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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: TS-2000 vs. TS-590 Receiver Question  (Read 9528 times)
K0BT
Member

Posts: 194




Ignore
« on: October 02, 2012, 11:17:30 AM »

I have read all the reviews and threads on both radios and am left with a question.

I have owned a TS-2000 for about 3 years, operating it mostly on HF, and have been very pleased with it.  During this time I also owned an FT-1000D, an FT-847, and a TS-940SAT.  The TS-2000 could "hear" as well as any of them and in some instances it beat out the FT-1000D, which is a very fine radio.

I just picked up a TS-590 and spent several hours doing a side-by-side comparison, using the same antenna through an A/B switch.  I was surprised to discover that the TS-2000 can hear anything the 590 can.  From the reviews, I understand that the 590 will beat the 2000 under contest conditions, but I can make out weak signals on both radios quite well and can hear little difference between the two under normal band conditions.

I really like the TS-590 but I'm still a bit biased by the shiny newness of it.

So here's the question.  Did I just get lucky with my TS-2000 or is all the talk of the radio being "deaf" just a bunch of hoopla?  I'm not trying to stir up a mess by asking.  It's a serious question.  Did Kenwood have an early production problem with the TS-2000 series that got ironed out or did some TS-2000s come off the line deaf?  I'm not looking for hearsay anecdotes although I do enjoy a good discussion.  I would love to hear from knowledgeable owners as I decide which radio to keep. 

Thanks for reading,
Bob, K0BT
Logged
W5DQ
Member

Posts: 1209


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2012, 12:20:20 PM »

Bob,

While I never had access to the TS590, my only metric in your discussion would be the 'same antenna A/B test for RX only' I have done between my venerable TS-940SAT and my much newer TS2000SAT/X (1.2 Ghz module installed). Many times the TS940S will hear things much, much better than the TS2K does, but I would say that the RX in the TS2K is equal or efectively better due to the fact that it has some, albeit antiquadated, DSP processing which gives it a distinct edge over the TS940S WRT filtering which has no DSp and is susceptible to front end over loading during busy contests. Give the choice between the two, I'd have to think long and hard about which one to give up as I use them together to cover everything, HF to 440 Mhz. The TS940 is mainstay on HF while the TS2K covers 6M and 2M weak signal work and can be easily switched in for HF work using my home brew antenna switching matrix where both rigs share all HF antennas.

Gene
Logged

Gene W5DQ
Ridgecrest, CA - DM15dp
www.radioroom.org
M6GOM
Member

Posts: 993




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2012, 01:11:48 PM »

If you think the TS2000 is as good as the TS590 you must be deaf. The TS590 is a far quieter receiver.
Logged
K0BT
Member

Posts: 194




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2012, 02:05:25 PM »

If you think the TS2000 is as good as the TS590 you must be deaf. The TS590 is a far quieter receiver.

Conor,

You might be right about my hearing and it is a valid point that I need to consider.  The 590 does seem to be a wee bit quieter, which might reduce fatigue, but I can barely tell the difference on SSB.  My particular TS-2000 isn't that noisy so that's why I asked the question.

Bob
Logged
KE5JPP
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2012, 03:42:29 AM »

If you think the TS2000 is as good as the TS590 you must be deaf. The TS590 is a far quieter receiver.

Conor,

You might be right about my hearing and it is a valid point that I need to consider.  The 590 does seem to be a wee bit quieter, which might reduce fatigue, but I can barely tell the difference on SSB.  My particular TS-2000 isn't that noisy so that's why I asked the question.

Bob


Modern receivers are more than sensitive enough and are generally too sensitive below 14 MHz.  Atmospheric and man made noise is the limiting factor as well as dirty transmitters that splatter the bands.   Therefore, a side by side comparison of what each receiver 'hears' pretty much tells you nothing.   About the only way that you will be able to differentiate receivers is in the laboratory with expensive equipment performing non-real world tests.  The above factors are external limits to performance in the real world.  If you are into Specmanship and follow the Sherwood Receiver tests, then you'll always be chasing the 'best' receiver with no real world benefit.  Things like ergonomics and AGC performance are also factors to consider and means much more than what two comparison receivers 'hear'.

Gene
Logged
W7AIT
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2012, 04:21:28 PM »

I am a 2 time TS2K owner and just bought a TS-590.
 
My unscientific ear comparisons find that the TS-590 is a much better receiver than the TS2K.  The 590 will hear things the TS2K just can't hear.  Also, the filtering, roofing filters, seems to be superior to the TS2K.  I suspect the side skirt rejection is much, much further down than the TS2K.  Also the immediate down convert to 11 MHz seems to have definite advantage for dynamic blocking though I can't test this by ear.  The DSP seems to be superior in the TS-590.
The TS-590 makes the "Sherwood Engineering list" and the TS2K does not.  You might do an engineering desk check of those results and compare the TS-590 to say top of the line K3.  You can see where it stands against the best RX in the world.

That being said, the TS2K does things no other radio will ever do and I suspect the TS2K will be sold for a while – it does a lot that no other radio does and does it fairly well.  Also the TS-590 is of recent design and the TS2K was probably designed 12 to 15 years ago, so given advance in state of the art, the TS-590 has that advantage.
The TS-590 seems to become my CW radio now, as I'm impressed with its CW performance. 

Again, I will eventually run scientific bench side by side A/B testing between the two but not now.

My 2 cents worth.
Logged
M6GOM
Member

Posts: 993




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2012, 05:57:19 AM »

The TS2000 is by far the best shack in a box for the price it is but it suffers the same shortfall as they all do - average HF, average VHF, average UHF. When you get a dedicated HF transceiver and put it alongside, the dedicated one will pretty much always do a better job.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6473




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2012, 08:17:49 AM »

The TS2000 is by far the best shack in a box for the price it is but it suffers the same shortfall as they all do - average HF, average VHF, average UHF. When you get a dedicated HF transceiver and put it alongside, the dedicated one will pretty much always do a better job.

Its a shame that they do not come out with a TS2100 (updated 2000) With modern technology it could be a decent rig as IF DSP was very primitive when that radio was designed.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
NR9R
Member

Posts: 160




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2012, 12:52:27 PM »

I am very curious about the various criticisms of the TS-2000, particularly about receiver noise and sensitivity. As a long time TS-2000 owner (along with several other transceivers to compare it to) I believe that the criticisms are driven by some quantitatively verifiable measurement as well as some psychology.

Verified observations: 

1) The measured receiver sensitivity of a fully functional TS-2000 is is on par with other transceivers.

2) Noise produced by switching diodes on the LPF board are far below atmospheric noise levels when an antenna is connected.

3) Early TS-2000's did suffer from low gain in the 144 MHz preamplifier.  This did not affect any other band.
   
4) The TS-2000 S-meter is well calibrated on HF at S-9 according to the Collins standard but is pretty stingy at lower signal strengths.

5) A certain range of serial numbers have been manufactured with faulty ceramic filters, causing either decreased sensitivity and/or intermittent noise.

I find that the factory audio equalization of the TS-2000 produces a harsh hiss sound akin to an open squelch with the IF filter at its widest setting.  I lived with this for a few years before realizing that one can design their own audio filter with the ARCP software.  This provides pretty amazing control over the audio characteristics and allowed me to turn the TS-2000 into something that is pleasant to listen to.  I have been taken by surprise when I have had to reset the settings after a firmware update and the hiss returns.

Next to the TS-2000 has sat the following: IC-756, IC-756PRO, IC-756PROII, FT-950, and IC-7600.  Each time any criticism has been raised about sensitivity or noise in the TS-2000 I have done significant, boarder line obsessive A/B testing between all of these transceivers and I just can't find any meaningful difference in sensitivity between any of them.

Before purchasing the IC-7600, I visited AES where I had a TS-590, IC-7600 and TS-2000 in front of me to switch between.  To my surprise, I found that the TS-590 had a very similar hiss quality as the TS-2000.  After about 3 hours, I just could not find a major difference between the two Kenwood radios in terms of reading stations buried in the noise.  I imagine that there would be a big difference under crowded band conditions with high-gain antennas, but I couldn't notice it on a Cushcraft A-4S at 50ft.  I ended up purchasing an IC-7600 because I liked the ergonomics, NR quality and a few other features over the TS-590.

   

I don't mean to stir any emotions with this post but I do hope it is informative.  Since I have owned a TS-2000 for several years I have taken care to research any shortcomings and if they have merit, modify the transceiver to fix them.  I think I am quite unbiased because there are many things I don't like about the transceiver, but it is very functional.  As of now I am pretty convinced that when people say that they hear things on the TS-590 that they wouldn't be able to hear on the TS-2000 it is either because the TS-2000 is faulty, they are comparing the two using multiple stacked arrays, or they are comparing by memory and have a psychologically biased impression.  I think the complaints related to receiver sensitivity are driven by S-meter readings and those of receiver noise are related to users who never obtain the ARCP software to tweek the audio characteristics.

Another possibility is that all of the reported shortcomings of the TS-2000 are true and  I am insane.

73

Anthony
NR9R
Logged
AE4RV
Member

Posts: 963


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2012, 01:46:30 PM »

Selectivity > sensitivity.

It's difficult to compare modern receivers of different price points and vintages until you compare them under harsh conditions, like say a crowded CW QRP sprint. Comfortably copying a weak signal that is right in between stronger signals and digital QRM is when you'll know where your money went.

Also, modern DSP noise reduction, if you have much of a need for it, is better than it used to be.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 01:53:16 PM by AE4RV » Logged
AC4RD
Member

Posts: 1235




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2012, 05:11:06 PM »


I just picked up a TS-590 and spent several hours doing a side-by-side comparison, using the same antenna through an A/B switch.  I was surprised to discover that the TS-2000 can hear anything the 590 can. 

Bob, one of the things I find fascinating about these discussion forums is that, no matter how you formed your own opinion or impression, there are going to be people who tell you that you are WRONG, because "everybody knows" this or that.   I'd say you should trust your own ears and your own feelings about the two rigs.  :-) 
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6473




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2012, 08:23:19 PM »


I just picked up a TS-590 and spent several hours doing a side-by-side comparison, using the same antenna through an A/B switch.  I was surprised to discover that the TS-2000 can hear anything the 590 can. 

Bob, one of the things I find fascinating about these discussion forums is that, no matter how you formed your own opinion or impression, there are going to be people who tell you that you are WRONG, because "everybody knows" this or that.   I'd say you should trust your own ears and your own feelings about the two rigs.  :-) 

While I have never owned a 2000 I have used a few. I love these claims of how great the 2000 compares to modern rigs. While the 2000 has decent transmit audio, the receiver lacks a lot. The selectivity and shape factor of "filtering" skirts is lacks and mixer is a bit noisy too.  My 480 with optional filter installed blows it away is selectivity and has a quieter mixer too.  To claim that the 2000 is as good as 590 means one really does not know how to use the 590 to exploit its abilities.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
K0BT
Member

Posts: 194




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2012, 08:52:20 PM »

I used the two radios side by side for almost two months.  Now that I am familiar with both, I have learned that the TS-590 is more selective, is just slightly more sensitive, has more effective DSP, and is easier to use on HF.  

With that said, I think some of the criticism of the TS-2000 is unjustified. It is a decent performing radio and I've been happy with mine.

I appreciate all the comments.

Bob
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 08:54:45 PM by K0BT » Logged
N6AJR
Member

Posts: 9921




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2012, 02:49:30 PM »

I use the ts 2000 mostly for day to day on the 2m/440 FM repeaters, mostly for the vox. I use an Orion for dx and contesting and such. The TS2000 is a bit deaf on HF receive, and the Orion is much much better. As compared to a 590, I used to have one  and if  my memory serves me, the 590 was a bit better in rx.  good luck, have fun
Logged
Pages: [1]   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!