ad: RadioQSL-1

Thinking to spring for an FTDX3000, but a guy is selling his FT1000MP

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KE0EYJ, Jun 3, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
  1. N8FVJ

    N8FVJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I never used a FTDX3000, but if it has the same DNR as the FT-991A buy it.
     
  2. K2SDS

    K2SDS XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I know several other operators that have used the 991A and they agree, the DNR is not the same quality as that found on the 3000 and 1200. Not surprised by that either, 991A is a compromise radio. Compacting all of the electronics in such a small package has a negative effect on performance. I would not buy a 991a radio to work DX.
     
  3. N8FVJ

    N8FVJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    No FT-991A compromise with lower quality DNR. I ask where do you get your findings?
    Video on Youtube comparing FT991A DNR to FTDX3000 DNR and FT-991A DNR is slightly superior to FTDX-3000 DNR. Radios used same outboard speaker. The difference is not that great though. Look it up for yourself.
     
  4. K2SDS

    K2SDS XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Ugh. I've used all of these radios. I stand by my statements.
     
  5. N8FVJ

    N8FVJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Cannot deny Youtube comparison, clearly heard.
     
  6. K2SDS

    K2SDS XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I can think of a half dozen settings that affect the sound quality of a receiver. There is no way of knowing how those radios were configured. Comparing radio sound quality on a you tube video is like comparing television picture quality on televison.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2019
  7. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    I have one and the FTdx3000 is a better rig. The issue with the FTdx1200 is the receivers in it are pretty much the same ass the FT950. The 3000 has better receivers. I have used the 1200 and the 3000 and I could hear the difference easily side by side.
     
    KE0EYJ likes this.
  8. K2SDS

    K2SDS XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    The 1200 is a better receiver than the 950. It uses triple down conversion. If perception is reality then for me there is no difference in receive quality between the 1200 and the 3000. If I had to do it all over again, costs aside, I would skip over the 3000 and go straight to the 5000. Far superior radio than both and a Cadillac feature set that is virtually unmatched in the market today. One of the best bangs for the buck to be had at this time.

    https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/ftdx-1200-vs-ftdx3000-receivers.613818/page-3#post-4674751
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2019
  9. N8FVJ

    N8FVJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I believe both radios were optimized for best receive. After all, how can one radio be set for poor receive? One at 1.8kHz and other at 2.7kHz bandwidth? One set with low RF gain and other set at maximum RF gain? I highly doubt it. And, audio as used in ham radio reception is nothing like a TV picture regarding resolution.
     
  10. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    3000 has basically the same receiver as the 5000 but the 5000 has 2 receivers. The second receiver is comparable to the 1200 receiver. The 5000 is a superior rig for many reasons.
     

Share This Page