I've seen that on ebay there are a lot of receivers of this kind.
What comments could you give about this receiver? How about its DX
performance?

Could you compare with Sangean 909 and Kenwood 5000?



--
_____________________________________________
Leonardo *LeoBlues* - Home Page: www.mondowebcam.com,
www.musicadellascuola.tk

In article , leoblues-
says...
I've seen that on ebay there are a lot of receivers of this kind.
What comments could you give about this receiver? How about its DX
performance?

Could you compare with Sangean 909 and Kenwood 5000?



--
_____________________________________________
Leonardo *LeoBlues* - Home Page: www.mondowebcam.com,
www.musicadellascuola.tk


Go he www.eham.net/reviews/detail/467 and

www.dxing.com/rx/r1000.htm scroll down for the 2000

How much are they asking? The 2000 is a tabletop radio, the 909 is a
portable. The 5000 is a higher grade reciever than the 2000, but the
2000 would be perfectly adequate for most listening. I had a 5000 for a
few years. It was a fine radio, but the audio was tiresome for some
reason and bothered my ears. Stupid, I know, but I sold it. I then
bought a Yeasu FRG-8800 and loved it ever since. I know this sounds like
a downgrade, but the FRG sounds nicer and is just as sensitive.
Selectivity is somewhat less capable than the 5000, but I am happy with
it overall.

I have found the R2000 to be a very good radio for general SW
reception. My particular interest is in "utiltiy", that is stations
not broadcasting to the general public, but the R2000 does
a great job for international broadcasters as well.

It isn't a perfect radio by any means, but it is much better then
the ATS900, I have the Radio Shack version, DX398.
Having said that, my wife was so impressed by the DX398 that
we got her one also. Iused to take my R2000 for mini DX hunting
picnics in wilderness areas but the R2000 suffered from the banging
around. The DX398 is much better if for no other reason then it's
small size and lower power requirments.

If you are going to listen at a fixed location, go with the R2000.
If you are going to use it on the go, go with the ATS909/DX398.

I like my R2000 so much I bought another in January of this year.

There is a yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kenwood_R-2000/

And Robert Williams has put a web page with the service manual
and some usefull modificaitons at:
http://www.qsl.net/kc7bum/

Regardles of which receiver you go with, be sure to put up the best
antenna/ground system you can. It will make or break any radio.

As others have pointed out the R5000 has bad audio and is a pain to
listen to for long periods of time. The R2000 has the best sound from
any built in speaker I have experienced.

Terry

wrote:
I have found the R2000 to be a very good radio for general SW
reception. My particular interest is in "utiltiy", that is stations
not broadcasting to the general public, but the R2000 does
a great job for international broadcasters as well.


The fact is that I own a Sangean ATS 909, and it makes a good job.
But I'd like to upgrade my radio shack ... I haven't got a lot of money ...
so I was searching used equipment (or waiting new DegenDE1108).

My interest was to know if Kenwood 2000 is really better to make DX compared
to ATS909 in a fixed location.

Your answer (as I've understood) say yes...


--
_____________________________________________
Leonardo *LeoBlues* - Home Page: www.mondowebcam.com

Hi. The R2000 is a fine receiver in many respects, but it's design is
somewhat dated so as a consequence it will not have many of the signal
refining features that are on it's stablemate the R5000.

For example the R2000 has digital display to 100hz, two selectable
filters, 1 mhz up/down buttons, 10 memories, noise blanker, dual clock,
RF attenuator, selectable tuning rates down to 50hz and a nice sounding
front firing speaker. It doesn't have direct keypad frequency entry
and the 50hz tuning rate means ecssb is dicey.

The R5000 has digital display to 10hz, four selectable filters, direct
keypad frequency entry, selctable AGC, RF gain, IF shift, RF
attenuator, 100 memories, dual vfo's, noise blankers, notch filter,
dual antenna inputs, dual clocks, 1 mhz up/down buttons, selectable
tuning rates down to 10hz, computer interface. The top firing speaker
is barely adequate, but the addition of an outboard speaker reveals
some of the clearest audio available from a communications receiver.
The 10hz tuning rate means ecssb is pretty straightforward.

For the right price an R2000 would be a very nice radio. To be honest,
with the prices R5000 are going for I would look seriously at one of
those units too.

IF he gets a cahnce he needs to at least listen to both.,
The R5000 is a much better, as in more sensitive, and qiuter noise
floor, but the audio is worse then merely bad. The Kenwood engineers
ahd to stay up[ many long nights to get audio that bad. It couldn'thave
been a accident. the audio actually gives me a headach after several
hours of listening.

And while the R2000 on displays down to 100Hz, it tunes in 50Hz steps.
More then good enough for any SSB reception. And if you want to
go whole hod, there is a mod posted by FC on teh R2000 mods
page that allows the BFO to be shifted over a several 100Hz range.
It makes ECSSB reception of weak AM signals fun.

The R5000 also has a well known failure mode when the potting
compound for the ?PLL? dries out and fails. While not all that hard
to repair, it isn't something I would wish on a newbe.

Terry

wrote:

IF he gets a cahnce he needs to at least listen to both.,
The R5000 is a much better, as in more sensitive, and qiuter noise
floor, but the audio is worse then merely bad. The Kenwood engineers
ahd to stay up[ many long nights to get audio that bad. It couldn'thave
been a accident. the audio actually gives me a headach after several
hours of listening.

Bad audio on a R5000? Seems to me it was known for having excellent audio.

The one I had certainly did.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"potting compound for the ?PLL? dries out and fails."

JS Not sure I understand...I''ve never heard of this.

Actually, a side-by-side test of an R5000 and a R2000 using an outboard
speaker on both will reveal a much clearer audio on the R5000. The
R2000 can sound a bit muffled by comparison. I ran numerous
side-by-side comparisons in the former local SWL store before deciding
on the R5000. The king of muddy audio has to be the Japan Radios
however.

"John S." wrote:

"potting compound for the ?PLL? dries out and fails."

JS Not sure I understand...I''ve never heard of this.

Actually, a side-by-side test of an R5000 and a R2000 using an outboard
speaker on both will reveal a much clearer audio on the R5000. The
R2000 can sound a bit muffled by comparison. I ran numerous
side-by-side comparisons in the former local SWL store before deciding
on the R5000. The king of muddy audio has to be the Japan Radios
however.

Followed up or equaled by the earlier ICOM's.

dxAce
Michigan
USA