|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
Ivars Lauzums (KC4PX)
on
May 29, 2002
View comments about this article!
First of all, I usually never write any equipment reviews or have a formal methodology in testing performance of Amateur Radio equipment. I just felt that some of you would like to hear what I have observed.
As an avid VHF enthusiast, I decided to evaluate the latest VHF all mode transceivers for use in future VHF contests. This comparison is my viewpoint using on-the-air beacons and other Hams in Florida. The rigs used were TS2000X, IC-756Pro, FT-847 and IC-275H. First let me say all are excellent and should be considered for any shack. The FT-847, IC-756Pro and TS2000X all had their internal pre-amps on and the IC-275H was stock, no external pre-amp.
The 6 Meter comparison is still ongoing and awaiting the 50.077 beacon to be active next week. My thanks to NW5E for his assistance with a weak signal source (hi, slight pun here). My observation for the best receiver is FT-847, TS2000X then IC-756Pro for 6 meters. They all were close but the stock FT-847 did hear the best when signals were in the mud. My original thoughts and expectations for the FT-847 were low.... I assumed it would be last, but. I was pleasantly surprised it was #1. The TS2000X has a lot of really nice bells and whistles and a pleasure to operate, but this comparison was for hearing weak VHF. The IC-756Pro's main claim to fame is the band scope...a plus for contests and 6 meter activity spots. Using the beacon signal source will be needed to further validate who hears the best. I still have a feeling the TS2000X may come out ahead. Most of my 6 Meter activity has been with the IC-756Pro and I enjoy using it. The dual watch mode and band scope feature does keep the rig as my main choice as a 6 meter contest station, so far...
On 2 meters, I used the 144.285 beacon and moved my antenna so the signal was in the noise. The FT-847 and IC-275H were neck and neck for top honors. The TS2000X was excellent, but when I just could make out the CW on the two other rigs, I could NOT hear a signal on the TS2000X. This was a surprise.
On 432, the FT-847 again out preformed the TS2000X on receive using the 432.390 beacon. It was close, but my ears could copy the CW better on the FT-847.
I'm still waiting for a 1296 loop yagi to try out the TS2000X and continue this evaluation. One day of testing is also not sufficient to make final judgement on the performance of any rig. I do plan to continue on the air comparisons with VHF enthusiast in the South East. More to come later.. I hope this helps some of you VHF enthusiast.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KB1FLR on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice review. Did you have the pre-amp on or off for the ts-2000? Makes a big difference having it on with this rig.
73 de Rick, KB1FLR
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by K9PO on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
His second paragraph said he did. The results do not surprise me as I tested the TS-2000 against the FT847 myself. I ended up with the FT847 becasue the recevier was better at weak signal work than the TS2000. The bells and whistles are nice but for my application the FT847 performed in a better manner.
73
Scott
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Ivars, nice comments!
If you'd like to make some actual lab measurements, I've got the gear (still, as always) and wouldn't mind measuring MDS, 3rd order intercept, blocking sensitivity, and other factors that can be difficult to evaluate by only listening -- but that make a difference when the going gets tough, like in a contest.
Since 50 MHz is a rather "low" frequency that is normally solar noise limited with any kind of a decent receiver connected to an outdoor antenna, I suspect the differences you observed really had nothing to do with front-end noise figure, and a lot more to do with IF shaping, IF noise, first IF flooring filter, any DSP features, noise immunity, etc. Of course, since the TS2000 and IC756PRO are both HF+ rigs, it's entirely possible that Kenwood and Icom used HF strategies with regard to T-R switching. For example, to achieve full QSK, most modern rigs use PIN diodes for T-R antenna switching, since they're affordable and extremely fast. Unfortunately, though, most inexpensive PINs are not great performers at VHF because ones optimized for power handling at HF have too much capacitance at VHF to be terribly useful.
73 de Steve, WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by K9MAN on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anyone know how the FT736R compares to the FT847 on receive? I thought FT736R was one of the best. What is the best receiver for 2 meter weak signal of all rigs?
Thanks and 73,
Joe K9MAN
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've owned an FT-736R since it was new in 1987 and I like it. It's highly versatile and a great way to manage four bands in one box, but it surely is not the end-all of two meter weak-signal rigs.
The best performing 2m weak-signal equipment I ever had was the Microwave Modules MMT144/28R connected to my Kenwood TS830S (or, really, any reasonably good HF rig that provides transverter connections). The SSB Electronic GmbH LT2S transverter, similarly connected, is also excellent.
Again, "sensitivity" is usually not the issue, because even a 0 dB noise figure front end is not terribly useful if the equipment that follows it stinks. And, after all, the difference in receiving sensitivity between a "0 dB" front end (theoretically impossible, although many $2 GaAsFETs come very close to zero) and a "mediocre" 2 dB front end is exactly 2 dB -- not a great deal. There's more difference in what happens after the front end, with regard to flooring filters, bandpass filters, noise rejection circuits, even audio shaping and noise, all of which contribute greatly to what can actually be heard using a receiver.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KB0CJ on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There ought to be different concerns on 6 and 2, depending upon band conditions and QRM. When 6 is wide open, and some signals are coming in 40 over 9, the ability of the receiver to read a weak station amongst the QRM (ie, blocking and dynamic range) is more important. The combination of a low noise floor and sensitivity is more important on 6 than on 2, although contesting on 2 may have the same considerations. Have you tested for strong-signal handling capabilities of these radios? ARRL product reports indicate that althought the 847 receives weak signals well, its front end is not bullet proof and is susceptible top overload with strong adjacent signals. Also, I'm curious if you (or anyone else) has compared the Mark V/FTV1000 6M transverter capabilities with these radios? And, what about the 746 or 746Pro, which covers both 6M and 2M?
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KC4PX on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All pre-Amps were on for each rig. I just obtained a 6 meter pre-amp from DownEast Microwave.... I'll have it hooked up this weekend..
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KC4PX on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB0CJ - I wish I had all the available rigs to compare. I do however agree that the dynamic range of a receiver is most critical in contest work. My guess would be that the FT-847 will not be usable when 6 is wide open with S9+40 signals... the Pro will be my choice. We shall see during the June VHF Contest. I hear that the Mark V/FTV1000 6M transverter capabilities are impressive. As for the 746,I have no data today.
I still like the IC-275H for its receive capabilities. I plan on using this rig as an IF for 2304 and also compare it to the other rigs on 2 Meters during the contest.
Transverters do offer the best performance.. but they do require sequencing and care in hook up when using QRO. I love the feedback.. keep it coming.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KC4PX on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Steve... thanks for the offer with Lab testing, but the contesting environment is key here.... if you can't hear them, you can't work em....
As you can probably conjecture, I'm back in VHF/UHF contesting. Except for 902Mhz (for now) I'm QRV from 6 thru 2304. Wife however says, "NO, a loud NO" to the three towers I had in NJ... I have to settle to 1 1/2 (the 1/2 is a small 20 ft Rohn next to the house for 1296 & 2304
73 Ivars
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Ivars,
Maybe the 1/2 tower will grow, if you water it at night!
Re "lab" testing: Yes, I agree. But contest conditions can be easily simulated using dual signal generators and measuring received weak signal degradation. I do this all the time, and I wish the ARRL Lab would start doing it, because it's a very valid test.
As an example, I'll use a 6m rig and place an S9+60dB signal at 50.125, then offset the receiver 10 kHz to 50.115 and 50.135 and measure its sensitivity there, while I slowly reduce the jamming signal 10 kHz offset, and plot the results graphically. And then re-run the test at 15 kHz, 20 kHz, 100 kHz, etc offsets. It's an easy test to perform, and very "telling" with regard to contest worthiness.
Another example: Using a 2m rig, I'll multiplex two signals to its input, a very strong (say 1.0Vpk) signal at 50.125 and a very weak (say, 0.1 uVpk) signal at 144.200 and plot what, if any, effect the six meter signal has on the receiver's sensitivity on two meters. Some do great, some do very poorly, and it's hard to "guess" at this unless you really run the test.
73 & DX!
Steve, WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by NI6G on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is exactly the information I needed! I had been looking at both the 2000 and the PRO. Currently, I have a stock FT-847. Although adequate, it will collapse during crowded conditions with many strong signals. In an F2 opening to Japan with locals up the band, the AGC will pump and CW signals will sound fuzzy or masked. My antenna is an M2 6M7JHV at 35 feet. I have been using the FT-847 as an IF for 902, 1296 and 2304 MHz. Like everyone here, I am searching for the ultimate 6 meter rig. It looks like the Mark V/FT-1000V combo might be the way to go. Thanks for a great article.
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by VE4HST on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello There,
I bought the TS570DG, and did not have to break the bank. Works like a dream. Has some very nice bells and whistles too!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VE4HST
Harry
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N8YV on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a few observations about this post. First, a test of the "latest" VHF rigs could not include an Icom 275H, a rig that predates every other model listed in this article. The technology of the 275H's era simply does not allow a "fair" comparison of this rig among such an advanced field of players.
Another problem lies in the design objectives of the rigs chosen. The TS2000 and FT847 are both rigs which cover HF, VHF and some UHF bands. Not so with either the IC-275H or 756Pro, both of which lack UHF and one that is strictly a monoband rig.
I understand this is informal, off-the-cuff and at best a "scrambled-eggs" test, but so much has been overlooked that it becomes almost pointless to perform any real comparisons. If a similar project were undertaken with automobiles, for example, the field may consist of a Corvette, a HumVee, a Lincoln Continental and a motorcycle!
This is not an attempt to play favorites among brands, simply my questioning of the choice of rigs to begin with. Not only does this make the playing field very uneven, it makes any type of conclusion absolutely baseless, even for casual purposes.
Perhaps an Icom 746, whether the latest PRO version or not, would provide a better balance and more meaningful results than the inclusion of either the vintage 275H or the HF+6 756PRO?
Also, I disagree that the 756PRO's "claim to fame" is its bandscope! No, I think Icom spent a great deal of effort in other areas to make sure its beloved "Pro" would be a superb rig---with or without the visual effects! That the 756PRO is being compared to "VHF" rigs when it is only capable of one VHF band, can be forgiven if one chooses to limit the testing to six meters---which would, again exclude the 275H.
I am not trying to play the "spoiler" here, but let's at least be honest and stick to the premise laid-out in the beginning. The latest VHF allmode rigs in a "shootout" should at least all be "firing the same weapons".
I did enjoy the article's concept, it's always fun to put stuff together and see how it works---but its implementation leaves much to be done, before any real results can be considered.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KC4PX on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8YV - Well I do agree that the IC-275H is not the "latest", however the four rigs were in my posession. The concept of comparing them all came during a 6 meter chat with locals in Florida. I decided to test the rigs I owned - and post it here only as an FYI to all of the eHam visitors.
I am pleased to see such activity here and other user viewpoints. That was my other goal - to activate the thinking caps of Hams who own multiple transceivers and compare "in shack" performance. Please remember, perception RULES...
Keep the posts comming.... we all want your opinions.
73 Ivars
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N0GV on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice comparison. The FT-847 improves its strong signal capabilities vis-a-vis overload and blanking when you add the optional filter from INRAD (1.8kHz for contest, 2.1kHz for normal use).... I'd agree though that this is critical in a open band and crowded environment....
The FT-847 has really nice VHF/UHF capabilities and it does seem to me that you have hit the nail on the head with your testing (comparative results are always useful if the conditions are well documented).
As for the noise floor at 50 MHz, remember that the beamwidth and environmental noise are issues even at microwave frequencies -- the moon at apogee and full is quite a nice noise source against a T < 20K background and the sun is a real noise generator....! On the other hand at night, well above the ground with the beam oriented to the far horizon the noise at 50 MHz is quite a bit below what it is at 14 MHz.....
Grover Larkins
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the article's fair, since the author explained exactly what he did, and with what equipment. The 6m version of the IC-275, the IC-575, was an excellent piece of gear that would likely run rings around the other three rigs cited for comparison here. Unfortunately, the author didn't have one to try!
A most interesting observation is that specified sensitivity, or even measured sensitivity, does not make the receiver. There are many variables, and more come into play under "contest" conditions or during major band openings (6m) where both very strong and very weak signals populate the band. It's often surprising what really works best.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by K2WH on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Check out the ARRL lab tests on the TS2000, IC-756pro and other HF rigs.
The TS2000 receiver is the worst of the group. The pro was at the top of the list.
Really go read it.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N8YV on May 29, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To WB2WIK: I'd like to see the Icom 756's performance on 2 meters, as compared to the FT847 and the TS2000. I'd also like to see the IC-275H's six-meter performance, compared to the Kenwood and Yaesu rigs, as well.
If this evaluation was meant as a "shootout", the only impartial way to determine the performance of each rig against all others tested, is with all four transceivers held to the same set of standards, with each transceiver CAPABLE of being tested to those standards.
As the 756 PRO and IC275 are not comparable to the other two rigs, their inclusion is meaningless and the real "shootout" is only between the TS2000 and the FT847. Compare LIKE units, not dissimilar ones, is the point I am making here.
The results are further convoluted in their lack of complete 6-meter comparisons, as the author states.
I am interested in the 50 MHz performance evaluations when these become available, the non-qualified IC-275H excepted, of course. I am willing to go out on a limb here by placing my "bet" on the 756PRO! Any takers...?
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by W0BKR on May 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Much good info. Keep in mind, however, the IC-275 was designed as a stand alone 2 meter radio, something that usually does make a significant difference as compared to the "all in one box" design(s).
One point also that should be emphasized, is how each performs with signals within 5 kHz that is a strng signal. The 847 I know flops at that. 756PRO is good.
Also, the 756PRO is an HF rig with 6 thrown in to sweeten the pot when considering a radio. I don't think you can really include the PRO in these comparisons unless you start talking about HF performance.
Interesting selection of radios. Wonder why the IC-820/821 was selected or the IC-746. I usually compare radio's performance based upon the QST reviews making a spread sheet to see the actual numbers, as long as they are the same units of measure and the same testing conditions.
Bottom line, I think the 847/2000 perform well on 2 meters and up, the 275 holds its own on 2 meters, the PRO works best on HF.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KC4PX on May 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To: W0BKR
The reason these specific radios were used is because I own them and was curious on how they each performed on VHF/UHF. I did not have access to any other units due to the fact the XYL said "NO".
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Chris et al:
Although I read the QST reviews and am impressed by their technical depth, they still don't perform the kind of complete testing that I do, myself. One area where the ARRL Lab evidently lacks expertise, or possibly equipment, is cross-band signal handling, i.e., placing a strong out of band signal and a weak in-band signal on the same RX port and monitoring changes in receiver performance. For VHF "contesting" conditions, this is critical, as it's likely a 6m station running a kW will be operating next to a 2m station, with antennas very near each other. I've seen, in this situation, that the big signal on six will destroy weak-signal performance on 2, even though the signals are nearly 100 MHz apart.
That's just one example, there's lots of others.
Also, it's easy to forget unless you've operated a lot of VHF contests from mountaintop locations with large antenna arrays just how incredibly strong VHF signals can be...orders of magnitude stronger than any signals encountered on the HF bands. Unless you have a next door neighbor running a kW on 20 meters, normally the strongest signal on the band at any time will be about 10mV. On two meters, a mountaintop station running a 20 dB gain antenna system will encounter signals that are easily 10x that level. Reasons include: Nobody has a 20dB gain antenna on 20 meters; and LOS signals on VHF are far stronger than propagated signals on 20m, even ones coming from quite close by.
There's lots of interesting tests to be run, and lab measurements can simulate all of them -- but people just don't perform all the right ones.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KZ9G on May 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Steve,
I, too, would like to see these receiver performance tests on all the popular VHF and UHF weak-signal radios of the last twenty years. I believe the ARRL's laboratory expanded test-result reports cover most the tests your doing, like the blocking and two-tone 3rd order dynamic range tests. Now, if they could just go back and do these popular radios of the last twenty years...
BTW, my FT-920 faired quite well concerning these sensitivity and dynamic range tests in the ARRL's expanded report on the radio.
The ARRL's FT-920 6 mtr results:
Receiver sensitivity (MDS): -131.4 dBm (preamp off); -137.1 dBm (preamp on)
20 KHz Blocking Dynamic Range (dB): -137.4 (preamp off); -120.1 (preamp on)
20/50 KHz 2-Tone IMD Test (dB): >100 (preamp off); approx 91 to 103 (preamp off)
I think it's a keeper - now if I can just a yagi up in the air again.
73 de Steve, KZ9G
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The League does a pretty good job, especially over the past few years. However, tests I've _never_ seen them run include:
Mixed band delta (increased) distortion and delta (decreased) sensitivity;
Spurious response created by out of band strong signals;
Phase noise increase created by out of band strong signals;
Images created by out of band strong signals; or in-band ones, for that matter!
These are relatively easy to run and are vital to "contest station" performance for multi-band situations.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by W0BKR on May 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, indeed, it's a mixed bag of info to be sure.
I think a good comparison, if one were to compile info, could be grouped as follows,
and keep in mind, this is not "all inclusive".
TS-2000
FT-847
FT-736R
IC-746PRO
IC-746
IC-756PRO2
IC-756PRO
FT-920
TS-950SDX
TS-850
FT-1000D
FT-1000MP
IC-781
I think that would generate some interesting results. Of course, one could just pull QST reviews and summarize, but as Steve ("WIK") mentioned, there are more areas to consider. IN the older reviews, it was never measured as to receiver performance with a strong signal 5 kHz away from teh receive frequency. That is something new to the reviews out of ARRL.
I would like to see all parameters standardized so each review is apples to apples, (i.e. dBM to DB, etc.) to make the numbers all comparable without translation or correlation to a common denominator.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N0GV on May 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi,
I can add a bit to the dission about the near in-band performance being critical to the HF recievers. I did a side-by-side test of the 756 Pro II and the FT-1000D with a S9+40 dB signal and an ~S2 signal about 2.5 kHz apart on 20m. The difference is 82 dB+ between the two signals -- the 1000D could be tweaked to allow *painful* copy of the S3 station, the PRO II never even heard it. I wondered at the time about this as I was using the same antenna on a switch between the 2 radios and I attributed it to either AGC Pumping, Blocking or Saturation/IMD Images. AGC Detection is done at the 36 kHz 3rd IF in the 756 Pro II and fed back to the 2nd IF Gain stage. This is done after the DSP Filter which should reduce/eliminate gain pumping but does not protect the gain stages from overload.... The filters in the 1st and 2nd IF are 15 and 6 kHz wide from what I remember of looking at them.... Hence the -82dB S3 station was swamped by IMD generated by the earlier stages whereas the 1000D had 2 filters of 2kHz BW in line in the 2nd and 3rd IF! This appeared to be the difference here.... The 756 Pro II sounded awesome -- if I had not played with the 1000D I would not have known that the S3 station was there though so that "quality of sound" test was clearly flawed....
Grover Larkins
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KZ9G on May 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Chris,
I read your comment about apples to apples in reference to dBm and dB. The test measurement methodology the League was explained well; these receiver measurements used two small signal generators utilizing the decibel scale. I'm sure both generators were calibrated to reference 1 milliwatt, so the reference "m" was dropped. Oh, the "m" in "dBm" just indicates the decibel measurement is referenced to a power level of 1 milliwatt, and/or that "0 dBm" is equivalent to 1 milliwatt at the selected impedance. In this case, the impedance is 50 Ohms. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KZ9G on May 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi again Steve:
I like these performance measurement ideas! You'd be the perfect candidate for running the ARRL lab after you retire from your present career. What do you say about that? BTW, no to CC&R's! 73 de Steven
|
| |
|
RE: N0GV and FT1000D Comments
|
|
|
by N8YV on May 31, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I noted with great interest your observations with regard to the PRO2 and the blocked signal. I seriously doubt that any of the digital-dependent receiver designs i.e., TenTec, Yaesu (1000MP-V/MP-Field), Icom, etc., would be able to pass this particular test.
This is why the 1000D, along with Icom's fabulous 781, remains among the finest modern transceivers available. DSP is still in its "adolescence", despite many recent gains made in the technology. I think what you are seeing between the two rigs is "living proof" of the value of superior filtering and just how far DSP has yet to go to truly reach the top.
There is a certain tendency these days toward padding, fluffing and dressing-up HF transceivers using all manner of features, at the expense of fundamental performance excellence. The 1000D remains the ONLY Yaesu 1000 of choice for those who understand this.
I would be curious to learn, under the same conditions as you performed this comparison, how an IC-746 (non-PRO) would compare in place of the 756PRO2. The 746 is a quad-conversion design, an anomaly among many transceivers these days. With its additional I-F stage, I wonder if it would have fared better, even though it is somewhat down the line compared to the 756PRO2, and far less costly.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 31, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KZ9G: Re running the League's lab, that would involve moving 3000 miles and taking about an 80% pay cut, so I can't afford it (and moved away from the Northeast for good reasons 14 years ago!)...however I do hope that as time passes, they do step up and run some more "interesting" testing, especially on multiband transceivers. Current test methodology seems to focus on per-band performance, or "all band" performance, with little attention to performance degradation created by out-of-band signals.
This is even more evident with miniature rigs like VHF-UHF handie-talkies, which in a closed lab environment can perform splendidly in a shielded system when tested "in band," while most fall apart in the presence of strong out-of-band signals. Based on "test data," most HT's on the market are just great, but every time I connect any one of them to my large "base station" antenna (6 dB gain, 60' high), I can't hear anything because the receivers go into immediate saturation from signals that are nowhere near the band I'm trying to listen to.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: N8YV comments about N0GV and FT1000D Comments
|
|
|
by N0GV on May 31, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would expect that a decent filter in the 2nd IF would remove this problem; I was suprised that the 756 Pro II did not have this option. Putting a DSP filter in the 2nd IF would have solved the problem too.... Perhaps the next generation DSP radio will solve this problem by moving the DSP to the 455 kHz IF and putting a crystal filter in the 8 MHz IF......
The other concern I have is that the transmit IMD is getting sort of sloppy in the more recent rigs -- the numbers on the 746 Pro are sort of unpleasant and the numbers on several other rigs of recent vintage could be better as well.
Oh well, perfection is always a goal and the recent stuff is closer but not yet there.....
Grover Larkins
|
| |
|
RE: N0GV and FT1000D Comments
|
|
|
by KC4PX on May 31, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8YV > I do have in my possession an FT-1000D. After the June contest, I do plan on finding some good quality transverters and use the FT1000D for further comparisons. As we all know, the Receivers (two) in the FT1000D are unmatched.
Any comments on the transverters for VHF and UHF to use???
73 to all
Ivars
|
| |
|
RE: N0GV and FT1000D Comments
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 31, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ivars, I guess you know about SSB Electronic GmbH, they're still around and making some mighty fine VHF-UHF xvtrs...last I looked, they were practically the only ones making one for 33cm, and of course cover the other bands as well.
Can't find anything better, currently.
Steve, WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: N0GV and FT1000D Comments
|
|
|
by KZ9G on May 31, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe you guys are right on track here. DSP implementation in ham radios to date has been less than optimal. I still feel the marriage of the best receiver performance concepts from the analog and digital worlds is necessary for great performance. That means 1 or 2 well designed crystal filtered stages in the 1st and 2nd if, to also include the a narrow roofing filter. IMHO, this should be accomplished before a DSP stage at or around the 455 KHz area. Now, isn't Yaesu is doing something like this with their Mark series of radios?
Anyway, It'll be interesting to see exactly what the new Ten-Tec Orion will have to offer us in this arena. They're promising the ham community quite a radio. 73.
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KD2E on May 31, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The age of the rig is not always a handicap.
I did the same test with weak 6 meter beacons and a few six meter rigs that I have. I used a local beacon, and swung the beam so it was barely discernable.
The rig that had the signal most able to copy was the old TR6. Then came the portable Yaesu FT690R, IC575H, PRO, Swan 250C and lastly FT625RD. I used a coax switch with many positions. The differance from the best to the worst is so small, that another lot of the same rigs could yield differant results.
I think the band scope on the Pro is a very helpful feature, so it has become my main rig.
Rig specs vary a bit, but the differance in actual operation is so small that I think a rig's "feel", features and sound quality are the most important items to note.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 31, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Dale,
I remember you from 6m back in the old days.
And I agree that hearing an S0 beacon 1-2 dB better on one rig vs. another doesn't mean a lot unless you do all your operating at 2:00am local when nobody's on the band.
Six, especially, is quite a complex band because it's so common for very strong signals and very weak signals to be on at the same time. A weak signal on six is a lot weaker than a weak signal on 40 meters. A lot weaker. Nobody can copy a -142dBm signal on 40 meters, but when the band's quiet, that is a workable signal on six. Unfortunately, just when you "think" it's workable, a guy with a +10dBm signal can appear 20 kHz up the band and there goes that contact.
The variations in equipment performance under those adverse conditions is far more important that "let's see who can hear a pin drop in Malta when nobody's on the band."
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: N0GV and FT1000D Comments
|
|
|
by W0FM on May 31, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice article. Some of the respondents here have made reference to the Yaesu FTV 1000. While K1SIX did not do a "shootout" per se with a bunch of other 6 meter receivers, Bob has offered some well-documented and interesting information on the performance of the FTV 1000 at:
http://www.conknet.com/~b_mobile/FTV1000_RX_SENSITIVITY.htm
Offered up for those who haven't already seen it
Terry, WØFM
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N8FVJ on June 1, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Interesting how test data do not always 'hold up' under weak signal or other conditions. For example, the Alinco 6 meter has a MDS of -140, BDR of 125dB and IMD of 86dB. Should be a super receiver on 6 meters, yet I was told it was not so hot of a performer! Best to date for me was the FT-920. I have a FT-625RD right now, but it seems the I.F. is too noisy masking signals in the noise. Think I will try an IC-575H. Anyone have one for sale? n8fvj@Hotmail.com
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by K9XYZ on June 1, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I "moved up" from an 847 to the fantastic TS2000 and I don't believe they compare at all. The 2000 is 10 times the radio the 847 is, the fact that you have true dual receive alone out does the 847 hands down. I beleive the only reason one would choose the 847 over the 2000 is to save money. You get what you pay for!!
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by AA9NN on June 1, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excellent "thread" and a nice comparison. I have owned 2 FT-847's and loved both of them. Not the best on HF but with Filters and the ATT it worked out well.I did sell them and a FT-920 to get the TS-2000.
With NO REGRETS ! The TS-2000 is an excellent radio. BUT if I could have gotten the 847 and the TS-2000 through the CFO (XYL)I would have kept the FT847 as well. I like the Pro and the ProII but felt there was more Bang for the "box" in the TS-2000. I dont contest often BUT I like a good receiver to listen to. I have NOT been dissapointed with the 2000 at all on HF or 6 meters. The FT847 did seem Hotter. But the 2000 holds it own very well.
This just goes to show that there is no 1 Radio that will satisfy so many different operating situations.
Cheers
Jim AA9NN
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N2YEV on June 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I have had in the last couple of years all of the rigs metioned above EXCEPT the TS-2000. I must say that most of the rcommendations and comments are accurate from all the posts. Although I am partial the ICOM and Yaesu brands from the last 20 years of trying and playing with all the different rigs I've owned. I must say that the FT-847 and IC-275 faired very well in receive capabilities with the 847 fairing better in the weak signal sensitivity (preamp capabitities were excellent). BUT I settled with the IC-271H of late for ease and versatility along with the fact I like the style of the rig...so much so that I settled with its sister rig for 432 weak signal work...IC-471H!
I loved the 756 Pro I had and found it too to be as advertised, but was very busy rig in that too many bells and whistles took from the comfort and enjoyment of just operating, which is why I finally settled with the FT-920. It is big (easy on the fumble thumbs) easy to operate and uncluttered layout and quite sensitive to work on 6M especially with the DSP feature. With its dual preamps the 920 is tops in my book for 6M work. Can hardly wait to get it on HF.
It took 20 years of trying and playing to come up with what I call the perfect VHF/UHF station, and with a bit of minor tweaking ( mast-mount preamps, etc) I think I should have a formidible weak signal shack for ragchewing, contesting or whatever... (PSK31 coming soon)!
|
| |
|
Differing Opinions Welcomed
|
|
|
by K7LA on June 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I enjoyed the article, unscientific as it was. Opinions are always welcomed and I thank the author for the effort. My $0.02 worth: If you're a satellite chaser the FT-847 is your best option.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by NX1G on June 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I see your still at it as in trashing the Pro II. You need to learn how to operate a fine technical piece of gear and then maybe you can present an honest and fair review. What you just posted here is exactly the opposite of what most people who KNOW how to operate the Pro II and FT1000D find. I own both..not just tried one at a friends house and I can consistently copy stations not heard or barely heard on the FT1000D and I still love that radio for the old technology it has. It just does not out perform the Pro II period, end of story....too bad folks post this kind of stuff...
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N0SP on June 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With regard to the comments above from NX1G... he should READ THE NUMBERS! His comments have no basis in fact and clearly show more anger than substance. In fact, he was so flustered that he didn't even mention who he is directing his remarks to.
The REAL numbers are as follows:
(QST Reviews, 14mhz, preamp on, 20khz spacing)
BLOCKING DYNAMIC RANGE:
PRO II =116db (pretty good but the PRO was a little better at 120)
920=129db (damn good)
1000D=154db (mind blowing!)
IMD DR:
PRO II =95db (excellent, the PRO was a dismal 88db)
920=97db (excellent)
1000D=98db (also excellent)
3rd ORDER INTERCEPT:
PRO II = plus 10.2 (excellent)
920= plus 8.9dbm (excellent)
1000D= plus 10dbm (excellent)
(The 1000D beats the PRO II in this measurement with the preamp off, and to show what the new techonlogy can do the Mark V IP³ is a record breaking +17.3dbm with preamp ON)
So you see, the PRO II exceeds the 1000D in only one catagory of those above... and only by a tiny 2-tenths of a db, well within measurement error. Even then, if you turn off the preamp in both radios the 1000D beats it again.
I own a PRO and in the last few days I've completed a series of careful A/B testing of my PRO and FT-920... What I've determined is:
1. On 6 meters the 920 hears better, not by much, but a little... I have an excellent weak signal source using my low antenna and a beacon about 30 miles away. With the 920 I could always hear it no matter what filter I was using and tune it in with ease. With the PRO I would often lose it
with QSB and have to really tweak the filters and PBT to hear it when it was out of a fade. I haven't evaluated this on other bands yet. But HF bands have a higher far higher noise floor than the radios do at HF anyway. So it's not a real issue here.
2. Intermod... when listening to an S4 to 5 ssb station last night I saw (via the scope) someone tuning up about 10khz above us. Each time the scope showed the carrier come on I would hear a hiss in the headphones. This was a total suprise to me since I was not looking for it. Again, not loud or debillitating, but there. If the ssb station was weaker and the tuner-upper stronger it could have been a problem.
3. The 920 just sounds better. It is quieter when listening to medium strength signals. The noise between syllables is much lower and it has a full and rich sound to it. Audio recovery is better. The PRO sounds a bit thin. I only notice this when I switch from the PRO to the 920... it kinda jumps out at me when I throw the antenna switch from the PRO to the 920. I have them both on the same antenna and can change instantly. Otherwise I'd never notice a deficiency because the PRO does sound okay... pretty good actually, but the 920 has a nice "presence" to it.
4. The PRO sounds better when listening to AM signals. I like the wider bandwidth for AM and the 920 could get a bit "boomy" if the volume was a little high.
5. The PRO has a very sharp roll-off when I tune away from an undesired signal... I like that. The crystal filters in the Yaesus naturally have a more gradual roll-off.
5. The key clicks in the PRO get to me a little too often when close to other stations. This has never been an issue with my INRAD filter equipped FT-102, FT-900, and FT-920 radios. I still own them all and use them frequently.
6. Transmit audio can easily be made to sound better in the PRO with some investment in better microphone or processor equipment. I'm not using it yet, but know it's there.
I love the PRO for what it is... an EXCEPTIONALLY versatile unit that is a blast to use. But it is NOT a serious contender in the crowded band/contesting environment or someone who wants the finest receiver performance out there. The PRO II is a bit closer, but not there. I'm far from alone in that statement too. The PRO is not at my main station position.. and neither is the FT-920 for that matter, but the venerable FT-102 is what I use for the "down and dirty" work. That receiver has a front end that will stop a truck.
I don't know how long NX1G has had his FT-1000, but I would suggest he send it in for an alignment if it's doing what he says...(which I'm not convinced of yet) A friend of mine did that with his 10 yr old 1000D and he said it came back a "different radio"... performing and sounding much better. Components age and drift... ANY radio does.
The DSP implimentation in the PRO series was a jump forward, but there is no substitute in the DSP world for a quad-conversion system with the right devices and cascaded crystal filters to keep the signal path really clean. They do not have the processing power to operate at a high enough frequency to get that done... yet.
73,
NØSP
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by PA3FCD on June 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK! This is a nice thread indeed!
The Netherlands and the surrounding cty's is a very VHF crowded area, especially during contests. Our flat country allows good tropo contacts up to 600-1000km's any day. For best performance on both 144 and 50 Mhz we have done side-by-side tests with lotsa rigs at my place and a friend, who sells both new and used gear and is a fine dx'er/contester. Here are some subjective observations ( there cannot be any objective unless all parameters have been carefully worked out) of 'on the air comparisons'. We use local to dx beacons (up to 600km) and contacts on crowded bands. We have an Elecraft K2+DEM transvertor, and a SSB LTS MKII transvertor as the standard (although a perfect match to any HF rig differs).Please note that the mentioned differences are minor only, every rig does perform superb nowadays.
All rigs mentioned have been tested on at least 3 (!) samples, there are differences you know.
Parameters; interference:susceptibility/selectivity to qrm at crowded bands, c.q. during contests. Blocking: effects of local very strong nearby signals.
All tests performed on the air.
FT847
Very good sensitivity on both 50/144. Susceptible to Interference ( really does need INRAD filters), low blocking specs.
TS2000
Medium sensitivity on 144/50. More susceptible to Interference, low blocking specs. DSP works superb. Nice filtering.
IC-275
Best sensitivity on 144. Less Susceptible to interference, good blocking specs. Outdated design, needs some mods (see www.mods.dk).
TS-790
Good sensitivity on 144/432, but varies strongly from model to model. Get it aligned properly. Less susceptible to intereference, good blocking specs.
FT-736 Not tried.
IC-746
Good to very good sensitivity on 144, slightly less on 50. Varies from model depending on the setting of the last IF gain pot. Can be enhanced, but at the cost of other specs esp. on HF. Less susceptible to interference(does need the INRAD filters), but medium blocking specs.
IC-746PRO/IC7400
Best sensitivity on both 144/50. Less susceptible to interference, good blocking specs. Very good filtering, PBT and other DSP functions (=756pro2 dsp engine).
IC-910
Best sensitivity on 144. Less susceptible to interference, good blocking specs. Strange that ARRL tests show slightly otherwise.
IC-821
Good sensitivity on 144. Medium susceptible to interference, medium blocking specs. Far too wide on FM for 12.5 Khz channel raster.
FT1000MP/MK5 + 50 transvertor Not tried.
IC-756PROII not tested on 50
The above are just our personal subjective view and will perhaps interfere with yours. All tests were on the air side-by side with at least 3 rigs available of the above list. Thus the available conditions were never the same.
The test results are a conclusion of on-the-air performance after having tested many samples. This was done over a long period of time and some results changed along the way slightly.
'73 Mark, PA5MW (ex-PA3FCD)
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by VE3TMB on June 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's the ultimate in unscientific data:
At this year's Dayton Hamvention, the 1000 MP Mark V was first prize. Second prize was an IC-756 PRO II.
Despite this, and the constructive analysis in the previous posts, I'm going to buy a PRO II. While performance is an extremely high priority, useful features (bandscope, flexible DSP filtering etc.) must also be factored in. That's how we define a compromise I suppose.
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KF6VCI on June 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Mni tnx, Ivars - we need more practical comparisons! 73, Chris kf6vci
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N8FVJ on June 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
My comment regarding the FT-625RD as having I.F. noise that may bury some weak signals is not accurate. An extremely weak 5 watt signal in Utah on a vertical antenna made me a believer in this radio. The beam was, of course, headed west with two less 'S' units of band noise or an S1. (South beam headings results in at least a S-3 meter reading during 'quiet' band conditions). The weak signal was perfectly readable, but barely perceptable in the noise. A noisy I.F. would have masked this signal. Excellent radio without phase noise (xtal-osc. design).
|
| |
|
RE: Response to the highly useful discussion by N
|
|
|
by N0GV on June 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Folks,
I don't know what I did to push this joker's hot button but apparently I did as he has tried flaming me on several occasions. I've made an effort to communicate with him off line about this but he doesn't want to do that.....
Please read what I wrote in my comments earlier on this thread and I believe you will find them fair and accurate.
The filters on the 756 Pro II are not sharper in the 1st and 2nd IF stages that the FT-1000D's filter -- the 2nd IF in the Pro II is a 3kHz filter. The 3rd IF(36 kHz) is where all the DSP is done and that is where the really spiffy, nice, DSP filters are in the Pro II. This choice was probably dictated by cost issues as DSP in the 455 kHz IF would be MUCH more expensive (several hundred $$$ I'd guess). The AGC is fed back into the gain stages prior to the 3rd IF's Mixer and hence IF you are trying to hear a weak signal the gain is cranked all the way open. If there is a strong (very, very strong) signal very near by (inside the 15 kHz 1st IF roofing filter and the 3 kHz 2nd IF filter) you have a recipe for IMD generation. This what I think was probably happening... at least it makes the most sense of all the possibilities....
At any rate the Pro II sure sounds nice; but bullet proof it is not! The results I gave were real world and as demanding as it gets (essentially BDR at 2.5 kHz spacing on modulated SSB signals). My best hypothesis about where the Pro II fell down on this are the overload of the 1st and 2nd IF amplifier/mixer chains causing IMD generation which masked the weaker signal (S9+40 vs S2 = 82 dB which is close to the 5 kHz BDR number for the Pro II and WITHIN the 3kHz 2nd IF SSB filter's passband!). I don't have the BDR figure for the FT-1000D at 5 kHz but it is over 35 dB greater than the Pro II's at 20 kHz AND it has a 2kHz Xtal SSB filter in the 2nd AND 3rd IF stages with a shape factor (6-60 dB) of 1.5 (means at 3kHz the signal is attenuated by 60 dB over what it is at 2 kHz!). As these are cascaded you can get an effective 3kHz rejection of 120 dB!!!
As for knowing what I'm doing with a radio -- I dunno and I don't often put this out there in open postings but I've designed Satellite TV recievers, the odd transmitter, LNA circuits and microwave superconductive filter/frequency agile switches etc. for a living for the past 20 years or so, 5 of which put me through some tough financial times while getting a PhD in Electrical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University. Perhaps NX1G is correct that I'm not the best appliance operator out there but I'd like to believe that I understand what goes on in a receiver ;-)
Anyhow, sorry for the diatribe about NX1G but I take that to be an unnecessary personal and, in my case professional, attack and it needed a professional response. Hope the detailed analysis proves useful...
73's
Grover Larkins
N0GV
Oh -- By the way the Icom 756 Pro II Blows away the FT-1000D on 6 meters ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: Response to the highly useful discussion by N
|
|
|
by N0SP on June 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Grover..
Your comments are certainly well taken. You've spend more time on the half-wit than he deserves. My suspicions about his cranial specific gravity were confirmed by your comments.
Incidently, I'll surrender any consideration of nominating the 1000D as superior to the 756PRO on 6 meters. You're absolutely correct on that one which clearly shows the character of your objective judgement and lack of unfair bias towards a particular brand.
73!
Dennis
NØSP
|
| |
|
RE: Response to the highly useful discussion by N
|
|
|
by N0GV on June 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Dennis!
Thanks for your Kind Comments.....
And now for a wish list....
An FT-1000 MK X with a true dual front end as in the FT-1000 D plus 6m and quad conversion with DSP filtering in the 455 kHz IF and a cascadable 1st and 2nd IF Xtal filter with the ability to shift the LO on the 2nd IF (passband shift). In the 4th IF I'd ask for an autocorrelation filter with a separate and tunable 40 or so MHz noise reciever and phase shifter/amplidude adjuster to allow for cancellation of both white and pink noise along with QRM. I'd be willing to bet that this could be done with an out-the-door price of about $5,000 (the addition of the noise and QRM cancellation unit would add about $500 or so to the FT-1000D's price, the 6m about $150, and the DSP in the 455 kHz IF another $400). Power out on all bands 200 Watts PEP and IMD on Xmit more than 35 dBc..... Keep the FT-1000's noise floor and all the other features including the RF speech processing.... Add 100 memories per band (memory is cheap these days.....).
Now that would be the beastie to have in a pile-up!!!!!
All the best,
Grover Larkins
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by GI0ZGB on June 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My TM-255E has better weak signal performance than the TS-2000. It simply demonstrates that
multi bander rigs, especially those with I.F. DSP, have design compromises which hinder performance at VHF and beyond. To expect all things to be equal, is to ignore economic reality as viewed in the land of the rising sun. Regards, Gerry.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N3ZJB on June 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I AM VERY SAD TO SEE THE REPORT CARD ON THE TS 2000. I WAS READY TO BUY ONE TODAY!! IF ANY ONE CAN CAN SEND SOME POSITIVE INPUT ON THIS RIG,,PLEASE E-MAIL ME. THANKS 73S
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by GI0ZGB on June 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Jim, I think perhaps you're reading too much into these reviews. Basically if you critically test any rig you will find areas of performance which falls short of expectations. The TS-2000 is NOT deaf on VHF / UHF, simply the weak signal performance is marginally down in comparison with my TM-255E which is a dedicated two metre rig. Personally I would disagree that the FT-847 has better weak signal performance than the TS-2000, I find they are on par, and on HF the TS-2000 the better of the two. I found some of the reviews posted on this rig very negative and discouraging, so I went and tried the rig out for myself, out of that investigation I went and bought myself a TS-B2000. I was not dissappointed.
If you critically test any rig you will surely find areas that could be improved, the manufacturers are aware of them too, but deem the performance "adequate" given the package price, performance evolution dictated by market economics. In my opinion, the TS-2000 is simply the best multimode mulitbander available today, go try it, you'll fall in love.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KC4PX on June 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I still like my TS2000X. Please remember we are very critical here for VHF. As an HF/VHF/UHF/SHF rig, it is impressive. If one would ask me if I would recommend it to a HAM for purchase, the answer is YES. I purchased it because of the 1296 10 watt output. I concluded that if I wanted a stand-alone 1296 rig, I'd have to shell out at least $1000. So for another 1k, I get all the other "Bells & Whistles"
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by AD9P on June 9, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I had the Pro 2, and the Kenwood TS-2000 together for three weeks. I sold the Pro es still have the TS-2000. The Kenwood is able to work weak signal CW better than any radio that I have owned. The transmited audio using a Heil Mic is great. I miss the display on the Pro , but not a thousand dollars worth. Plus if you use the Kenwood software one can design your own passband configuration. I.E. I like it.
Thanks
AL
|
| |
|
TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by KA1BQJ on June 9, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I had the opportunity to try out the top rigs from the "Big 3" and picked the Kenwood TS-2000. I even tried out the FT-847...for a painfull few minutes...it was quickley removed from my list of potential radios to purchase.
In my humble opinion, the TS-2000 is a general purpose radio and it's the best all-around radio available today. If you could own only one radio, this should be it. If you examine the features (an almost unbelievable list) and try the different radios with an open mind for several hours, I think you'll agree.
Remember specifications and measurements are not the only factors that should go into your decision.
I remember a friend purchasing some stereo speakers many yrs. ago based on the ratings in Consumer Reports. On paper, the speakers he purchased were the best, overall response, etc. I was in the market for new speakers as well, listened to dozens (yes dozens) of brands including my frieds, and selected another brand at a lower price. At work the next day, I told my friend that my speakers sounded better than his. In disbelief, he brought his speakers to my home, set them up side-by-side with mine and couldn't believe the results. Interestingly, even though he agreed that my speakers sounded better, he had a biased approach and couldn't understand why his didn't sound as good....after all the spec. data indicated they were the best!
I still own that pair of speakers today, 25yrs. later!
Nothing beats a non-biased approach and side-by-side comparisons. Use the spec. data as a another tool in making your decision, not the only tool.
Regards,
Tom / KA1BQJ
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N0GV on June 11, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd have to agree that if you need all the radio to be in one box the TS-2000 is mighty seductive. On the other hand the 847 has a hotter 2m and 70 cm front end from what I've seen and others have said. At any rate the only way to improve significantly on the 847's front end on 2m/70 cm would be an antenna mounted preamp (LNA) to eliminate or virtually eliminate the effects of cable related losses on the SNR of the radio. The HF is OK, not great, but certainly improves with the INRAD filter. I'd say that for the price difference that you are getting what you are paying for with the Kenwood over the 847.... On the other hand the FT-847 is pretty doggone good at Satellite OPS and has a great VHF/UHF front end for weak signal work.
I'd characterize the TS-2000 as an HF radio with added in VHF/UHF/SHF and the FT-847 as a VHF/UHF radio with added in HF..... BTW -- the Mobile remote head capability is a great idea on the TS-2000!
My choice was a dedicated HF rig and that devolved to the FT-1000 on the basis of reviever performance alone. Others have other criteria and that is a very good thing....
Over all this has been a great discussion -- hope to hear everyone on the air!
Grover
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N9AI on June 12, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The TS2000 is a fine general purpose HF rig, which is where I use it the most. I don't use it up to it's capability on VHF/UHF, so I can't give it a honest review there.
I traded a TS870 for the TS2000 and haven't regretted it for a minute. I used them side by side and the TS2000 is every bit as good as the TS870 in regard to RX performance and actually better in some areas. I find the DSP in the TS2000 is more functional and more effective than in the TS870. The 870 does have greater flexibility in tailoring transmitted audio response and bandwidth. Not being a "HI-FIer", this doesn't really concern me, because the TS2000 has terrific audio anyway.
I find most of the criticisms of the TS2000 both here and elsewhere are made by people who've never owned one or used one extensively or are comparing it to rigs out of it's price class. Reading the ARRL and Peter Hart (RSGB) reviews, the TS2000s receiver compares very favorably to both the IC756Pro and Pro 2, while costing less. In every major receiver specification, the TS2000 is within a few dB of the both the Pro and Pro 2 and beating out both Icoms in several catagories. The only catagory in which the TS2000 really lags either of the Icoms in is close-in blocking dynamic range. This is a somewhat misleading test, though. At 5kHz, the TS2000 does fall short, but according to the Peter Hart reviews, the TS2000 catches up at 7kHz and beats out the Pro and Pro 2 thereafter. This test is also only of real use when operating CW. On SSB, the transmitted distortion on close-in signals has more to do received interference than a few dBs difference of BDR. From a purely empirical standpoint, I find that relatively clean SSB signals up to S9 are pretty much gone 3kHz out. On SSB of course, your mileage may vary.
I have a sneaking suspicion that much of the criticism of the TS2000 arises from a couple of factors: It looks unusual to some hams and the inablility of many to believe an "all-in-one" rig could have decent performance. Given the current price of about $1800 dollars for the TS2000, I think it compares very well to most everything out there, even more so if you throw in the "bang for you buck" factor.
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by K9MAN on June 12, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Has anyone compared the Ten-Tec model 526 "6N2" 6 and 2 meter rig to the others discussed here?
Thanks,
Joe K9MAN
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by N0SP on June 12, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Posted By K9MAN
>
> Has anyone compared the Ten-Tec model 526 "6N2" 6 and 2 meter rig to the others discussed here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe K9MAN
>
I have no experience with the radio.. but the following comments were sent to me by a trusted
friend who is well connected and experienced with VHF weak signal community. I asked him specifically about the 6N2. His name is witheld since I've not asked his permission to reproduce his remarks here. This was his response:
=======================
Unfortunately, it seems to be a tremendous disappointment. I've been doing a
lot of research in the newsgroups and reflectors, aside from eHam. Their are
many negatives to this radio, including:
1. Images from commercial paging services and utilities.
2. Poor dynamic blocking range and IMD. Yes, 2 meters can get crowded during
a contest. The receiver "caves-in" when used at a hilltop location.
3. The amp keying line is full QSK and can not be disabled. No one uses QSK
on VHF, especially 2 meters. The protocol is semi break-in for sequencing
GaAsFET preamps and relays, etc. Makes the radio useless for meteor scatter,
EME, sat.
4. Poor quality control. Loose knobs, unsoldered connections.
5. Ineffective noise blanker.
It's a shame that Ten-Tec failed to deliver on this one. Many people
returned within their 30-day "money back" window.
==============================
|
| |
|
RE: TS2000X vs IC-756Pro vs FT-847 vs IC-275
|
|
|
by AB3CN on February 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is a mod out on the net which involves replacing the pin diodes in a TS-2000 with Schottky diodes (part number 511-BAR43FILM at Mouser.com). I have ordered these and wonder if you think replacing the PIN diodes would improve the noise figure.
73 de Ken AB3CN
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
New Communication Exhibit Helps Kids Get the Message:
Transmission of Images - No Internet, Satellite, Cable, or Cells Needed!
Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio:
|
|
|
