While not disputing how good the FTDX-101D is (the specs and features confirm this), I can "pretty much" say the same thing about my IC-7300 in this past weekend's SSB DX contest

.
With the filter bandwidth also set at 2.4kHZ and some manipulation of the Twin PBT controls, when needed, I could easily pick out and clearly hear weak signals and reject nearby ones. Basically, I'm a firm believer in the "law of diminishing returns". At three times the price of a 7300, will the 101D (ignoring the second receiver and other extra features that one might desire) give you much more superior one-on-one receiver performance, and get you *that* many more Q's in a contest situation? I don't know...would have to put them side-by-side...but it certainly is questionable. Today's technology sometimes makes incremental increases in measured specs moot when put against the real-world range of human hearing/vision capabilities. When viewed from 10+ feet, is a 4K TV picture four times sharper to the human eye than a 1080P HD one? You tell me, but then again, I'm 76

.
I'm in a relatively low *external* noise environment, but when it comes to band noise floor, the 7300's NR (IMO) is better than most of the radios I've used in the past 63 years. But as you increase the NR level to disperse the noise, it still muffles the audio and decreases the volume. I'm now using a "hamburger helper" in that department with an external West Mountain Radio CLRdsp NR unit. Using a different algorithm, as you increase the NR level, the noise sufficiently disappears but the audio remains crystal clear with no artifacts nor reduction in volume. I'm quite surprised with its effectiveness.
It all boils down to what you feel comfortable with, will satisfy your wants and needs in features, and put your trust in for the $$ you spend. No one can tell you what to buy, nor criticize you for it. My opinion, and I'm sticking to it

.
Bob K7JQ