the new filter from N4TY. -- N4ALG
I love the FT-1000MP's 250 Hz filters, especially with the resolution set
to about 1.5 kHz per turn. It makes the 250 Hz filter feel like a 500 Hz
in terms of ease of tuning. -- W4ZV
For scanning for stations (non-contest), I use 2.1 Khz on my FT-1000MP.
Once I find something, 500 hz. 250 Hz is only useful for crowded band
condx with fairly strong sigs. You can also use the slope tuning to
reduce or shift the IF passband. -- N6RO
I had almost always used the CW filter in my TS-940 (stock Kenwood 500
hz) for the past 6 years, because at my old "urban" QTH there was a
fairly high local noise level and it helped cut through that. Now that
we have just moved out to a country location, I find I'm using the wide
setting much more frequently because of the greater sensitivity (or
perhaps I should say less insertion loss than the narrow filter). Of
course in the contest I used the narrow filter mostly because the band
was more crowded. But there were still many times I was able to use the
wide filter, cranking back the CW VBT a bit. -- AA1K
I use 500 Hz in both IFs of my FT-1000MP. The 250 Hz filter is somewhat
ringy, and doesn't help much for our QRN-laden signals (very seldom under
S9). However, the 500 Hz Collins mechanical filters are great. -- ZS6EZ
Normally, I use 500 Hz for weak sigs and close up the SCAF on the FT-990.
The 250 Hz filter I do use sometimes, but the noise causes ringing which
makes copy hard. The 250 Hz I use for QRM, not QRN. -- KL7Y
I normally use 500 cycles. -- WD4JRA
R-4C, 250 Hz -- TS-830S, 500 Hz -- K3UL
IC735, 500 Hz -- Omni VI Plus, 500 and 250 Hz -- W7FKF
My Drake R-4C has the narrow Sherwood first IF filter, and the 250 Hz 2nd
IF filter. The second IF filter is an excellent Japanese-made filter
that was replaced by Drake when the original one had problems. I've also
modified the detector by replacing the Germanium diodes with Hot Carrier
diodes. Another improvement is a dual-gate MOS Fet Preselector that
includes a bandpass filter for 160M and 20 dB of gain. Audio filtering
is provided by an outboard Timewave DSP-59+ and a homebrew analog 90 Hz
BW filter centered on 700 Hz. -- 4X4NJ
If the band is very quiet, I search using 2.4KHz in each IF. When
operating under usual conditions, use Yaesu 500Hz and Collins 500Hz
filters cascaded. The addition of the Collins filter sharpens the
FT-1000MP RX up considerably. -- VK6VZ
As narrow as possible under crowded condx. I have narrow CW filters
installed in my IC-775DSP. I use a wider bandwidth when band isn't
crowded, especially when searching for new stations. -- N0TT
I use Kenwood's narrowest CW filters (250 Hz/270 Hz) in my TS-830S. In
addition to that, I use the VBT control to narrow the passband even more
and get a noticeable improvement in S/N ratio on weak signals. Scanning
the band in this mode is difficult, however, especially with the 25 Khz
per turn of the VFO knob! -- K6SE
===============================
3) If the receiver has DSP, how effective is it for 160m weak signal
work?
Extremely. (TS-870S) -- K4IQ
I use an external DSP box (Timewave DSP599ZX) with my FT-1000D. It is a
FANTASTIC addition to the shack. For weak sigs narrowing the b/w is
quite effective as is the random noise blanking capability. Certainly
cuts down on the listener fatigue. -- N4XD
The new Omni VI Plus DSP noise reduction often makes a dramatic
difference, and occasionally makes little difference - apparantly due to
different types of noises. Very much a worthwhile addition. It adds
very little negative distortion, etc. -- N0IJ
My TS-930 RX does not have DSP. The K6STI DSP Blaster helps sometimes.
-- NI6T
When used, DSP is external (the W9GR DSP11) - it is used in ssb mode for
cw and works very well. (TS-940 & TS-850) -- W8WEJ
I use a DSP9 audio DSP with my FT-102; it's not as good on CW as on SSB,
but can make all the difference, depending upon the sort of noise it has
to handle. Straight white noise (as on 2m CW) is more easily handled, I
find, than the 'sharsh' noise from power lines, fluorescent lights and
the like that is so common on 160. -- G3RZP
No rx DSP in my TS-940, but outboard Timewave 59 Plus helps a lot in
enhancing signal/noise. -- KJ9C
The DSP in the Omni 6 is worthless. I doubt that any of the newer boxes
can perform any better. -- N4SU
Very effective - much less tiring. DSP works great on the FT-1000MP. It
is on ALL the time with me. That is the major plus vs the FT-1000D. --
ON4UN
My Omni VI Plus DSP is OK some of the time, seems like a mild echo is a
byproduct. I think the ear-brain still has DSP filters whipped. -- N4ALG
I do find certain settings of the FT-1000MP's DSP to be very effective on
160 noise. -- W4ZV
The four DSP noise profiles in the FT-1000MP seem to help, but you can't
continuously change the DSP BW, like on the newer FT920. One mode of
audio peak really makes a CW sig pop out of the noise. -- N6RO
No DSP in the TS-940, but I use an outboard Timewave DSP59+ and it is
very helpful at times. More so though at the old QTH with the higher
ambient noise level. -- AA1K
The DSP in my FT-1000MP is not very effective. It's generally OK for
QRM, but not for QRN. QRN is our main problem. -- ZS6EZ
There's no true DSP on the FT-990, but the SCAF has made the difference
between no copy and a QSO. -- KL7Y
DSP on my Omni VI Plus means I can copy - without it sig not useable. --
W7FKF
Another addition with my Drake R4C is the Timewave DSP-59+ outboard DSP
unit that I use with the bandwidth set at 50 Hz. I still use my homebrew
analog 90 Hz BW audio filter to clean up the tinny & distorted-sounding
Timewave audio. -- 4X4NJ
The FT-1000MP's DSP is occasionally very useful - when there is a lot of
static, the DSP NR can sometimes make unreadable signals readable. --
VK6VZ
My IC-775 has DSP but there's really no time to fool around with it in
the heat of a contest. Same for external audio DSP audio filters. --
N0TT
I use the JPS NIR-12 with my TS-830S. It works amazingly well on SSB,
but is of limited use on CW (except for thunderstorm crashes). I've come
to the conclusion that when using narrow IF selectivity on CW, little or
no improvement can be made by using DSP. This assumption seems to bear
out, because if I use my wide (2400 Hz) filter on CW, the DSP then makes
a startling improvement! -- K6SE
===============================
4) How does the receiver perform in a strong adjacent signal environment,
such as during a 160m contest weekend?
I must use my TS-870's AIP to avoid signal products in passband of
digital IF. By activating the menu item that restores the "lost" signal
(18 db or so), which I assume is just the preamp, the signal is back
without much hash. -- K4IQ
My FT-1000D works GREAT with stong adjacent sigs present. -- N4XD
My TS-850 works great on CW in a strong signal environment. Weak signals
on my old TS-680 would disappear into the noise when a strong signal
fired up, but it was OK outside of contests -- N0JK
Decent, but I usually use the attenuator in those cases. (IC-765) -- KR9U
Strong nearby signal handling for my Omni VI Plus is of little concern
most of the time and significantly better than other rigs used. -- N0IJ
My TS-930 is overloaded by strong locals. -- NI6T
TS-940 - fair, TS-850, good. -- W8WEJ
Without the RF amp switched in, my much-modified FT-102 runs at a +16 dBm
intercept point, and about a 12 dB noise figure, which is more than
adequate on 160 - unless you've a very low noise ant. The 1 dB gain
compression point is about +4 dBm. I've never noticed an overload
problem. Note that I use a tuned loop on Rx, fed by a push pull cathode
follower, so the maximum signal level is lower than off the tx vertical;
the EWE is even lower, but even on the Tx vertical I've never noticed a
problem. The interferers to cause IMD products to get above the noise
would need to be at greater than -18 dBm, and that's one hell of a
signal. I don't have any hams nearer than 5 miles, and any top band hams
within 15 miles. While selectivity is dependent on the phase noise
capability, the usable dynamic range is a mixture of sensitivity,
selectivity, intercept point and phase noise. The 102 seems adequate -
as modified. In the final eventuality, you can only use the performance
of the other users' transmitters. -- G3RZP
With both IF filters, my TS-940 works great. Can separate strong signals
well, even if 2 or 3 per Khz. Exception is W9RE, who is about 8 miles
EAST (in line with my busiest beverage). -- KJ9C
Both of my receivers (TS-930 & Omni 6) seem to perform equally well in a
strong adjacent signal environment, especially when backed up with the
Autek AF selectivity. -- N4SU
The FT-1000MP is the best (in a strong signal environment). Ask a multi
contest station, like K3LR. -- ON4UN
My Omni VI Plus performs like nothing you would believe. N4AR lives
about a mile as the crow flies from my qth and I can HEAR his "little
pistol" station (4-square/KW), but it doesn't swamp/pump the rx when more
than 3-5kHz away. -- N4ALG
The FT-1000MP's 500 Hz filter was adequate; if desired signals are loud
enough, the 250 Hz is really narrow and deep. -- N6RO
The TS-940's performance in a strong signal environment is pretty good.
The outboard DSP makes it possible to work very close. Many times I
would find a weak DX station right under a loud stateside station who was
calling CQ and didn't hear the DX. -- AA1K
My FT-1000MP performs very well when strong signals are present; I can
come within 1 kHz of S9+40 locals. -- ZS6EZ
I have no problems with my FT-990, even with NL7Z only 6 miles away.
There was one time a few years ago where there were 3 other full-bore
stations between 3 and 10 miles of me, all with full size antennas and
the rig didn't fold up. I regularly work to within one kHz of NL7Z on CW.
-- KL7Y
In a strong signal environment, I rate my 4 favorite receivers as
follows:
TenTec Omni 6 --- Fair
Drake R-4C --- Very Good
Collins R390A --- Very Good
Kenwood TS-940s --- Fair
-- WD4JRA
R-4C, excellent - TS-830S, fair -- K3UL
My IC-735 was almost unusable in a strong signal environment. My Omni VI
Plus in 250hz mode is 90% effective. I live near many topband KW+
operators here in Philly. The Omni VI Plus makes a big difference. --
W7FKF
The FT-1000MP has the best front-end of any Rx I have owned. I can get
within 1KHz of other VK6 topband operators - My IC-751A and TS-830S would
not let me get closer than 4 to 5 KHz. -- VK6VZ
My IC-775DSP is not as good as my old Drake R4C, but tweaking the "notch"
control really helps to filter out QRM from nearby strong stations. --
N0TT
Local (2 miles away) W6FW used to mercilessly clobber my R-4C. He still
does with my TS-830S. Other than with local signals, I have no problem
with strong signals that skip in. -- K6SE
===============================
5) How well does its noise blanker perform on various noises? (Most NBs
I've used work great until a nearby strong signal appears. This causes
the NB to act like it's turned off during key-down periods of the strong
signal -- maybe there's a model out there that doesn't have this
shortcoming.
I don't use my TS-870's analog NB much, but the DSP is very effective on
all noise. -- K4IQ
I find the FT-1000D noise blanker useless on 160. I am blessed with
little man-made noise (i.e. power line etc). -- N4XD
My TS-850 NB doesn't work too well. The NB on my old TS-680 actually
seemed better. -- N0JK
As most, my IC-765 NB is somewhat selective on the type of noise it
responds to. Of course during a contest it's completely useless. -- KR9U
My Omni VI Plus noise blanker seems of little value. -- N0IJ
My TS-930's NB performs better than most I have heard, but shares the
same shortcomings. It is best on steady pole noise from the primaries.
-- NI6T
The noise blanker in my FT-102 is somewhat like the comment of Isambard
Kingdom Brunel on the brakes on the trains of the Great Western Railway -
tolerably useless. The difficulty is that if you have the noise blanker
after the selectivity, the noise pulses are stretched so much that
blanking kills the signal; if you don't, strong adjacent frequency
signals kill the blanker. -- G3RZP
The TS-940 NB has the same NB shortcomings. Excellent blanker for power
line noise, but strong signals swamp it. -- KJ9C
I have a fairly quiet location and never use a noise blanker. Any time
the receiver sounds "queer" I make sure the NB is turned off. -- N4SU
The NB in my Omni VI Plus is most satisfying for the electric fence noise
that is irritating rather than devistating. It seems to contribute to
reducing, but not eliminating, the rare hash of 60Hz(+harmonics). The
DSP seems to "fill" with trash from this noise source. -- N4ALG
Under non-contest condx, the blanker in the FT-1000MP is effective, more
so as the filter BW is narrowed. But, still suffers from pumping when
local signals are within 5 Khz. -- N6RO
The TS-940's NB is excellent when the band is not crowded, but useless
when it is. My old TS-180S had a tuneable NB so you could place the
"sensing" out of the band and away from strong signals, which helped
some. Maybe newer rigs should try that. -- AA1K
The FT-1000MP's NB works OK against impulse noise, not at all on QRN.
All noise blankers are non-linear devices, which by definition destroys
your intermod performance. -- ZS6EZ
I think there is a trade off between noise blanking and overload. I
think some blankers work better than my FT-990's, but they seem to
overload more. The FT-990 is not the best noise blanker I've ever heard,
but it's not bad, either. While it does still overload, it is better
than almost anything I've used. -- KL7Y
I haven't found a NB that works with adjacent strong sigs. -- WD4JRA
R-4C, fair - TS-830S, fair (both suffer from the same shortcomings that
you describe) -- K3UL
NB is ok but neither my IC-735 nor Omni VI Plus NBs seem all that
impressive. I really didn't try the NB under contest condx. -- W7FKF
NB1 on my FT-1000MP is useful for some electrical noise, but NB2 distorts
signals dreadfully. DSP noise reduction sometimes helps with static.
Overall, the FT1000MP is the best receiver I've ever had, but I'd swap
NB2 for the one on my old IC-751A or TS-830S. -- VK6VZ
The NB in my TS-830S works extremely well on my oft-heard power line
noises -- until an S9+ signal appears on the band! -- K6SE
===============================
6) Pro and con comparisons of your receiver versus another model which
you might have made should prove to be highly interesting.
My Drake R-4C is not bad, but lacks the ultimate sensitivity and the 6 dB
boost from SPAC DSP of my TS-870S. The 850 I had before may have had a
dB or more sensitivity, but no DSP. -- K4IQ
The TS-850 is much better that the TS-680 I used previously -- N0JK
After many side-by-side comparisons, my list of receivers in order of
preference is:
1. FT-1000MP
2. FT-1000D
3. TS-950SDX
4. TS-930
5. IC-765 but only after replacing the switching diodes with PIN
diodes.
6. IC-751A
The worst receiver I ever used was a TS-940. I operated it side by side
with a TS-930 for several months. I could easily hear and work stations
on the 930 that were not at all perceptible on the 940. I have not tried
the IC-775DSP, IC-781, TS-850, TS-870, or any Ten Tec, so I can't comment
on those. -- K9RJ
I love the cw vbt on the TS-940 and wish that it were on the TS-850. --
W8WEJ
I ran side-by-side comparisons of my TS-940 with IC 706, Omni VI plus,
1000MP. I sent the Omni back, put the 706 in the truck for 40 and 20
meter CW mobile work. The 1000MP seemed to be better on some signals,
not as good on others. I have more "signal tuning" options with the
940/DSP than the 1000MP provides. The 940 is as sensitive and almost as
good as the Omni in selectivity. Did not get a good feel for the
1000MP's weak signal sensitivity. I lose a little in signal strength
with the narrower bandpasses with the 940, and it takes a little more
work to dig out weak signals than the Omni and 1000MP take, but the
difference is not worth the cost. -- KJ9C
The FT-1000MP beats the FT-1000D. The 1000D was much better than the
TS940 and TS930 I had before. I once tried the TS950 and that was a BAD
radio. -- ON4UN
Additional rigs I have are the Ten-Tec Delta and Corsair-II. Both have
very good receivers. The Corsair-II probably being the finest analog
receiver I've ever listened to. There is no comparison between the
OMNI-VI+ and the Delta/Corsair-II, not even close. I still have a
TS-830S and once had a TS-820, again not even close to the Delta or
Corsair-II in rx quality, definitely not in the OMNI-VI+ league. -- N4ALG
The FT-1000MP is superior to anything we've tried here, including R-4C,
TS-830, TS-930, 940, 950SDX, FT-990, IC-755. Have not had the FT-1000D
or IC-781 to try. Very subjective non-detailed conclusions here. -- N6RO
The only real comparisons I made with my TS-940 are with the Drake R-4C
with Sherwood mods and with the TS-180S. The TS-180S (single conversion)
could actually be more sensitive at times - but much less useful with
other signals nearby. -- AA1K
There is one major shortcoming on the FT1000MP: There should have been a
1 kHz filter (between the 2.0 and 0.5 that we have now). The 0.5 is too
narrow for band searching, while 2.0 is too wide for high noise levels.
-- ZS5EZ
I've used lots of rigs and I find the FT-990 to be a great contest rig.
It's simple, easy-to-use and works well. The first time I used the
FT-990 I liked the controls - they acted and responded exactly as I
thought they should. Cons for the FT-990 are no monitor, annoying audio
hiss heard on quiet bands and I would like more sensitivity on the higher
bands. Dual receive would be nice, too, but that's another price class.
-- KL7Y
My R-4C is a signifacantly better receiver than my TS-830S but the
convenience factor is much easier to use the TS-830S. -- K3UL
I looked at all the XCVRs in the Omni VI Plus price class. All 3 popular
rigs sounded ok in the stores so I bought ARRL reports for all 3 and each
had minor differences but nothing really separating them. I talked to
guys on the air that had each and they all liked them. After 2 years of
dinking around and agonizing I drove down to Tennessee and met with Ten
Tec and asked lots of questions. I chose the Omni VI Plus because it
appeared to have a little better RX than the others IMHO. After several
months of listening and use I am calling DX on 80 and 30, especially when
it appears I am the only one hearing them. On topband my INV Vee is only
70' at apex so it doesn't get out that well with 100w, but I still hear
some stns that nobody calls but that rarely happens as most guys around
here seem to have good ears. -- W7FKF
Since the Omni 6+ is said to have one of the best receivers currently
available, my conclusion (from extensive comparisons) is that the Drake
R-4C is right up there with the best of them! -- 4X4NJ
I swear the manufacturers put CW in a transceiver as an afterthought! I
hate a bunch of clacking relays when I operate full break-in (even fairly
quiet ones). Also, I'll bet that the engineers who design radios don't
operate in CW topband contests! Anyway...there are good and bad features
to every radio. I would like to try them all, but I can't just push the
"old" radios off the side of a hill and buy another one. I have managed
to put RIT in my old Drake R-4C/T-4XC to at least make it usable for
contesting. That radio is good overall, but I think my IC-775DSP is a
shade better. The 775 just needs to be more "contest friendly". It has
too many frequency controls/buttons to push accidentally. But it is a
lot easier to tune up, QSY to another band, etc than the Drake. Summary:
I like my IC-775DSP. -- N0TT
I prefer the TS-830S over my old Drake C-line, mainly due to its
comparative ease of operation and narrow CW selectivity (via the VBT).
The R-4C had the 125 Hz Sherwood filter, BTW. -- K6SE
==============================
7) Is there any special feature the receiver has that makes Topband
operating a greater pleasure than it already is?
Yes, the SPAC DSP on my TS-870A. Also, Yuri, K3BU's simple diode mod for
external beverage switching is great. -- K4IQ
The best feature of my FT1000D is the ability to easily switch in the
Beverage receiving antenna. Also, for split operations I like the dual
receivers and the ability to tune off with the receiver and/or transmit
RIT AND zero one or both with the push of a button. I've had other rigs
where you had to turn the knob to zero it out. -- N4XD
For my IC-756: Good filter options, various attenuator options, variable
pitch control that "tracks" transmit, easy split operation, full QSK, an
easy external antenna input for Beverages and such, and good isolation on
the external receive path that doesn't blow the front end while using a
Beverage. -- KR9U
My TS-930's OFF switch - it reduces noise enormously. -- NI6T
For being an old rig (ca 1989) the TS-940 has most all the features of
the newer rigs except internal DSP, and I like the mechanical filters for
dealing with strong signals. I also like being able to center my CW
signal at 450 hz, rather than the 800 the Omni VI+ is best at. (With the
250 hz filters in, you'd better have your CW sidetone set near 800Hz or
the Omni will lose the signal). All in all, when you look at the QST
reviews, and the stats, the 940 still holds its own. -- KJ9C
Incredible brick-wall, high-isolation xtal filters that simply don't ring
or overshoot. Excellent RF-derived AGC. The high dynamic range and
intercept point are clearly obvious when "slicing' the bands. And, QSK
you can hear between 35-wpm dits. (Omni VI Plus) -- N4ALG
I like to listen to a low tone and the FT-1000MP is one of the first
radios (not counting the IC-781) that goes down to 300 Hz tone offset.
Most others stop at 400 Hz. -- W4ZV
You might enjoy the dual receive capability of the FT-1000MP. Dozens of
times during the CQ 160, I would find a new station on the sub RX during
the 4 to 5 seconds between CQs while also listening for CQ response on
the main RX. Stereo headset is required here. -- N6RO
The TS-940's CW VBT and AF Tune (AF peaking) are used frequently and are
very useful. The Notch is used occasionally and can be very useful under
some conditions. The CW pitch is useful -- almost always set for a very
low note. -- AA1K
I like the FT-1000MP's built-in Rx antenna switching. -- ZS6EZ
The RX ANT switch on the FT-990 can be changed to switch in just an
antenna or an entire unit such as a filter or ANC-4. The SCAF works
great. I like that I can choose SSB filter bandwidths on CW, too. --
KL7Y
With my R-4C it seems that the filter skirts are tighter (than with my
TS-830S) and as you put in the narrow filter, signals actually improve.
-- K3UL
The FT-1000MP's separate Rx antenna facility! -- VK6VZ
VBT is the feature I like the most in my TS-830S. Yaesu calls this
control "width" and ICOM calls it "twin PBT". No receiver should be
witout it! -- K6SE
==============================
8) If you don't completely like your receiver, what model would you
prefer to have, and why?
The TS-870S beats everything I've tried here, but I'd like to play with a
1000MP to see how it does. -- K4IQ
I rate my Omni VI Plus rcvr as excellent. My particular interest is cw
contesting and low band dxing and I believe it is hard to beat for
either. I can't imagine a better low band receiver, but I haven't tried
them all, either!! -- N0IJ
I would like any other receiver (than my TS-930), as long as it is
SOMEWHERE ELSE. -- NI6T
I haven't seen anything yet that would convince me to change from my
FT-102, and I'm probably too mean to spend the money anyway. -- G3RZP
If there's a better RX (than the TS940) out there, I'd buy it. So far
the FT-1000MP would be an "acceptable" substitute, but the high center
sidetone frequency of the Omni VI Plus was enough for me to send it back
for a refund. If there had been FACTORY IF filters centered at 400 or
even 500 Hz, I probably would have kept the Omni. It really is a CW
operator's rig. -- KJ9C
I am happy with my FT-1000MP, I know it's the best around at this time,
but -- I would like to see: - more IF filters (e.g. 800 Hz or 1000 Hz), -
less IF hiss ( I use an outboard analog audio filter with a good audio
amp), - still less VCO noise. -- ON4UN
I can't imagine, from my limited experience, a namebrand xcvr that could
outperform the OMNI-VI+ except an offering from the high priest of
receiver design, Dr. Ulriche Rhode himself. -- N4ALG
My only major complaint on the FT-1000MP is that the audio of the
sidetone has very high harmonic content. Sometimes that makes
zero-beating more difficult than it should be. -- W4ZV
Until the follow-on to the FT-1000MP or a radical introduction by Kenwood
or ICOM, I don't see anything to rival it. Special purpose homebrew RXs
will always outperform a commercial product, but I don't know who's doing
that these days. -- N6RO
If I won the lottery today, I'd probably buy a fully-filtered FT-1000MP
tomorrow. While it is more complex than my FT-990, I think the DSP and
dual receive would be a step up. -- KL7Y
I will be checking out my friend's FT-1000 MP soon and want to see just
how good it treats my ears. -- WD4JRA
I would really like to add a modern radio to my station to replace both
the aging Drake Line which (because of "too many knobs" and concern over
replacement parts, especially tubes) and my little Kenwood TS-430S. It's
been suggested to me that the Omni 6+, the Yaesu 1000 MP, or the Icom 775
would be the best candidates. -- 4X4NJ
I'd really like to try a late model FT-1000 - a VK6 friend has one and I
think hears better than me - or an IC-765 (despite the FT-1000MP being a
great Rx, I like the feel/sound of my old inferior IC-751A better and the
IC-765 is supposed to be a very good CW rig...). I would also like to
try an Omni-6 Plus, because of past experience with Ten Tec equipment. I
would really like to try an old Hammarlund HQ-170 because VE1ZZ has
one... -- VK6VZ
Until 1984, I could out-hear anyone on the West Coast with my TS-830S or
R-4C. When I returned to the air after a 12-year hiatus in 1996, I found
that others are obviously hearing better than me. I don't think the
Beverages I had then (and don't now) are the entire reason, but I may be
wrong. Anyway, the plan is to upgrade to a more modern rig/receiver. --
K6SE
===============================
9) Any other comments you may have.
Overall I have found the FT1000D to be a superb low band radio. I like
having the DSP box external and, unlike the FT1000MP, I have immediate
access to the various adjustments of the DSP box. I do not have to dig
thru menus to get to it and can optimize it on the fly. In my opinion, a
hard combo to beat. -- N4XD
In the last few years I've owned a number of top of the line radios. It
is clear that there are subtle, but very real, differences in the
receivers. Also, performance parameters for weak-signal CW DXing on 160
are different than what might be important for other kinds of operations.
Also, I have often seen that the best receiver on CW is not the best on
SSB, and vice versa. -- K9RJ
My TS-930 has the classic product detector blowby problem, so that
turning the RF gain down a lot, especially with the AGC off, is limited
by the fed-through carrier. It also makes use of the DSP (K6STI?) peaking
filter impossible. -- NI6T
It's still a question of antennas. Without directivity the strong guys
can swamp the front end and wipe out a weaker station from the opposite
direction. What we really need is an antenna that will ignore signals
within 1500 miles. (WW2Y, WB9Z, W9RE, W3LPL, GH, both BB's, AH, HA,
etc...) -- KJ9C
I love the low-pass filter in my Omni VI Plus for getting rid of the
audio/atmospheric hiss. -- N4ALG
The recent CQ 160 CW was my first CW contest with the FT-1000MP and I was
very pleased with it. -- W4ZV
I think the Omni VI Plus DSP is wonderful. I had a JPS NIR-10 and 12 and
both had delay in CW mode which was distracting to me. The Omni VI Plus
sounds a little hollow, but very little delay in DSP mode. Also, the
full QSK mode is so fast that you can't miss anything going on while
transmitting. I could never use that mode on my IC-735 because it caused
key clicks, so I was stuck in semi mode and missed what was going on
while I was sending. -- W7FKF
Thanks again to all for their comments. 73, de Earl, K6SE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(end of summary)
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com