I'm having it badly enough that if I narrow it the signals become garbage.
Wonder if I've a problem in the radio.
Tom
Tom Brennan KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP
web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, John Miller wrote:
> Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:37:24 -0500
> From: John Miller <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: TS2000S -- Why the Critique
>
> I have yet to see that problem, if I do I just narrow up the receive with
> the high and low cut and it clears it right up.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:26 PM
> Subject: Re: TS2000S -- Why the Critique
>
>
> >I have a ts2000 and prefer the ts570 I had because of rejection problems
> >with
> > the 2000. Its regularly a problem on this receiver to have desensing to
> > such a
> > degree as to make conversations impossible and its being caused by
> > stations more
> > than far enough away to be out of range for that problem on any reasonable
> > rig.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > Tom Brennan KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP
> > web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
> >
> > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Steve Dresser wrote:
> >
> >> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:30:32 -0500
> >> From: Steve Dresser <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Reply-To: For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: TS2000S -- Why the Critique
> >>
> >> Lou,
> >>
> >> I'm surprised that you found problems with the 2000 on VHF and UHF. A
> >> friend of mine, who does VHF/UHF work almost exclusively, has two (yes,
> >> count 'em, two) TS-2000s and loves them both. I wonder if Kenwood has
> >> some
> >> quality control issues with noisy receivers in that radio.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Lou Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 14:59
> >> Subject: TS2000S -- Why the Critique
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hi.
> >> >
> >> > The main reason why I lamb-basted Kenwood concerning the TS2000S is the
> >> > receiver noise floor issue. I didn't realize how bad it is until I
> >> > started
> >> > doing some rig to rig comparisons during the VHF contest, and
> >> > discovered
> >> > that the Kenwood TS690 stomps the snot out of the TS2000S on 6 meters,
> >> > and
> >> > the TS790A stomps the snot out of it on 2 meters and 70 cm. I already
> >> > knew
> >> > the TS690 is quieter on HF, but the receiver sensitivity isn't as
> >> > critical
> >> > as it is on VHF/UHF.
> >> >
> >> > My take on it is this. In any rig that I buy, it is receiver
> >> > performance
> >> > that I hold out for primarily. Anybody can build a transmitter section
> >> > that will do the job reasonably well--that isn't rocket science. But
> >> > it
> >> > is
> >> > generally the receiver section that makes a rig exceptional or very
> >> > bad,
> >> > because let's face it folks--you can't work 'em if you can't hear 'em.
> >> >
> >> > My point is that for the cost of the rqadio, I think Kenwood could have
> >> > paid a little more attention to receiver noise, and for the length of
> >> > time
> >> > that radio has been on the market, they could have come out with a
> >> > revised
> >> > version, if they cared at all. Or even if they had a more expensive
> >> > version that provided a first class receiver, I'm the kind of operator
> >> > that
> >> > would spend the extra bucks to get something really good if it were in
> >> > my
> >> > means to do so. My take on the TS2000S is that it is a good radio for
> >> > folks that do casual operation on a lot of different bands, but for
> >> > someone
> >> > who is looking for very good performance, it comes up short.
> >> >
> >> > That is my two cents worth.
> >> >
> >> > 73, de Lou K2LKK
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Louis Kim Kline
> >> > A.R.S. K2LKK
> >> > Home e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> >> > Work e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> >> > Work Telephone: (585) 697-5740
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
|
