ad: ProAudio-1

The FT-991 review

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KO6WB, Oct 10, 2015.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-2
  1. KO6WB

    KO6WB Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    In the November issue of QST (available now in digital form) there is a review of the FT-991.
    Not an overly impressive one either, but also not bad.

    So, watcha thinko_O???

    Have fun
  2. NL7W

    NL7W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I agree, Gary. Not a bad review, but not overly impressive.

    Overall, it appears to be a decent all-band, shack-in-a-box.

    I really like the touch screen display. I wouldn't mind having one, that's for sure. :)

    For stark comparison, the 991's 2 KHz reciprocal mixing dynamic range is only 75 dB on 20 meters, whereas the TS-590SG is 94 dB on that band. The 991 transmitter's IMD on HF wasn't terrific either (-26 db), whereas the 590SG turned in outstanding IMD numbers, averaging better than -38 dB (the worst being -31 dB).

    But then, the 590SG doesn't operate 2M or 70 cm, nor the C4FM mode.
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  3. KA5ROW

    KA5ROW Ham Member QRZ Page

    So what you are saying, the higher the dynamic range numbers are the better it is.
  4. N9DG

    N9DG Ham Member QRZ Page

    Its phase noise performance isn't very good at all either, it is only about -85 dBc/Hz at 100 Hz on 20M. At that same 100 Hz from the carrier it is at least 20 dB worse than the Anan-100D reviewed the month before, and on the order of 30 dB worse than the Flex-6300/6700.

    In fact after looking at several other ARRL reviews the FT-991 appears to be near the bottom of the list for all current production transceivers for phase noise performance.

    I suppose the good news is that you can use it to chase your radio neighbors that are geographically close to you off the band any time you want ;).
  5. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Depends on what you're looking for.

    TS590SG obviously better than FT991 in important technical characteristics, but the FT991 has 2 m and 70 cm, plus it's 2 inches smaller in width and depth and 1 inch shorter, and weighs less than 60 percent of the TS590.

    It's apples and oranges to compare these two rigs. They're not designed for the same purposes so of course they'll have different characteristics.
  6. KO6WB

    KO6WB Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I found the TX 3rd order IMD to be of interest.
    Not the direction TX should be going.

    Have fun
    KJ4VTH likes this.
  7. NL7W

    NL7W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    True, Gary.
    Overall, it appears to be a decent all-band, shack-in-a-box.
    Just don't expect it to be a fantastic "contest" rig. Hooking it to an amp would keep help keep your neighbors and distant competitors away from your operating freq. Then again, its receiver would need that anyway.

    I'll repeat, it appears to be a good all-band, shack-in-a-box, just not a great HF transceiver capable of serious contesting and DX'ing.

    I would like to have one for 6/2/70cm work, with occasional HF forays. :)
    N3AWS likes this.
  8. NL7W

    NL7W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    It would serve as a great all-band mobile. :)
    N3AWS likes this.
  9. KO6WB

    KO6WB Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Quite true, if it were limited to mobile operations there may be no problems. However, in a home station environment it can make you unpopular at times.
    I was hoping there would be improvements in the TX on future offerings. Perhaps this is just the last hurrah for IMD.

    Have fun
  10. G8DMU

    G8DMU Ham Member QRZ Page

    The FT991 is ONE OF THE WORST transceivers for phase noise and SHOULD not be used in contests or with a linear. They cause total band noise 50+ kms from source. I am sure some hams may be attracted by the multi band characteristics but seriously the equipment is VERY SERIOUSLY flawed.
    NL7W likes this.

Share This Page

ad: dxeng