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
>>