PSE теоретические (пока) соображения.
Вид для печати
PSE теоретические (пока) соображения.
В плане чего? ТТД? Так вроде ещё рано говорить, - пользователей 2000-го я не встречал, а заявленные данные, это не серьёзно. Теория с практикой не всегда совпадает.
Да уж... Теоретиков у нас всегда хватало.Цитата:
Сообщение от ES4RZ
Кажется совсем недавно на CQHAM обсуждали (теоретики конечно) как отвратительно звучит PROIII, глядя на картинку в журнале (или инете), по сравнению с аналоговыми аппаратами, от которого уши в трубочку сворачиваются, а вот уже и до долгожданного 2000-ка добираемся. А я тут на днях, кстати говоря, поставил рядом с ПРОшкой 1000МР, и был сильно разочарован его (1000) звучанием. Сначала подумал, что ширина полосы больше, - на ПРО - 2.8, а на 1000 - 2.4, но потом уровнял, но ничего особо не изменилось(...).
Ну да ладно, это другая тема, да и не хочу получить лишних пинков от приверженцев классики.
А так же PT-8000 versus IC-7800.Цитата:
Сообщение от ES4RZ
Даже на eham.net ничего нет про FT2000.
Слава Богу лето на дворе. Зимой поди придется по очереди выходить... моторы прогревать :)Цитата:
Сообщение от ES4RZ
Что-то тихо? Как сравнение или после теста
все станент ясно? :)
RA1WU Leo
To ES4RZ:
Вам там не написали как там тест прошел?
Сравнили, что-то тихо :(
RA1WU Leo
Говорил с Вахтангом 4L8A. Он WW Отработал на FT-2000. Сказал, что хорошее радио. У него еще стоит TS-2000 и FT1000MP. Сказал, что будет развивать по опциям этот аппарат. Естесственно разговор был о приеме. Деталей не пишу, так как разговор личный, но его вывод-аппарат хороший.
Кое-что из интернета по теме:
I tried a Ten-Tec OmniVII, Orion II, FT2000 and IC756ProIII here in the shack. I did not do any side by side comparison but put each rig through its paces. The ProIII wins hands down. A close second is the OmniVII. I was not impressed with either the FT2000 or the Orion II. I kept the ProIII.
BTW I mostly chase DX in CW.
73 Maarten N1DZ
I had the FT-2000 for six months, but sold it. I now have the IC-
756proIII, and this one I find to be excellent.
I must admit I was impressed by the design and the big size of the FT-
2000 when I first saw it.
I quickly learned that there were several problems with the FT-2000.
The roofing filter design is not good, Yaesu have during the final
testing (right before production started) removed some of the critical
components surrounding the roofing filters. This was probably done
because the roofing filters did not meet their specifications. The loss
thru the 6kHz and 3kHz roofing filters was about 10dB in my radio, and
filter sweeps of these filters show that there are problems with non-
symmetrical filter shape and they are a bit "off center" also. Yaesu
clearly did not get these filters right.
IMDR measurements at 2kHz (ARRL test) show these nubers to be as low as
63dB, this is not good for a "high performance contest class" radio.
I concluded with that the roofing filters in my FT-2000 was very poor
and made no improvement compared to for instance an IC-7400 which I had
access to at the same time.
The Auto Notch (DNF) is another thing that I found to be very poor, it
can't notch out more than a single tone when there is nothing else in
the passband. If there is someone talking on the frequency and one uses
the Auto Notch, the result is a lot of audio distortion. Very bad.
The noise reduction (DNR) is also strange, even the first (lowest)
level is way too aggressive, it sounds very "muffled". There should
have been a more gradual increase on this. Not good.
Poor voice recorder. One must turn the mic gain fully clockwise to be
able to record a decent sounding audio, then return the mic gain to
around 11'o clock for normal "on air" operation. The levels are
completely wrong. Not good.
There was also several other "issues" that I found, and after upgrading
firmware 4 times (up to V.0133) I said "enough" and I decided to get
rid of it. I was very disappointed with the FT-2000.
The IC-756proIII on the other hand has no such "issues". It is a very
solid performing radio with no bugs or problems. It also has a great
scope which I find very useful.
I can highly recommend this one.
Best regards
LA4AMA
Roar
I currently own both the Icom Pro III and the FT-2000. For the last 5 months
I have an A/B antenna switch in line to compare these two transceivers.
Antenna is a 4 EL Steppir and a delta-loop for 75 m. I work lots of DX (weak
signal), rag chew and the occasional contest. These are my observations and
opinions;
The PRO 3 reminds me of a BMW - it does everything very well. After 3 levels
of improvement all the bugs have been fixed plus many key improvements made.
Icom has listened to their customers and made the improvements. That's one
of the reasons why they are the market leader.
The reason I keep the FT-2000 is the receiver audio intelligibility. With
the Contour Control I can easily lift and hear very weak or poor modulated
signals. The shift-width pass band tuning is smooth and I think is easier to
adjust. In most tests I can duplicate the same audio with the PRO 3 but it
takes a little longer to replicate.
Transmit Audio: In running A/B transmit audio tests and the other stations
having a receiver with a bandwidth greater than 3.4 KHz the FT-2000 has
produced better audio reports. At 2.8 KHz or less the receive station can't
tell the difference. I also use and like the dual receive when the DX
splits within the same band. Dual watch is very good but I like to hear the
DX in one ear and the crowd in the other.
That being said the FT-2000 was brought to market too soon. When Yaesu
stopped production of the Mark V there was over a year before the
replacement was available. Compared to the PRO 3 these are the things I
notice that do not work as well; Auto notch, works on the 2000 but not
anywhere as well as the PRO 3 and you will end up using the manual notch
which is adequate. Audio gain - like the FT-847 the audio starts at level 3
or 4 - poor design in my opinion. DNR - much better on the PRO 3 not even
close. Analog signal meter on the 2000 is very "bouncy" and signals above 40
over are very erratic. I can make the speech processor work fairly well but
I need to turn the mic gain from 12 o'clock to 9 o'clock. I was optimistic
that Yaesu would correct these issues with software upgrades. As of this
date the upgrades in my opinion have been very minor and are not correcting
the main issues.
The PRO 3 is also a better General Coverage receiver if you're into SWBC,
Utility or MW DX. Using the Band Scope in these modes - I can understand
why the Pro 3 is a favorite with the short-wave listener crowd. It is truly
amazing!
So in summary I will keep the PRO 3 and also keep the FT-2000 because of its
very good intelligibility and transmit audio until something better is
available as a second transceiver. If I had to keep one it would be most
definitely the Icom Pro III.
I hope this helps with your decision.
73, Gary W8VI
Еще из интернета:
Re: Tell why I should purchase the PRO III
I would suggest you read my reviews of the FT2000 as well as the
ProIII on eham. In my opinion the FT2K is not as good as the ProIII
for real reasons. Unfortunately what you get is the human factor of
justification... people spend LOTS of money and they tend to ignore
the realities.... for example the auto notch on the ProIII WORKS and
works wonderfully... turn it on and the carrier(s) are gone - PERIOD.
No digital artifacts. The one on the FT2 did not work for me - did
not notch the carrier and it imparted noticeable digital artifacts
(all of which was noted by others as well as, although downplayed,
ARRL in their review). This IS important - others said "well I'll
just use the manual notch - it works".... to which I reply: you paid
for it - why shouldn't it work? And the manual notch is not as easy
to use nor as effective (it won't work on multiple carriers like the
auto notch in the ProIII will). The processor is not effective on the
FT2. On the ProIII the processor works very well in raising the
averages, is easy to adjust and does not distort the signal... on the
FT2 it is hard to adjust (many have said this) and it does not do
much for the averages - the whole purpose of the processor... and it
WILL cause distortion if misadjusted. The ProIII COMES WITH a
display - not only a display but an extremely well thought out one!
The functions in this radio are incredible - it was obviously
designed BY amateur radio operators that use it! In my opinion the
ProIII is in another league. The 3rd order performance on receive,
even though it has a roofing filter, were less than stellar.
Accodrind to one test of the FT2 the ProIII is equal to it without
the roofing filter. That is per the results of W8JI - the PROIII is
BETTER than it by ~7 db according to the ARRL tests where they found
a value of -69db for the FT2 - not good by todays standards!
I have always loved Yaesu... I was quite disappointed in the radio.
It is a good radio and there are those more casual operators that
will choose it and love it... but the FACTS of what does not work on
the FT2 as well as the exclusion of the display was enough for me to
make my decision.
g.
K9RX
Nice to read that I'm not the only HAM in te world that does NOT
like the performance of the FT2000 at all.
Specialy if you compare it to a better transceivers like the
IC756proIII I also own.
I did send my FT2000 back to the dealer and orderd my second
IC756 proIII to use with my vhf transverter.
73 Bert PA2B
" But fellows hams, I trade in my FT-2000 ( 2 months old) for the IC-
756 PRO III and what a nice difference!
The receiver of the PRO III is so much better.
73,
ON6SAS
( CW only )"
А если коротко, есть же те, кто читает и переводит со словарем :)
RA1WU Leo
Воспользуйтесь http://www.translate.ru (перевод WWW) - вполне сносно переводит
Здравствуйте. Решил ,,оживить,, древнюю тему. Просто интересно и позновательно узнать не ,,кто круче,, а выявленные + и - аппаратов, какое впечатление оставил каждый агрегатик, но только очень хочется услышать людей, которые эксплуатировали оба аппарата. Я думаю не мне одному это будет полезно.