Call Search
     

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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Kenwood TS-2000 vs Yaesu FT-950  (Read 13799 times)
WB6JJA
Member

Posts: 4




Ignore
« on: January 05, 2011, 02:17:46 PM »

Looking at these two radios and can't decide which to buy.

Anyone have with experience with these, let me know the good and bad about each.

Any help will be appreciated.
Logged
N0AH
Member

Posts: 12




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2011, 06:17:48 PM »

I have used both the TS-2000 and the FT-950 and hands down, the 950 wins out big time on HF. The technology in the FT-950 is ten years ahead of the TS-2000.   If you want one rig to cover 160M-70 cm and higher with optional packages, then the 2000 is your rig- but the dial on the FT-950 say's it all-

73 paul  N0AH
Logged
NO6L
Member

Posts: 179




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2011, 07:14:12 PM »

I have used both the TS-2000 and the FT-950 and hands down, the 950 wins out big time on HF. The technology in the FT-950 is ten years ahead of the TS-2000.   If you want one rig to cover 160M-70 cm and higher with optional packages, then the 2000 is your rig- but the dial on the FT-950 say's it all-

73 paul  N0AH

I second that, and I own a TS-2000LE and am also happy with it.

Good call N0AH, nothing else needs to be said as far as I'm concerned.

73
NO6L
Logged
N0AZZ
Member

Posts: 241




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2011, 05:29:32 AM »

I would go with a FT-950 a much better HF rig and buy a UHF/VHF mobile for a base if you need the FM stuff .


Fred
N0AZZ
Logged
K2GK
Member

Posts: 6




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2011, 01:10:42 PM »

I own them both. The Kenwood TS2000 hears everything the FT-950 hears and visa versa. They can both tighten down the adjacent frequency noise so 2 KC QRM can be rejected.

Pros:
I love the TS-2000 because it is really a great all around radio with both HF and VHF/UHF sides of the radio. The DSP is easy as pie to get used to.

Cons:
The darn buttons are so small, sometimes I need a Magnifier glass to see the function names.
Being a little smaller package the sound is less robust from the internal speaker.

FT-950 in a nut shell is a great radio but a bit** to get used to with all those variable function menus. Better listing sound with this radio over the Kenwood. But again only an HF radio as opposed to the other choice.
Also to be noted that I am one of the many who can not get a clean sound from the MD-100 nor the MD-200 microphones. This radio is very sensitive to RF and has made my hair turn gray trying to correct it.

I also own the FT-1000mp Mark V Field and would suggest a used one of these over the FT-950.

I have compared them all to the weakest of signals and they all hear what the other radios hear. It's the smoke and mirrors that sell radios.

See you on the radio; k2gk
Logged
WB8YYY
Member

Posts: 159


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2011, 10:06:07 AM »

Most important is to list your requirements in PRIORITY order.  The FT950 is a good choice for someone wanting an HF performance oriented rig.  Its CW QSK is not state-of-the-art, yet it works well on CW as well as the other modes.  The front panel and display are nice.  The TS-2000 is for someone wanting a compromise rig across much of the spectrum.  of course you can make plenty of contacts with it.  Your choice comes down to your priorities.  If you can't see each rig, to get more familiar with its front panel try to print a scale model of it, if this aspect of the rig is important to you.  I did find the QST reviews to be reasonable representations of each rig.  Unless you buy and sell rigs all the time, as long as you have a functioning rig I would take your time to get all the data you need. 

73 Curt
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6416




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2011, 07:27:37 PM »

The 2000 is a dated rig by today's digital standards. You would not buy a new 12 year old computer or PC and you kinda are with 2000. There are better solutions today. Might look at a new TS 590 or a TS-480. I have owned later for 18 months and great radio and much better receiver than 2000 too.  2000 was neat in 1999 but it is 2011 today and DSP in radios has come a long long way since then
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6055




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2011, 05:14:48 AM »

I've also used both and think the 950 is a better radio for HF.  One thing to remember is that if you have a single rig for all bands, somewhere there has to be compromises made to make it work all bands.  I would also buy a 6 mtr. + HF only rig and a separate all mode VHF/UHF rig over an all band rig.  Of course, if you have other limitations, such as room for only one rig (or an XYL that demands only one rig  Grin ) then you're better off with the 2000.
Logged
KB2CPW
Member

Posts: 304




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2011, 08:53:42 PM »


  Boy some of you are out of your mind.. How can you equate a computer to an HF rig. I have the TS 2000 and love it, I've found complaints are often from people who can't tie their own shoes let alone be allowed to operate a radio. Nobody addresses the incessant problem of RF on the TX audio of nearly all early FT-950's and Yaesu's denial of the problem, just like the FT100 debacle of years ago. (Which BTW had superior DSP when compared to the 857) How is that when the 857 is well...."newer"Huh?

If old technology in radio design caused radios to be sub-par compared to todays radios, why are people tripping over each other trying to find TS-950SDX's, if by your definition they should stink 18 years later. There are plenty of great radios out there regardless of age and if the parts and radios are still being made then they are still viable. Because a radio is "dated" doesn't mean its bad and technology seems to elude us sometimes.. (ie. USB ports should come on every ham gadget now, but they don't.)

 BTW, the 590 isn't all it was cracked up to be, there seems to be many in a rush to get rid of them. With all of that new "technology" inside of it, they should be a keeper for sure!!

  Wanna pull your hair out with "new technology" Buy a Flex, you need an Elmer and a support group just to open the manual. A great radio with a steep learning curve, I am not knocking it, merely pointing out that newer is not always better in some cases.

Richy N2ZD
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6416




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2011, 11:41:06 AM »

  Boy some of you are out of your mind.. How can you equate a computer to an HF rig.
Out of my mind? (Getting personal here) You can equate it easily when a radio is no longer just a radio and depends on computer type DSP processing. When 2000 was built the technology was primitive by todays standards and it shows when you play with it. Kenwood even had to make some changes in building them because they are having trouble getting some of the parts used in it to keep same old specs. Why spend new money for old technology ie new money for old computer.

If old technology in radio design caused radios to be sub-par compared to todays radios, why are people tripping over each other trying to find TS-950SDX's, if by your definition they should stink 18 years later.

The reason for this is easy if you think about it. These radios are based on proven and mature analogy filtering using tried and trued "rock" filters too.  Many are better radios than a 2000 too because of this too.

Because a radio is "dated" doesn't mean its bad and technology seems to elude us sometimes.. (ie. USB ports should come on every ham gadget now, but they don't.)

It does when you are spending new money (ie price of new radio) for a dated design. The 2000 badly needs a update and if Kenwood came out with say a 2100 or a new version of it using modern technology for same money it would be different but such is not the case


BTW, the 590 isn't all it was cracked up to be, there seems to be many in a rush to get rid of them. With all of that new "technology" inside of it, they should be a keeper for sure!!

The 590 is light years ahead of a 2000 and the ONLY edge the 2000 has on it is 2 meters and 440 which is marginal too. I have talked to several 590's on the air and they sound great on my end and every owner has been pleased too. A few years ago I seriously considered a black anniversary edition of 2000 until i played with a few and found them wanting. Even my 480 has a much cleaner and better receiver than 2000. BTW I am a Kenwood guy and own 4 HF models.


  Wanna pull your hair out with "new technology" Buy a Flex, you need an Elmer and a support group just to open the manual. A great radio with a steep learning curve, I am not knocking it, merely pointing out that newer is not always better in some cases.

The Flex has its own quirks and is not the perfect radio by any means and if your computer takes a hike and rebooted or locks up during a QSO you are at zero mhz for several minutes or more while rebooting and relaunching radio app.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
KB2CPW
Member

Posts: 304




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2011, 08:36:06 PM »

Quote from: KB2CPW on Yesterday at 08:53:42 PM
If old technology in radio design caused radios to be sub-par compared to todays radios, why are people tripping over each other trying to find TS-950SDX's, if by your definition they should stink 18 years later.

Quote
Quote from: John  "The reason for this is easy if you think about it. These radios are based on proven and mature analogy filtering using tried and trued "rock" filters too.  Many are better radios than a 2000 too because of this too."



 Well, by your definition, this should not be true since DSP "should" be better than rocks as it is newer technology, so I guess you agree with my sentiments that newer is not always better. As far as the TS-2000 goes, its just as good as other radios out there new or old. I hear everyone just as well as anyone else regardless of what they spent. 90% of what you hear is your antenna and not your radio.

  I have a 14 year old Kachina that blows the doors off of half of the junk they sell now and it hears beautifully. Most hams don't even know what a Kachina is, but if they did half of the research they say they do, everyone would have one in their shack for what they cost vs. what you get. It's a no brainer but as always, everyone is full of nonsense and hot air on what is good or bad and it's easier to tell someone what to buy when it's not your money.

 I stand by my statement that newer is not always better and it seems that you agree but would rather dance around that fact.

  I am not saying that the TS-2000 is without faults, but there are plenty of new radios out there that are 11 years newer and aren't much better if at all. Plus if the TS-2000 was such a junk box, they wouldn't have sold the zillions that they have and the run would have ended a long time ago. In fact, I would put an Omni 6 or plus up against many of the new radios and the RX is superb, what stops some people from buying one? The million dollar answer from most hams>>>>>The looks..<<< Isn't that funny, who would care what a radio looks like. So for some, the radio they own is the best and if its not one that they own, it must look funny or they would own it.. A pretty absurd answer if you ask me.

  BTW, the rig I find myself on 90% of the time is 45 years old and has 19 tubes, I am the one who most often informs the group that there is another station out there trying to get in. It has a noise blanker and a RIT and that's it. No DSP crime fighting and no James Bond like gadgets, yet it hears everything as well as my new rigs. Quality is paramount, technology means nothing if the radio is not designed properly. I will also add that this is further complicated by the user not being up to the task of setting it up properly for the rig to be used to its fullest abilities. Hint: the lousy 0-5 eham reviews you see in a sea of 5-5 reviews.. Thanks for playing.. Richy N2ZD
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6416




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2011, 08:52:12 PM »

The problem with 2000's DSP is it might have been cool in 1999 but there is much better DSP rigs out there. The digital skirts on 2000 are not sharp at all  verse radio made in last 5 years or less as it lacks the processing power to do it. I was open minded about radio at first but I live near R&L and Universal radio showrooms and I can play with and compare radios and 2000's receiver is lacking. While my 480 only has AF DSP it has optional SSB and CW filters in it too and with far sharper skirts too than 2000 has. It also has superior noise blanking and limiting because even though it is only AF it is much more advanced technology wise. And new 590 has much better DSP and roofing filters too and nosie reduction as well vs 2000. Point is for same or less money you can get a better radio. If kenwood would come out with a new 2000 (ie a 2100 or such) based on current technology I would give it a serious look.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6193




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2011, 12:12:59 AM »

QST TS-2000 product review: http://www.dxzone.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump2.cgi?ID=11911

QST FT-950 product review: http://files.radioscanner.ru/files/download/file4747/ft-950_review_by_arrl.pdf

Logged
KB2CPW
Member

Posts: 304




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2011, 05:39:58 AM »


  I would agree that the TS2000 is not the best rig, I am not defending it, but merely pointing out that it is still a consideration based on features, price and what you get. The DSP does work, maybe not the best but I rarely engage that feature on any of my DSP enhanced radios including the Kachina as a matter of preference. I also agree that these features get better over time, but unless the DSP processors are enhanced exponentially and IF schemes are used as well as AF, we won't see much in this arena on lower priced rigs. Quite often, one has to spend double what a new 950 or 2000 costs to get these features and even those radios aren't the best.

  BTW, there are some options I would consider as well, The FT1000 MkV which has oodles of filter slots and is available in 100 and 200 watt flavors. An Icom 756 Pro II, Yaesu FT2000 etc. Which fall generally into the price range of both radios mentioned, they may be used but are excellent radios with plenty of toys to fight off the band bullies.

 The 590 seems to be nice but I think with all of the used 590 offerings on QTH and Eham, people realized it doesn't do all of what Kenwood hinted at (I will admit I have not personally checked this particular rig out yet). Wide TX audio, K-3 Killer, awesome DSP, all the hype I've heard over the last year from their camp.  Everyone I speak to with one can't give me a good enough reason to buy one.

 
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6416




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2011, 11:21:58 AM »

A 590 is on my wish list in future but not a high priority. I want to upgrade amp first. I did play with one briefly but need to spend more time with one but from what I saw in the few minutes I had it had a nice receiver and handles noise really well. What I like about it is built in USB support and it is supposed to be able to not only R/C via USB but also send audio in and out via same connection kinda making it a plug n play radio.  Also rumor has it that Kenwood is rolling out another HF base station radio at Dayton Hamfest in spring. It is supposed to be a upper end rig but I have found nothing concrete about it. Time will tell.   
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!