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

[Dick Green]

Steve,

IMHO, The 1000D is a much better contest rig than the MP and is much better
on the low bands as well. The MP always sounds muffled to me by comparison.
My biggest beef with the MP is the AGC, which is too fast for dealing with
large contest pileups (even with the INRAD AGC mod.) Keep the 1000D.

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Jones [mailto:steve at rjtraining.fsnet.co.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:00 AM
> To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Cc: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-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. I bought the latter in 
> order to carry out some a/b tests over Christmas holiday, and 
> to also compare with the rx of my ic7400 (mainly used on 6 
> and 2m) and a friend's ic756proII.  
>  
> To put the dilemma into context my current and future interests are as
> follows:
>  
> 1.	To continue HF contesting (hence the need to keep one twin rx
> radio)
>  
> 2.	To become more active on the lower bands as we go down the cycle
> (40m four square construction started, and plans for bigger 
> 80m and 160m antennas), hence the need for a decent rx on low 
> bands, and also option of diversity reception (plan to put a 
> big loop across one of my fields)
>  
> 3.	I'd like to have the option of transverting onto 70mhz again
> from 10m (so rx performance on 10m and ease of transverting is
> desirable)
>  
> 4.	I continue to have an interest in 10m, so a decent rx on 10m is
> also important
>  
>  
> I would welcome people's views on which of the 1000's I 
> should keep. My Christmas tests are not yet complete, but so 
> far the ic7400 has been impressive on LF and 10m on RX (but 
> not as good as the two 1000's in handling qrm (without using 
> the dsp- all radios compared using the stock 2.4 bandwidth. 
> to be fair), so I am comfortable keeping the ic7400 as my 
> second HF/6/2m radio. The difference between the two 1000s 
> (so far) has been marginal on  160m, 80m and 10m, and when I 
> have tried the MP's dsp I cannot say that it has made a 
> noticeable difference on ssb. The MP has had the Inrad 70mhz 
> mod carried out, so there is no hiss problem on rx that I can detect.
>  
> 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. I have considered the option of 
> selling both the 1000 and the MP and going for the 200w mk5 
> plus the 6m transverter (6m has been main band here for 15 
> years), but have been told of birdie problems on the 
> transverter plus some failure problems with the mk5 itself. 
> The MK5 Field is an option I would consider seriously if 
> someone who has used one in anger can convince me its better 
> than either the ft1000 or the original MP. 
>  
> My gut feeling at present is to stick with my original 
> decision 2 years ago (when I could have bought either the 
> ft1000 (USA import) or the outgoing original MP) and continue 
> to keep the ft1000 (stock cw 500hz and 250hz filters, plus an 
> Inrad 1.8 ssb filter I added to the 455 if), as I don't think 
> any manufacturer will ever build such a quality radio as the 
> original FT1000 again.  However I like the MP too (for its 
> easy configuration, transverting, and auto notch).  If I am 
> persuaded to keep the MP then I would probably buy the Inrad 
> 8.2mhz if 1.8 ssb filter to give me cascaded 1.8s on ssb, and 
> add at least another cw filter and the second rx 400hz Inrad 
> cw filter. If I keep the FT1000 I will add the BPF to give 
> true diversity rx , as well as the Inrad 400hz second rx cw filter .
>  
> I am sure some will suggest keeping both the 1000s for SO2R, 
> but I don't intend trying SO2R for quite a while yet, and I 
> would rather use the ic7400 with its 100w on 6m and 2m for 
> PAs than go down the transverter route on all the vhf bands 
> (been there with my ft920 and its too messy).
>  
> So there you have it - which 1000 would you keep and why 
> please. In order to keep the use of bandwidth down it might 
> be better to mail me direct, and I will sumarise to the 
> reflector if there is enough demand, or will email direct 
> those that want to know the outcome.
>  
> Final final question - I remember there used to be a website 
> with equip details of active contest stations but could not 
> find it on the web yesterday - is it still available? I am 
> interested to see what all the big guns are currently using 
> (without having to go to each of their individual web sites).
>  
> Thanks for the bandwidth and HNY for 2004
>  
> 73
>  
> Steve GW0GEI      
>  
>