ft 991a vs ic 7300

[W4KVW]

I picked the FT991a, for the reasson both receivers are much the same in sensitivety, just that the 7300 will get blasted in a high signal situation and the D/A converter will overflow and you have to reduce sensitivety to overcome that.
The FT 991 has also better tools to fight qrm/qrn, so when you want to dig out a small signal from the noise the 991A will be better, yes i worked with both of them.
Yes, the display on the 7300 is nicer, but i did not buy tthe 991 A for the display but for having the edge on reciever and noise fighting tools.
Running digital modes all day now, doesn't give a peep about running 50 watts for 9 hours long.

Further the 7300 has an overshoot, meaning when you go from transmit to recieve the 7300 will produce rf to the amplifier if you use one that already has dropped back to recieve through the ptt line.
You can get large rf sparks on the relay in the amp, burning it out, or damage the amp its self.

The 991 A does not have that problem, my Heathkit SB-1000 is perfectly happy with it.

In the end it is best ( like i did) to work with both recievers the 991 A just sounded better, had a better SSB modulation and the receiver worked better.
In owning the FT 991A i already worked around the world on all continents is both phone and digital.
And i don't have a gigantic antenna farm, just living on the edge of a small city.

Your money, your choice to make..
Both have their merits, the 7300 is cheaper, lacks 2 and 70 all mode as well.
It's display is a small bit larger, 3/4 of an inch.
But then i buy transceivers for how they work, not for the nice display.

One of my neighbors who lives 1/2 of a mile from me as the crow flies has an ICOM 7300 & he says he has Zero issues with the frontend & I point right across his Mosley PRO-67-2 with my Mosley TA-53M & I'm running 1200 watts on HF.He also has an ICOM 7800 & he says it has no issues with overload either as I do not with my ICOM 7600 from his signal with his ALPHA 9500 & Legal limit.I'm not a fan of any touch screen radio but that's what my friend says about the frontend on his 7300.He has no issues with his 9700 on VHF either so I guess all of them are not the same?

SIX-SHOOTER

 

[sp5it]

Oh come on now, the FT-DX10 has hardly been in the hands of hams or serious reviewers. Wait for the ARRL review and/or Bob Sherwood before making such an outrageous off-the-cuff remark. That sort of talk erodes any credibility.

Who bought 7300, won;t trade for dx10. Economically not worth it.
For new radio price tag/performace 7300 wiped the floor with other radios.

Seriously the guy who decided to manufacture dx10 shoot company in the foot. There is no place on the market for this radio.
If.... if it would have 2m/70cm or 4m might be a competition, but not in current shape.
3DSS still is sideshow like taken from 386SX era. Pathetic and useless.
Mike

 

[VaHam]

Worth looking at this. Just remember, the FT-DX10 is a HYBRID radio. It is a step up from something like the IC-7300 and so is the cost.

 

[L2]

About $525 more than a 7300.

 

[FredTx63]

Sherwood already put an FTDX-10 through his receiver tests. This is hot of the press from today (the person who loaned him the radio for the test posted this on ftdx-10 FB group)

Looks like he places it in the top 4, just above the k3s.

1- FTDX101......Dynamic range.....108 db
2- Flex 6700 Dynamic range 107 db
3- FTDX10...Dynamic range..106 db
4- K3S....DR...105 db

I've had mine sitting side by side with my IC-7300 for the last few days. I much prefer the receive on the FTDX-10.

 

[TheBlaster]

The Yaesu looks like a ham radio the ICOM looks more like 1997 in car entertainment. I like the look of Yaesu radios, I went for a 7300 here, if I had researched more I maybe would not have. None of these radios will be the difference between contacts or not. I "worked the world" already on multi-mode radios that are a fraction of the cost of these, the limiting factor is far from being the radios.

On the upside quick and easy to learn and sounds good on TX from reports I have had running QRP.

Just enjoy what you have as long as there is no show stopping issues put more effort into other areas of your station.

Edit: to correct 7300 warranty here is 2 years not 1 year.

 

[VaHam]

About $525 more than a 7300.

Yes, like I said, higher priced.
A step above a starter radio. More in the FTDX10 than the 7300 - get more pay more.
And like the guy says in the video, when it come to the top 20 in Rob's report, it starts to become a personal preference of user interface differences.
The numbers from Rob Sherwood are fantastic. Price-to-performance ratio is dead on.

But back OT, the 991A is a fine shack-in-the-box radio. Not the same category as the 7300. The 991A target buyer is one radio for all bands plus digital (C4FM).

 

[Bucki]

This whole discussion is a mute point. The IC-7300 belongs to a different category than FT-991A. The IC-7300 performance is comparable to radios 3x more expensive, while the FT-991A is good value for the money, but nothing more. Go to http://www.sherweng.com/table.html.
The IC-7300 is rated in the top 25% with vastly better dynamic range than the FT-991, which falls in the bottom-third category.
Same with QST reviews, the IC-7300 beats the FT-991A hands-down.
Saying that IC-7300 filters are "wide" is obvious that you don't understand how PBT works, plus the fact that the filters can be shaped to be "sharp" and "soft". The IC-7300 has an infinite number of user-configurable filters. Something than the FT-991A simply can't do not being a SDR. The ONLY one parameter in which the FT-991A surpases the IC-7300 is blocking, something that is easily remediated with an antenna tuner or a resonant antenna (something you need anyway in order to transmit).
I suspect that the starter of this thread bought an FT-991A and now tries to convince himself (and the world) than he didn't make a mistake. Buyer's remorse?

 

[Riverman]

This whole discussion is a mute point. The IC-7300 belongs to a different category than FT-991A. The IC-7300 performance is comparable to radios 3x more expensive, while the FT-991A is good value for the money, but nothing more. Go to http://www.sherweng.com/table.html.
The IC-7300 is rated in the top 25% with vastly better dynamic range than the FT-991, which falls in the bottom-third category.
Same with QST reviews, the IC-7300 beats the FT-991A hands-down.
Saying that IC-7300 filters are "wide" is obvious that you don't understand how PBT works, plus the fact that the filters can be shaped to be "sharp" and "soft". The IC-7300 has an infinite number of user-configurable filters. Something than the FT-991A simply can't do not being a SDR. The ONLY one parameter in which the FT-991A surpases the IC-7300 is blocking, something that is easily remediated with an antenna tuner or a resonant antenna (something you need anyway in order to transmit).
I suspect that the starter of this thread bought an FT-991A and now tries to convince himself (and the world) than he didn't make a mistake. Buyer's remorse?

Welcome to WWDX, Bucki!

Not mute points at all. Rather, just people voicing their likes and dislikes. Personally, I prefer the scope/waterfall on the 991A and the overall look of the Yaesu. Might not be important to some, but is to me. I also prefer the noise cancelling of the Yaesu.

That’s my two cents worth and whoever came up with that expression was right on. That’s about all my opinion is worth.

 

[VaHam]

Welcome to WWDX, Bucki!

Not mute points at all. Rather, just people voicing their likes and dislikes. Personally, I prefer the scope/waterfall on the 991A and the overall look of the Yaesu. Might not be important to some, but is to me. I also prefer the noise cancelling of the Yaesu.

That’s my two cents worth and whoever came up with that expression was right on. That’s about all my opinion is worth.

Agree Riverman. The Icom & Yaesu models were designed and engineered for very different operator requirements. BUT Bucki, you can not "fix" blocking with a tuner or resonant antenna, no, no, no. It is clearly explained by Bob here: Terms Explained for the Sherwood Table of Receiver Performance (sherweng.com)

 

[TheBlaster]

I will get my caveats out of the way first. I have experience with only 1 amateur radio transciver, the 7300... so don't have much to compare it with... other than multi-mode radios for 10-12m. (about 6 times lower price point)

I have not heard the FT-991 but what I do know is I very much refrain from using the sharp filter on the IC7300. 2 reasons : one is it is so harsh on the ears it is difficult to listen to, and secondly I have not had a single RX situation in operation (with another close by station, you know that thin reedy voice sound or low deep distorted sound you get with adjacent stations) where that filter has subjectively improved the wanted RX signal.

The PBT just sounds like more of the same to me.. only user adjustable as soon as you start to narrow the pass band to something approaching similarity to "Sharp" setting, that harsh "resonant noise/hiss" whistling starts appearing. We all deal with noise as radio enthusiasts but that is not a pleasant RX experience to me.

Whilst I have not used other radios I do have ears.

I also have mixed feelings about the Noise Reduction.. it sounds very phasey and unnatural very quick. It seems to enhance the sound of fading to me (or adds its own swirling sound, one of the two) It sometimes works well and sometimes I switch it off... dependent on band noise floor and RX station. It is useful to have it but it is not something so good I would even deem it as essential. Hi quality, "real-time" noise reduction algorithms are very complex (and subsequently use a lot of DSP and consequent computational power from the CPU chip in the radio) and there is definitely scope for them to optimize that further. It may be a case that the ICOM CPU is just doing so many calculations for the SDR fundamentals that there is little CPU headroom left for better quality real-time DSP.

I also would have thought the base line band noise is going to make mince meat of any digital SNR specs caused by the electronics themselves. Even with an S0 of noise in a nice RF quiet location the background hiss will be of much greater magnitude than any hiss created by Brownian motion/circuits.

I do like my ICOM-7300 and enjoy using it, lot of radio for the money it seems but I also would like to hope there are better radios... given how much you can spend. And I would prefer nicer sounding narrow filters and better NR as good starting points. The ALC seems like hard work to set up as well on the 7300... a lot of hoops to jump through to stop it jumping above 50pct all the time. It is nice and easy to use though overall and the scope is not just pretty, when you have set it up right it is very useful for finding signals when you are not using your ears.

 

[Wire Weasel]

Haven't owned either one but familiar with both. Although they are similarly priced and are both compact tabletop rigs, I would place these radios in separate categories seeing as the 991A adds VHF & UHF while the 7300 stops at 6 meters.
So ...... the Yaesu, not otherwise having many or any bad points in comparison to the Icom, why isn't the 991A the shoo-in choice between these two for close to the same money?

 

[TheBlaster]

If you enjoy VHF the 991 is probably your choice if you don't then you are probably swung by the large fast updating and high res waterfall / screen.. it does look high res for all the information bars as well, fast and smooth, it does look good that cannot be denied and that the 7300 is a later released radio.

The FTDx10 looks really nice. The S-Meter ballistics look very authentic to an analogue meter on the video above.

 

[VaHam]

If you REALLY want a top grade (non-entry, limited feature) radio that compares $-wise reasonably with the 7300, go for the Yaesu FTdx10. It is worth every dollar, as long as the 991A's digital modulation (C4FM) and V/UHF is not important to you.

 

[TheBlaster]

Seriously though... how is a harsh (sharp setting), narrow resonant whistling (i.e. background noise - kind of like white noise with a resonant peak in it I guess) caused by a sharp narrow filter which seems resonant making the noise whistle meant to help you hear a wanted signal?

I understand the principle to narrow bandwidth to make the RX more selective.. but if any selectivity gain is cancelled by harsh sound how is that subjectively an improvement ? Subjectively to me it just makes the radio hard and harsher to listen to.

When I have had a QSO and a station either bleeding over from higher or lower freqs no filter on the ICOM has helped.. the sharp setting or the PBT, if you use the PBT sure you can narrow from one side of the pass band but it still has a similar effect of making RX audio very harsh. Ok it is not meant to be a hi fi system it is a comms transceiver. I just get an impression the filters are not really very good. I wish I had another radio with filters to compare it with.

It is so disturbing it is not usable to me. Happy to hear from other ICOM 7300 users if I have this wrong... maybe I need to refine my filter technique ?

I would make an inexperienced guess the processor is on the edge of maxing out doing all the SDR calculations and so the coding for the NR and filters is an economical implementation and sounds it.

Given the love for these radios all round maybe I am just wrong.