Bill W5WVO wrote:
> The winner... over what? A K3? If so, I'd be interested to know
> why. Most people I know who have compared them say the K3 is a far
> better radio. (I own a K3, but have never used an FT-2000, so I
> can't comment. However, in terms of bench metrics, there is no
> comparison. The K3 wins hands down.)
The instant I hit 'Send' on that message I knew I should have added
something to it concerning the reasons for my closing statement...
Hindsight! ;-)
I meant only that the FT-2000 would probably still be my personal
choice if I were buying today, despite the K3 blowing it away in
certain areas of performance. I have to consider my vision defects
and such factors as operator convenience and overall enjoyment of a
radio in addition to raw performance. What I really wanted was a K3
packaged like an FT-2000, but you can't have everything!
As I noted, the FT-2000 still has (and will always have) a very
serious receiver IMD problem. That alone will be reason enough for
many people to choose the K3 which is clearly setting a new
benchmark in that area! I have lost some contest Q's on low bands
because of this IMD problem. I have yet to hear any sign of IMD on 6
meters but my time for that will come. To date I simply haven't
encountered the prerequisite onslaught of multiple bone crushing
signals close spaced on 6 meters... maybe when F2 returns? I would
be interested in seeing comparisons of the K3 and FT-2000/PEP2000 (a
fully updated FT-2000) DSP functions, which is mainly what my
comments were about.
My only intent in posting what I did was to update/retract some
earlier statements I had made about the FT-2000, which, in my view,
are not relevant to a fully updated FT-2000 today.
I sold essentially my entire 20 year collection of gear (mostly
homebrew born of scrap salvaged from unlikely sources because that
was all I could afford) in order for the once in a lifetime chance
to own a new radio with the features I'd always dreamed of... and
that hopefully wouldn't be breaking down every other day... only to
be disappointed with my shiny new rig less than 5 minutes after
taking it out of the box. Major bummer! That AGC issue immediately
got in my face... and stayed there! That problem has now been fixed,
along with a host of lesser (but important) annoyances with the DSP.
My opinion of the FT-2000 has gone up several notches since the
PEP2000 update, and I'm no longer sadly disappointed with my choice
of radio.
Let me retry my closing comments...
Those buying a radio solely based on performance should buy a K3!!!
Those who might wish to trade off some raw performance for certain
other qualities in a radio, and who have heard negative things about
the FT-2000, *may* want to take another look before making their
buying decision. The recent CPU and DSP software updates have
eliminated many of the issues that I and other FT-2000 owners were
whining about. Rats, now I gotta find something else to whine about!
Disclaimer: I have never actually owned or operated a K3. I have
seen one and twiddled the knobs a bit, and have studied the K3
owner's manual. I wish I could compare a K3 side by side with the
FT-2000 under actual DX/contest operating conditions.
I won't take up further bandwidth on the reflector but will be happy
to answer any questions privately.
73,
Paul N1BUG
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|