Callsign
ad: HeathTech-1
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Yaesu FTDX 3000 doesn't look so bad to me

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-WarrenG
ad: l-innov
ad: l-Waters
ad: l-gcopper
ad: l-rl
ad: l-tentec
  1. #1

    Default Yaesu FTDX 3000 doesn't look so bad to me

    After reading several less than complimentary opinions here on the ZED, I was kind of surprised at the review that I just read in the April issue of QST. I have read several comments about what a P.O.S. receiver it has and the ARRL measurements just don't agree with that at all. The only thing I noticed in their tests is that the Transmit cleanliness isn't at the top of the heap. It looks like a pretty decent radio that can be had for about $2600 in the real world. As far as I can see the only thing missing is the second receiver.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    San Manuel, AZ
    Posts
    575

    Default

    Many in the FT DX3000 Yahoo group are thrilled with its performance.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yaesu_...0_Users_Group/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    4,798

    Default

    And of course the ARRL has no monetary interest in reviewing the offerings from Yaesu, Icom and Kenwood. Just to mention those three.
    The FTDX-3000 isn't a bad unit. It just wasn't as good as the hype made it out to be before it was introduced. Some were disappointed
    while others found it to be the best thing ever.
    The only scale by which to judge a new offering is what happens as time moves on. Well made units from long ago are still populating the
    amateur bands.
    Time is a much better judge but after so long, you can no longer purchase the offerings, at least not new. You might be able to get one
    in the waning years form someone that bought one and never took it out of the box.
    When it comes down to it I would rather have a unit that was in service then one that sat in a box for X years. Electronics are meant to
    be used. Sitting around just seems to cause problems.
    Have fun
    73
    Gary

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    In Missouri Ozark Mountains
    Posts
    5,692

    Default

    It still falls way behind the K3 even the base model K3/100 bare bones in all of the fields. It was supposed the have the same receiver as the FTDX-5000 it did not, not even close and lacked about 80% of the features that made the 5000 a great radio. I had a 5000 for 2 years till I bought a bare bones K3/100 and compaired the 2 for 4 months at the end I sold the 5000 and ordered another K3 loaded.

    I did borrow a 3000 from a friend for a week and swapped out one of my K3's in the SO2R setup I can tell you that it really should be called an upgraded FT-950 with more menu's. The most noticeable showed in close in IMD and in weak signal work with the K3 superior filtering. Have a look at the Sherwood test reports they give you some ammo to check and look at the overall numbers not just the receive that why I changed.

    Another thing for more radio you pay $500 less for a base K3/100 almost enough to add a sub receiver. As with the K3 you can any options yourself at any time you wish what and when not what someone else thinks you need. With Elecraft you get the #1 rated support/service in the industry and the #1 yahoo group where you can ask the owners/designers/engineers/software/firmware people whatever you wish they are there for "YOU".
    73 de Fred N0AZZ

    _____________________________________

    The License is Only Your Starting Point in Radio!
    MVDX/CC of SW MO., DX Hogs, OARS, NARC, NCDXF
    ARRL member, ARRL and W5YI VE
    DX the thrill of the chase

    ""D-STAR making use of the 2/ 440m repeaters for real world Digital Voice usage around town and around the world""

    " Not one of us can do what all of us can do " ** Max Lucado

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Weatherford, Texas
    Posts
    2,124

    Default

    The 3000 has so-so performance in the receiver realm, like 132 at 20KHZ and 82 at 2 khz spacing which is decent. I think for the price, it is some better than the 2000.
    The scope as on the 5000 is pretty useless. If you really want a decent scope (IMHO), I would opt for tapping the IF and using HRD/Power SDR IF Stage to get a really decent band scope.
    Putting the marginally usefull scope on the 5000/3000 (tiny) is just adding cost to the radio and giving you little.

    Receiver performance is decent I suppose for the casual user. If you want a tiny portable radio with better performance, then the K3 will do the trick, of course, each feature you add jacks up the cost significantly.

    For the casual DXer/operator, I think the 3000 would be an acceptable radio to have, but for me, it would have to be a used one as I wouldn't spend that kind of money for a radio with the limited features/performance.

  6. #6

    Default

    Anything with "3000" in its name can't be all bad.

    I had an Austin-Healy 3000 that was a really fun drive.

    Of course, it couldn't make it through a 6" deep puddle without stalling, but in dry weather it was fun.

    Has anyone checked the FT-3000 for 6" deep puddles?
    What if soy milk is just regular milk introducing itself in Spanish?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    In Missouri Ozark Mountains
    Posts
    5,692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NW9R View Post
    The 3000 has so-so performance in the receiver realm, like 132 at 20KHZ and 82 at 2 khz spacing which is decent. I think for the price, it is some better than the 2000.
    The scope as on the 5000 is pretty useless. If you really want a decent scope (IMHO), I would opt for tapping the IF and using HRD/Power SDR IF Stage to get a really decent band scope.
    Putting the marginally usefull scope on the 5000/3000 (tiny) is just adding cost to the radio and giving you little.

    Receiver performance is decent I suppose for the casual user. If you want a tiny portable radio with better performance, then the K3 will do the trick, of course, each feature you add jacks up the cost significantly.

    For the casual DXer/operator, I think the 3000 would be an acceptable radio to have, but for me, it would have to be a used one as I wouldn't spend that kind of money for a radio with the limited features/performance.

    If I might ask what radio has more features and better overall performance than a loaded K3 at anywhere near that price? It seems an awful lot of the biggest contest stations are using the "Tiny Portable Radio" for one reason and I'm sure you can guess why.
    73 de Fred N0AZZ

    _____________________________________

    The License is Only Your Starting Point in Radio!
    MVDX/CC of SW MO., DX Hogs, OARS, NARC, NCDXF
    ARRL member, ARRL and W5YI VE
    DX the thrill of the chase

    ""D-STAR making use of the 2/ 440m repeaters for real world Digital Voice usage around town and around the world""

    " Not one of us can do what all of us can do " ** Max Lucado

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Ocean Springs, MS (often portable from Moss Point)
    Posts
    1,906

    Default

    Fred:

    How do the K3 and the KX-3 compare on big antennas? I know the KX-3 doesn't have the expandability of the K3, bt I'm curious how they play side by side.

    73, Jim N3AWS

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Park Falls, WI
    Posts
    2,158

    Default

    I really like the looks of the 3000, and it is getting some good reviews. I just wish it had sub-receiver. Or the K3 had a larger, nicer display. The K3 is just plain ugly and I hate rigs with monochrome LCD displays. Oh, and some of the K3 evangelists are a little overbearing. Make that a LOT overbearing
    Bob
    SKCC #12717

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NW9R View Post
    The scope as on the 5000 is pretty useless. If you really want a decent scope (IMHO), I would opt for tapping the IF and using HRD/Power SDR IF Stage to get a really decent band scope.
    Putting the marginally usefull scope on the 5000/3000 (tiny) is just adding cost to the radio and giving you little.
    I looked at the 3000 before getting the 5000, and decided that I really wanted the second receiver the 5000 has that the 3000 does not. The band scope looks nicer on the 3000, but I'm not sure if it's any more useful. I have the 5000 "D" model, but I haven't even bothered to take the SM-5000 out of the box -- that's how useful I think it is. I'll eventually get an LP-PAN and use that with PowerSDR for a band scope because once you've seen that kind of band scope, nothing else will do.

    For the money the 3000 costs, I'd get a K3 instead. It's a much better rig in that price range and it's also capable of rivaling the 5000 in performance by adding additional modules (2nd receiver, roofing filters, etc.)

    The primary reason I wanted the 5000 over the K3 was that I like bigger rigs with bigger knobs. The 5000 is also substantially more robust than the K3 with a die-cast aluminum chassis -- the main circuit board in a K3 forms its structural backbone. I suppose this probably isn't an issue as K3s are frequently dragged all over the world on DXpeditions.
    Check out my Tower Install Blog: http://w6uv.com

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •