Don't know if you are going new or used.  The 2000 has been out just 
over 10 years and the 590  just  under 1 year, so there are a lot more 
2000's floating around on the used market.

I find the noise reduction (NR) on the 590 a lot more useful than the NR 
on the 2000.   While both  have 100 watts on HF and 6 meters, the 2000 
adds all mode 2 meter and 440 mhz(100 watts 2 meters, 50 watts 440), and 
optional 1.2ghz.
Both the 480 and 590 use the newer voice chip, so they speak more than 
the 2000, but the 2000 is still very usable.  The 480 has slots for 2 
optional filters, while the 2000 and 590 don't need any.

Guess your choice will depend on what your plans are in the hobby, good 
luck,

Steve KW3A




On 8/16/2011 3:12 AM, Curtis Delzer wrote:
> thanks, and again, if you can distinguish what makes the 2000 / 590,=20
> different, what you like about each,  and the 480, I will certainly=20
> appreciate it.
> I understand about the TX audio and for those reasons am leaning in=20
> the direction of the 590 / 2000 though I don't know the difference in=20
> eventual cost, etc.
>
> thanks!
>
>
> Curtis Delzer.
> HS.
>
> to download the Haven cell phone  tour.
> in part or in whole
> http://www.mysticplace.info/audio/haven
>
> for 6000 plus ring tones.
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/wch4yb
>
>
> on Monday 8/15/2011 11:51 PM, Steve Forst said:
>>
>> Curtis,
>>
>> For what it's worth, I currently have a TS-2000, TS-480, and TS-590 in
>> the shack.  You would not be disappointed with any of them.   All 3 are
>> still in production, while the 570 has been out of production for
>> several years.
>>
>> I've gotten very nice reports on TX audio from both the 2000 and 590.
>> The TX bandwidth  on both can be opened up to 3khz.  The 480 will only
>> go to 2.4 khz and the TX audio isn't quite as good.   There is nothing
>> wrong with it, just not as full as the other 2.   Of course a lot has to
>> do with mic, eq settings, any external audio gear, and the voice that
>> God gave you.
>>
>> So hurry up and get North Dakota on the air.  You will make a lot of DX
>> stations happy.
>>
>> 73, SteveKW3A
>>
>> On 8/16/2011 12:33 AM, Curtis Delzer wrote:
>>> No, not confused, leaning toward the 480, or 570, 590? don't know a=3D=
> 20
>>> lot about the Kenwood 2000 much but will attempt to read a good bit=3D=
> 20
>>> about it, how it compares with the others, price wise, etc. Some are=3D=
> 20
>>> meant to go mobile a good bit easier than others, etc.
>>> I come from the era of hf in one package, VHF and UHF in other=3D20
>>> packages, but mainly this will be an HF rig though if it did 2 meters=
> =3D20
>>> also I wouldn't kick much.
>>> I hear that the 2000 has better transmit audio than the 480, but=3D20
>>> again, I presume that would be more the interface with microphone and=
> =3D20
>>> band pass, etc.
>>> I have no experience with any kind of digital audio processing yet,=3D=
> 20
>>> so that will be a new experience for me.
>>> Thanks!
>>> by the way I haven't heard of Icom with a speech synthesizer, or if=3D=
> 20
>>> there is software to control those rigs with the computer as in the=3D=
> 20
>>> Kenwood 480S/at, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Currently in Fessenden, North Dakota Clear, 73=3DB0F Wind:SE-140=3DB0=
>   at 12mp=3D
>>> h
>>> Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
>>>
>>> Curtis Delzer
>>> W B 6 H E F
>>>
>
> --
> Currently in Fessenden, North Dakota Clear, 71=B0F Wind:SSE-150=B0 at 13m=
> ph
> Sleep: A completely inadequate substitute for caffeine.
>
> Curtis Delzer
> W B 6 H E F
>