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: Primary differences, Yaesu 950/2000/5000/9000  (Read 6741 times)
W9KDX
Member

Posts: 770




Ignore
« on: February 12, 2012, 12:30:30 PM »

I am just looking around; don't jump on me for getting in over my head.  I promise not to do anything stupid, but up here in winter one's mind wanders.

In terms of measurable differences, ignoring CW and power differences and video display, what could I expect to notice between these four different models (Yaesu 950/2000/5000/9000), assuming the basic lowest cost versions?

I other words, when I am listening, what would I experience as worth the additional money?

Thanks for the feedback.  I have looked at the specifications, I know what one has over the other, and it is hard to tell how it would translate into improved reception.

Logged

Sam
W9KDX
K8AC
Member

Posts: 1466




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2012, 04:37:24 PM »

Different people will give you very different answers on this question.  What you hear or don't hear different will depend on your knowledge and skill level.  A technical person will be able to observe differences that an appliance operator wouldn't hear.   Assuming you're not long on experience, I suggest you buy the lowest cost model, use it for some time, and see if you can identify and explain shortcomings that you'd like to improve on.  If you can't, then just enjoy the rig.  If you find something you think could be better, see if the next model up is better in that respect.  All rigs have some features that could be improved - even the most expensive.  All of the rigs you mentioned, with the exception of one, is superior to anything available a decade or two ago.  Since you choose to ignore CW, there's no reason to go into the CW problems with the 5000.

Logged
W9KDX
Member

Posts: 770




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2012, 04:48:59 PM »

...All of the rigs you mentioned, with the exception of one, is superior to anything available a decade or two ago.  ....

I am guessing that one is the FT-2000, but let me know.

Thanks for the response.
Logged

Sam
W9KDX
W7ETA
Member

Posts: 2528




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2012, 07:20:31 PM »

I was playing around on the Sherwood Engineering Receiver site and saw that the Icom 706markIIG receiver does pretty good for an all band rig.

If you can find used one locally? it might make a good first rig.

I'm guessing that if you find a used one in good condition you'll be able to re-sell it in a year or two if you decide that you want a better rig.

I don't have any experience with it, but I'm guessing you can find quite a few hams that have or still own one.

The better the receiver the quieter it is on crowded bands.  All of the bands will become crowded as we go up the sunspot cycle.  Quieter, in essence, means more signals will be easier to copy.

I'm guessing you'll have more FUN with a good receiver at home that you will getting one you can take camping.

I've never been too interested in mobile HF or VHF/UHF.

73
Bob
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5665




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2012, 08:51:06 PM »

I was playing around on the Sherwood Engineering Receiver site and saw that the Icom 706markIIG receiver does pretty good for an all band rig.

I kinda question some of the value of that site because while it has some good raw data it does not cover skirt selectivity or how it "sounds"  or how user friendly they are so do not use it as a absolute reference here.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
W7ETA
Member

Posts: 2528




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2012, 01:54:30 PM »

W8JX

Excellent points.

Unfortunately, his site is the only one I know of that has good measurements of receiver performance on line.

73 OT
Bob
Logged
W9KDX
Member

Posts: 770




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2012, 09:52:43 AM »

Thanks all.  The Sherwood site was very interesting as were all the reviews here.  When read collectively, they tend to push towards the FTDX-5000 and that is the conclusion I came up with on my own.  Always nice to get your own choices confirmed.  I especially appreciated the reviewers comments on how small and frustrating the K3 controls were.  Given I cut my teeth on tubes, compact anything in the ham shack just doesn't seem right.
Logged

Sam
W9KDX
K8AC
Member

Posts: 1466




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2012, 10:35:36 AM »

If you must consider the 5000, don't waste your money on the companion scope unit.  It's beyond any doubt the worst I've ever seen, and I've owned them all.
Logged
W9KDX
Member

Posts: 770




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2012, 01:15:57 PM »

If you must consider the 5000, don't waste your money on the companion scope unit.  It's beyond any doubt the worst I've ever seen, and I've owned them all.

I would agree, based on the reviews, especially as I already have the DMU-2000.  However, I have also read that the speakers are superb, so for an additional $80 or so, it looks like a good deal.

Thanks much for the tip.
Logged

Sam
W9KDX
TANAKASAN
Member

Posts: 933




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2012, 12:42:32 AM »

The FT950, FT2000 and FT9000 are all built using the same technology with a VHF first IF. A basic rule, the higher the number the more features and the more knobs you'll get.

The FT5000 is a high specification rig with a low first IF frequency. This gives a sharper and a better filter on the first IF amplifier. The second receiver uses a more conventional VHF first IF.

Tanakasan
Logged
VE3FMC
Member

Posts: 986


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2012, 07:40:53 PM »

I have a FT-950 and for the cost it offers good value. Check the reviews here and see what others say about the rig.

I talked to a guy on 17 one day who was running a FT-5000. He told me he had owned a FT-9000 and the 5000 was head and shoulders over it. The FT-9000 is older technology, the FT-5000 is newer.

Now a friend of mine owns a K3, loaded, 2nd receiver etc. He told me for the money (K3 loaded was cheaper than a FT-5000) he would take the K3 any day of the week. He does a lot of low band DX'ing, so he must really like the features of the K3.

Logged
W4HLN
Member

Posts: 47




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2012, 06:51:38 PM »

I own the FT-950 (Times TWO!) and the FT-2000D

If I had to do it all over again I'd forget the FT-2000D

The FT-950 is just as good in EVERY way (Except 100 watts less output than the 2000D) and really rocks in weak DX and contest work!

And no the FT-450 is not a "BABY 950 or 2000" It's not even close!

I used to own the Ft-450 too!

Ernie / W4HLN
Logged
N8TI
Member

Posts: 115




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2012, 04:59:47 AM »

Do you guys feel that the FT-950 would outperform the FT-1000 on receive? A new FT-950 is same price as a used FT-1000.

Joe
Logged
VE3FMC
Member

Posts: 986


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2012, 06:04:15 AM »

Do you guys feel that the FT-950 would outperform the FT-1000 on receive? A new FT-950 is same price as a used FT-1000.

Joe

Joe bring your FT-1000 here for two months and I will compare it to my FT-950  Grin All in the name of research of course!
Logged
N8TI
Member

Posts: 115




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2012, 10:44:35 AM »

Well Rick, what do you think? Do you think 20 years of advancements brought the FT-950 up to the FT-1000?  If it did, which it really should have,  then the 950 must be a hell of a bargain for $1300 US.

Joe
Logged
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!