This is even better, alot of pictures of the interior:

http://yo9irf.blogspot.com/2013/03/kenwood-ts-990s-inside-pictures.html

PS: is there a possibility to attach pictures or at least insert them in posts ?

They have released the instruction manual as well, it's almost 300 pages, alot of info inside:

http://yo9irf.blogspot.ro/2013/03/kenwood-ts-990s-instruction-manual-is-public.html

By the technical specs it should be better than what is out there at this moment, it is the first serious DDC/DUC ham radio transciever and the technology is superior. Even the US$1200 and a few years old Perseus reciever with it's 14bit 80Msps ADC is up there with the best of them, the Flex 6700 uses 16bit 250Msps ...

Just yesterday while running QRP 80m, after 3 attempts the other station finally managed to copy my call and gave me "59 barely above the noise, but maybe the conditions may improve"; funny.

You need to understand the purpose of each equipment first, then start calling it "junk" or otherwise. A transmitter made to run on mobile, on a monoband resonant antenna and with 10KHz spacing between channels won't be as clean in IMD and harmonics as a transmitter made for the ham bands, of course; that doesn't mean it's junk, just that it was made for another purpose, where it may do it's job very well. Also, the CB mobile amplifiers are running in class-C because they're made for FM, and certain designs can meet ERP harmonics requirements even without amplifier output filters; the equipment is not necessarily junk, it's designed for another purpose.

The person that uses such equipment in another way that it was intended to, well, that is the real problem. A "500W" CB amplifier usually uses a pair of transistors that can actually put out less than 300W in total, and to be SSB IMD compliant you need to modify it to class AB and run it at below 200W out. It's specs will stand up to any decent ham amplifier this way, but it makes no sense in getting such a thing as long as you already have reasonably priced ham transcievers out there that put out 100W.

@ Mark W8GU: from 25W to 100W you have a 6dB increase, that is a single S-unit at the recieving station. In my opinion it's not worth it to go trough the trouble for only that much; you would first need to go for the best antenna you can use, than start thinking about more power - and when you do, go for something around 300W, otherwise you won't even notice the improvement. Plus there is the problem of not overdriving the amplifier, usually amps have around 10-13dB gain (5-10W input > 100W output), if you want to drive a 100W amplifier with 25W you'll have to either add an attenuator (one that can handle 25W will get hot, needs a radiator, box and RX/TX switch of it's own, adds to the price) or turn down the transciever output power, wich may kill the amplifier by overdriving if you accidentally forget to turn it down everytime you switch the amp on, or the transciever may spike on TX (ouputs max power for a very short time even if power it's turned down).

Yes, they are the planet's evil, they are bringing technology to market at a low price. They should start liberating oil-rich countries to become the good guys.

That is the safest way, attenuators on amplifier input protect the sensitive mosfets from overdrive damage and also improve the match seen by the transciever troughout the bands. I have used various types of attenuators for a MRF150's amplifier, very happy with the results.

40m is very reliable and is filled with close powerful stations that can be worked very easy, this qualifies it as the least interesting band of all; turn it on and talk is no challenge and gives no satisfaction.

20m is reliable enough and is better for long distance contacts, but being the most populated it isn't very interesting either.

What i really seem to like are the 17m and 15m bands: cleaner, less bad operators, good for long distance; 10m is even better while the SFI is high.

Gene, is it wrong to make ham radio known in other enviroments ? Your tone sugested some kind of aversion towards it.

Razvan YO9IRF

BMW/Mercedes/Audi is an example of 3 companies sharing a market equally and in a stable manner, and it's not unique.

Back to ham radio though, the big 3 get most of their income from the cheaper products, not the top end contest-class expensive transcievers like this one. Kenwood is just as legitimate as Icom and Yaesu, their problem is they took a break from contest-class for 15 years, jumped the TS-970 completely and tried a different aproach with the TS-2000. That might have been OK for sales for some time but it wasn't good for the image at all, so they're back with the TS-990 to continue where the TS-950 left off.

It's normal that the sales drop a bit for a company when the competitor announces a new product, people are expecting to see what it's all about before pulling the trigger on the purchase, it doesn't mean Kenwood killed Icom and Yaesu; it is true though that the TS-990 will probably be the top dog for a few years, it's fighting 7-9 years old models from the competition and it will be some time until those will be replaced.

First of all, if everybody is using the Mother Of All SDR who are they going to have a QSO with ?
Secondly, you cannot have a bunch of transmitters and recievers at the same location, just because they will interfere.
Third, the concept kills all the fun, you might as well use a mobile phone, Skype or Hamsphere.

Realistically speaking, i think it will only go as far as having club or private premium locations with internet-accesible SDR equipment (multiple recievers and one transmitter), available either to a limited circle of users or to any ham that can pay a fee. HF contest equipment is expensive and not all locations are good for performance (either too noisy or impossible to install a decent antenna), so getting airtime this way might be easier and much cheaper for some.

I don't quite understand why, without even seeing the radio in real-life, you are already throwing suspicions of an uncalibrated s-meter or rx/rx performance issues.

On the other hand, i don't understand what makes it such an innovative piece of equipment, the technology is still 10 years behind and the user interface is not much better than in the FTDX-9000 or IC-7800. Some added functionality and features, a fancy display and some more buttons, it's just natural evolution from Kenwood. If we are talking about crucial transciever designs in ham history, the Flex-6000 series is much, much more important than the TS-990, it actually brings new technology for HF transcievers (SDR with direct sampling) and also a whole new concept, allowing mutiple users simultaneously to operate it independently.

The S-Meter is a tool that indicates the signal level at the reciever input, and that is all; you calibrate it with a signal generator. The S-Meter does NOT show real field strength at your QTH of the recieved signal, but the signal present at the reciever input, wich is a function of both antenna performance but also polarisation, impedance matching etc.