Several months ago, I offered comments on the Yaesu FT-2000 in
response to a question that was asked about its use on 6 meters.
Since Yaesu recently released a software update for the radio which
fixes many of the issues, I wanted to update what I said previously
for the record. I am appending my earlier comments below for the
sake of clarity.
So far as I can tell, at least for my operations, the AGC issue is
completely resolved with the "PEP2000" software update. I am very
thankful for that! The factory default AGC settings are now quite
reasonable and useful. I no longer need to drastically adjust the
menu settings (and suffer unpleasant side affects) to compensate for
AGC oddities.
The DNF (automatic notch), DNR (noise reduction), and Contour
functions have been significantly improved.
I still cannot comment about the speech processor or related issues,
since I rarely if ever operate SSB. I don't even know what drawer my
microphone is in... haven't seen it in months!
My earlier comments on receiver IMD still stand. That, of course,
cannot be corrected through software.
All in all I find the rig to be much better now. If I were making an
informed purchasing decision today, the FT-2000 would probably come
out the winner despite its remaining performance shortfall. YMMV, of
course!
73,
Paul N1BUG
Paul N1BUG wrote:
> I rarely give opinions on things like this but I will jump in here.
>
> I bought a FT-2000 after selling all my above 50 / EME gear a year
> ago. I use it on all bands with emphasis on 6 and 160 meters. (For
> those who may not know, 160 DXing is a lot like VHF... far from
> easy, it takes a good station, good operator and lots of patience!
> No wonder so many of the serious VHF'ers are also chasing DX on 160!)
>
> Anyway the FT-2000 is a lot of fun to operate but not without its
> shortcomings. It is plagued by IMD when operating on a band full of
> strong signals... especially CW or other narrow modes where spacing
> between signals is less... but the rig's poor IMD performance is
> evident on SSB too. I don't need the low measured IMD numbers of the
> ARRL review or other tests on this rig to know it isn't a star
> performer. IMD is a regular occurrence with this receiver. In
> addition (but related) the actual bandwidth of the roofing filters
> is wider than you may think from the advertising. Since this is a
> contesting list I will add that my contest scores with this rig have
> been lower than they should have been because I lost contacts while
> experiencing receiver IMD.
>
> Some of the DSP functions leave something to be desired. The auto
> notch works well on a single, fairly high pitched tone but seems to
> have problems with lower frequencies. DNR doesn't seem to do much.
> Although firmware updates have helped, the AGC is still annoying. It
> has an extremely fast attack which can lead to a single *very short
> duration* noise impulse ramping up the AGC, and a resulting "audio
> hole" while it recovers. Shortening the AGC decay times (menu
> adjustable) can help reduce the audio recovery issue but it still
> isn't great.
>
> Some FT-2000 owners have expressed dissatisfaction with the speech
> processor. I have no first hand knowledge on that issue since I
> don't use it.
>
> The subreceiver is a definite plus on 6 meters. I use it to monitor
> DX and domestic calling frequencies at the same time, or use the
> subreceiver to monitor TV video below the band while working
> stations in band or just waiting for something to happen.
>
> All in all I do like the FT-2000 but I would work more weak DX
> without the IMD and AGC issues. If performance is the main criteria
> I would look elsewhere. I'm keeping the FT-2000 partly because I
> don't have a choice financially and partly because I really like the
> ergonomics of the rig. If I had it to do over again, I would opt for
> something else (probably a K3).
>
> 73,
> Paul N1BUG
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|