[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Thoughts on Kenwood TS-2000?



On Monday 19 February 2001 08:53 pm, you wrote:

> The question is, "What do you currently have?"

Two radios (both $1400+ new) with less than optimum filtering.

> If you have an FT-847, you could sell the FT-847 for about $1100 to $1200.
> Then take another $1200 and purchase the TS-2000.

The TS-690S should be worth at least $800 of that. If I put the *right*
filters in the FT-847 that would eat up most of the difference.

>
> What do you get more than an FT-847?
>
> * 1.2 GHz capability.  Well, it's an add on.  And the 1.2 GHz is in the
> shack.  Coax is lossy at 1.2 GHz.  So you'll need a mast mounted amp and
> preamp anyhow.  With the 847, you just put an entire 1.2 GHz converter at
> the mast.

I still have some mil grade flexible 7/8" hardline around.  It's not very
lossy.  Put the amplifier at the top of the mast.  Keep the converter down
on the ground where temperature regulation isn't a problem.  Same thing
for all these Drake/whatever converters out there.  Also steal a circulator
out of one of the old Motorola landmobile radios and stop worrying about
transmitting into your Drake converter.


> * Another FM radio with Packet TNC as a sub-band: - Oh boy.  Just what I
> need.  Another FM radio and TNC.

Yes a don't care, but also one less box to keep track of.  Also less
finger-pointing when 9600 bps doesn't work the way you want it to.


> * IF DSP - That is nice.  It appears that they have put the DSP inside the
> AGC loop on the main RX.  This could be really good.

The biggest feature in my opinion.  First showed up on their TS-570D.
No $150 (multiple) filters to buy...

> * APRS capabilities.  Don't need those either as I have an APRS station
> already

Another don't care, never used it, waste of time on a base station.

> * Automatic monitoring of packet clusters and using that data to auto tune
> the radio.  Not a bad idea.  Kind of slick, but maybe I don't want to work
> THAT DX station.

True...

> * Sky Command capable.  Worthless since the FCC basically outlawed
> SkyCommand's use.

Not sure why it should be totally outlawed especially if it's on 220 or above.
The FCC's rules are somewhat outdated there.

> * Higher Power Output on 2m and 432 than the 847.  This IS a nice feature
> and useful.

Again, I think that Kenwood had the benefit of identifying what mistakes were
made in the FT-847 and IC-746 and correcting them.  From what I've seen,
it uses a large, heavy diecast chassis like my TS-690S, and should hold up
to full power use.  Don't try that with a FT-847...

> * Transverter Frequency display - Nice feature but not all that usefull if
> you can just do simple math in your head.  Having full transverter ports
> would have been more useful.

Uh huh... was surprised they aren't really there.  I have enough things to
think about without doing the conversion though.

> To me, as the owner of an FT-847 and an FT-1000D, I found the TS-2000 to be
> not worth the money.  I had thought about selling the 847 and getting the
> 2000 for a while until I thought about it.  I have no idea about the
> comparison of the two rigs at HF.  That could make the TS-2000 a far better
> rig.  But since I don't use the 847 much on HF, I likely wouldn't use the
> 2000 much for it either.

Since I've found a wife and kids, something like a FT-1000D is considered a
luxury item, but given the surplus funds I'd probably opt for the new version
of the FT-1000MP.  The TS-2000 seems to offer a lot of bang for the buck
though for a mid-grade transceiver.


> If you have a lousy HF rig and no VHF/UHF/Satellite rig to speak of, the
> TS-2000 is well worth the money.  However, if you already have a good
> station, I wouldn't spend an extra $1000 on it.  I'd rather put that money
> into a good 1.2 GHz transverter and 220 MHz transverter.

I have two semi-lousy HF transceivers and don't really need a top-of-the-line
unit, but would like a little better than what I have.  I already have a 1.2
GHz transverter, but it's measly power output will require an amplifier
anyway.  Given 10W from the Kenwood module, the 7/8" hard line, and
a relatively short run to the antennas from my new shack/office on the 2nd
floor of our house, it might just be enough.

I guess the other thing about the TS-2000 is I've always thought it was
behind-ugly, but after seeing one in person, it's not quite that bad. 
It doesn't look as nice as the 450/690/850 series with their flourescent
displays, but it'll probably last longer.

Ok, on to the computer upgrade, should be up to 1 GHz by morning! :-)

73
Mike N4CNW
----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home