FT991 : Le remplaçant du FT897 / FT857 ..?

K9BOO a écrit:I especially appreciated your comment regarding the FT-991 and your experience with the IC-7100. 
 
Do you find the FT-991 to generally be less capable in receiving poor signals than the IC-7100?  I have had three occasions on different evenings to compare receive signals by ear on the two units, switching between them using the same antenna with its own tuner. 
 
On each occasion, I used "out-of-the-box" settings, without initially employing any filters.  FT-991 was almost unable to receive many signals that the IC-7100 was able to receive more clearly and render intelligible.  Though it was sometimes a challenging band (80m), for both radios, it was frustrating that the FT-991 could not pull the conversation out of the noise like the IC-7100.
 
Though the DNR function of the FT-991 is cool, it did not help dramatically in these circumstances or when I moved from "out-of-the-box" settings to trying to tweak.
 
What were your experiences?  Did you get a chance to compare them side-by-side with poor signals off the same antenna?
 
Thanks much.

Robert Lonn a écrit:Interesting. Yaesu brags about if you can't hear it then what good is it...in its brochure on the radio. What you are saying is the Icom is superior in raw sensitivity compared to the Yaesu. Icom has the Dstar system, does Yaesu have anything in comparison. the Dstar seems very powerful and easy to use. My brother is getting his license soon and in upstate New York, so from Southern Ca. The Dstar seems easy to implement.

W9WHF a écrit:Good observations regarding the capabilities of the Ft-991 and IC-7100.
I am P/4 for a few more weeks and do not have my 7100 here. I have my IC-7000 here
With easy comparison of identical LnR EndFedz brand dipoles strung almost side by side.
I am warming up to the 991, but I still think the delivered audio from the ICE-7000 has the edge. At home I have a litany of Yaesu and Icom transceivers and I believe one could show that the perceived audio, or S-to-Noise ratio really favors the Icom radios.
The odd thing with FT-991 is that quite a few signals appear distorted where one of the parties in a QSO is clear,  the other is flaky at the "edges". This may be a tighter filtering anomaly, with the FT-991, but strange, not apparent on the side-by-side Icom 7000.
Several reviewers have commented on Yaesu's odd decision to include the useless C4FM instead of a well established and working D*Star network which can be quite effective (IC-7100). I have a D*Star H/T as well, and with our awesome Nashville VHF D*Star repeater, you can work the world with 5 watts. It's complicated but pretty cool. C4FM, really?

K9BOO a écrit: I believe the IC 7100 has several hundred more memory storage locations than the FT-991.  If I were more interested in U/VHF, that might be an important consideration.
I do appreciate quick access to certain functions which the IC 7100 provides through dedicated buttons and dynamic soft buttons in the touch screen, but that may just be personal preference or my familiarity with having more experience on the IC 7100.
I would observe that the slanted screen of the IC 7100 -- which I thought originally put me off - - seems to be quite comfortable for me as I use it in operation.  The FT - 991 propped on its wire stand, does not provide the same amount of stability for me.
With the larger speaker, the FT - 991 can produce a much richer sound.  However, and I'm not sure if this is the same issue Jerry points out, certain weak signal conversations are not easy for me to hear.
I very much want to like my ft - 991.  Some of us fear change (I think most of us).  I could try to adjust to any differences except for SSB reception capability.