more solid, more features, better all around transceiver yes, but as per the
question at hand, which radio has the better receiver?
I haven't had my hands on a 480, and I most definitely haven't had a chance
to compare side to side on all the HF bands, not even one for that matter,
but I have an opinion, big surprise huh?
I would say this: the 480 is a more modern transceiver than the ts2000. I
suspect that both radios have a very very similar receiver in them, down to
having the same circuits and components in the same places and all that.
Logically, to me, this would mean the two receivers are identical. However,
because the 480 is the newest HF radio from kenwood, one would assume things
like DSP filtering and general components are of a higher quality than
previous radios like the 2000. Higher speed processing for the dsp, better
chips, better engineering of stages etc. That said, if it makes a half DB
difference over say an icom 718, or a yaesu ft450, is it truly a better
performer than something else?
I strongly suspect that in order to achieve better rx performance, you are
going to have to go up to a higher end, more expensive radio. something
like the IC756 pro, IC7200/7600/7800 or yaesu's newer ft2000 or ft9000
series.
perhaps the K3 would even be a better performer on SSB as well, but who
knows how much better at that price point and at that level of engineering.
I suspect you are very happy with the ts2000, and that you are looking for a
radio with a lower noise floor and so on. Receivers are about as sensative
as they can electronically get in most consumer market HF radios right now.
the good ones stand out because they have engineered the receiver with a far
lower noise floor than other radios.
also, it depends on what sort of roofing filters you can install or that
come stock with the radio.
I don't know what the dynamic range is on a ts2000, but the IC7700 has 110DB
of dynamic range...meaning you can get a far lower noise floor and hear
weaker signals much more clearly.
if it's just another HF rig in the shack with an equivalent receiver to the
ts2000, i think the 480 will do nicely, or an IC7000, or even an old ts570.
essentially with the 480, your getting the HF side of a ts2000 with a few
more operator perks, bells and whistles etc...I doubt there is significantly
higher receiver performance.
But, as I said earlier, I have no hands on experience, so i'm just making
my judgement on some facts and logical deductions.
73
Colin, V A6BKX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Vece" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: RX difference between TS-480 and TS-2000?
> The 2000 is just a more solid radio.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Steve Forst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Tnx Anthony. While it may not have been clear in my post, I have
>> had a
>> 2000 for almost 9 years. Lots 'o QSO's in the log and I plan to
>> keep it
>> till it goes to that big ham shack in the sky. Just considering
>> adding a
>> second rig to the shack with a little better RX specs.
>>
>> 73, Steve KW3A
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anthony Vece" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: RX difference between TS-480 and TS-2000?
>>
>>
>>> HiSteve;
>>> I had both of those radios and I preferred the 2000.
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2010, at 1:21 PM, steve <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just wondering if anyone has done a side by side comparison of the
>>>> TS-2000
>>>> and the TS-480 on receive? I would like to get another HF rig in the
>>>> shack.
>>>> I'm willing to sacrifice some performance in favor of accessibility
>>>> inherent
>>>> with Kenwood, since I have no sighted help here. Rumors still
>>>> abound of
>>>> Kenwood debuting a new HF rig at Dayton in May, but even if true,
>>>> not sure
>>>> I would want to be the first in line for a new model.
>>>>
>>>> I know the 480 requires optional filters, but is the 480 a
>>>> noticeable
>>>> improvement on rx?
>>>>
>>>> 73, Steve KW3A
>>>
|
