On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:05:54 -0500 (CDT) Robert W5AJ
<w5robert@blkbox.COM> writes:
>John,
>
>PSE, what did you think of 1000MP receiver to the Omni receiver??
>
>--
>73 Robert W5AJ w5robert@blkbox.com
>
Basically the same in terms of high dynamic range for overload
resistance,
high intercept point, and overall level of quietness.
This is with the IPO button ON. I.E., the same as the Omni Plus.
A local Ham here had just received his Omni Plus so was able to make a
side-by-side comparison. (He still likes his Omni Plus, however he
admittantly
was VERY impressed with my new 1000MP.
In terms of transmitted CW, the 'MP still seems to have that famous Yaesu
waveshaping
that at times invites unsolicited favorable comments from the other
QSO-ing station.
The RTTY ("data") mode is where the 'MP shines in comparison. I have all
of the I.F. filters
installed and the bandpassing is properly setup for this mode regardless
of what filter(s) are
being used. Whereas, the Omni cannot accommodate it's special 500 Hz
"FSK" filter
if one also wishes to install the 500Hz CW filter. Or vice versa.
The total filtering either for FSK ('data") or CW modes is not as
optimized as it might be.
This is somewhat a moot point with my Omni owning buddy who uses only CW
& SSB.
I also heavily use Pactor in the 'MP's "RTTY" mode.
Ten-Tec's engineers make a good technical case for not having a built-in
power supply
in the Omni; Yaesu has placed a **switching-type** of power supply
inside the 1000MP.
With the 1000MP attached to a dummy load, I could not detect any
"birdies" or hash within
the HF Ham bands. So, perhaps Yaesu has solved this one, also.
73. --John, K8JS
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.qsl.net/k7on/yaesu.html
Submissions: yaesu@contesting.com
Administrative requests: yaesu-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-yaesu@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|