-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
-
Retevis is giving away Radios for the New Year and Every Member is Eligible. Click Here to see the details!
Kenwood TS2000
- Thread starter SMILEX2692002
- Start date
now thats just plain funny!
I sent it out to a few people on 7.173 as an animated GIF file using digital sstv. theyb got a big laugh out of it.
it IS a LARGE file!!!
Last edited:
I have been using a 480 for the last 5 years as a base and was quite happy with it's performance except for no 2m/70 bands.
Just bought a new 2000 about 3 months ago.
Here are the general differences I see between them.
1. The TX bandwidth is 3000 vs the 480 at 2800. A plus in the audio department with a good mike.
2. The 60m band can be activated on the 2000 and stored in memory for fast accurate access vs the 480 that can tune them out of the box and/or store in it's memory the same way.
3. The low and high cut is a bit better on the 2000 and a bit easier to use.
4. The S meter is a lot more 'stingy' than the 480.
Actually the 2000 is more proper being closer to the standard of 50 uv = S9.
Beyond this the common features are about the same except for the special features the 480 does not have being a mobile/base design.
Both hear about the same sensitivity on an A/B test.
Both use the Kenwood control program both use the HRD control program, both use the memory control program.
Some other differences, the 480 still uses the 2sc2897 finals, the 2000 uses FETS..
2m and 70cm bands does not have an SWR meter function on the display.
Both actually display both peak and average power at the same time on the display by watching the last bar action in the display while the rest fall back.
The 2000 actually has a band scope similar in operation the HRD control program..
Both have the same RX and TX audio EQ and User setting to load in your own custom audio response curve as you design it in the Kenwood control program and down load the file to the radios.
2000 has dual receive and S meter bar reading second rcv on 2m and 70cm only.
2000 is equipped for data modes and satellite.
2000 has a separate antenna receive jack for HF turned on by menu option.
2000 has separate TX/RX antenna connectors for 2m and 70cm antennas or Diplexer use with a single transmission line to a dual band antenna.
Remember the 2000 is an older design that has so much capability that has kept it going as the top of the line before the new 590 and now the 990.
If your not demanding on absolutely the best selectivity for contesting, dual receive etc then this radio fills the normal ham radio uses otherwise you have to pay the price for anything better with features you may not use.
Good luck.
Just bought a new 2000 about 3 months ago.
Here are the general differences I see between them.
1. The TX bandwidth is 3000 vs the 480 at 2800. A plus in the audio department with a good mike.
2. The 60m band can be activated on the 2000 and stored in memory for fast accurate access vs the 480 that can tune them out of the box and/or store in it's memory the same way.
3. The low and high cut is a bit better on the 2000 and a bit easier to use.
4. The S meter is a lot more 'stingy' than the 480.
Actually the 2000 is more proper being closer to the standard of 50 uv = S9.
Beyond this the common features are about the same except for the special features the 480 does not have being a mobile/base design.
Both hear about the same sensitivity on an A/B test.
Both use the Kenwood control program both use the HRD control program, both use the memory control program.
Some other differences, the 480 still uses the 2sc2897 finals, the 2000 uses FETS..
2m and 70cm bands does not have an SWR meter function on the display.
Both actually display both peak and average power at the same time on the display by watching the last bar action in the display while the rest fall back.
The 2000 actually has a band scope similar in operation the HRD control program..
Both have the same RX and TX audio EQ and User setting to load in your own custom audio response curve as you design it in the Kenwood control program and down load the file to the radios.
2000 has dual receive and S meter bar reading second rcv on 2m and 70cm only.
2000 is equipped for data modes and satellite.
2000 has a separate antenna receive jack for HF turned on by menu option.
2000 has separate TX/RX antenna connectors for 2m and 70cm antennas or Diplexer use with a single transmission line to a dual band antenna.
Remember the 2000 is an older design that has so much capability that has kept it going as the top of the line before the new 590 and now the 990.
If your not demanding on absolutely the best selectivity for contesting, dual receive etc then this radio fills the normal ham radio uses otherwise you have to pay the price for anything better with features you may not use.
Good luck.
If I were in the market for an hf rig I would snatch one of these up in a heartbeat and not give the TS-2000 a second look. The technology in the TS2k is over 10 years old vs. the Yaesu which is current. Kenwood is way behind Yaesu as far as I'm concerned.
Yaesu FTDX1200 Amateur Transceiver, FT-DX1200
Yaesu FTDX1200 Amateur Transceiver, FT-DX1200
After 6 months of owning the Ts-2000 I find it to be a give and take radio.
The one thing I really don't care for is the receive sensitivity on HF. I have to use the Pre amp function to bring the receive up on 20-10 meters.
With out the pre amp on most signals do not register on the S meter.
Now when I hook up my TS-480 sat to do a comparison I do not need to use the pre amp. The 480's S meter shows over what the Ts-2000 shows with the pre amp on for the same incoming signal. The same antenna was used for this comparison. I can also hear more distant or weaker stations on the Ts-480 and when I try to hear them on the Ts-2000 they are not there.
On 2 meters I have to run the receive Pre amp on for signals to register on my TS-2000.
When I compare it to my Kenwwod TM-281a 2 meter radio the signals are just as strong on the TM-281a's S meter. The mobile TM-281a has no pre amp setting. Same vertical 2 meter beam used to compare.
I do understand a stand alone HF or VHF radio will have the best performance vs a all band all mode like the TS-2000. I guess owning a all in one radio is a compromise.
I do prefer the Ts-2000 for looks and functionality over my TS-480 and TM-281a.
The transmit quality has been top notch with compliments on all modes used.
CW operation is great as well.
If I had to I still would buy another TS-2000 even with the issue I have with the receive.
The one thing I really don't care for is the receive sensitivity on HF. I have to use the Pre amp function to bring the receive up on 20-10 meters.
With out the pre amp on most signals do not register on the S meter.
Now when I hook up my TS-480 sat to do a comparison I do not need to use the pre amp. The 480's S meter shows over what the Ts-2000 shows with the pre amp on for the same incoming signal. The same antenna was used for this comparison. I can also hear more distant or weaker stations on the Ts-480 and when I try to hear them on the Ts-2000 they are not there.
On 2 meters I have to run the receive Pre amp on for signals to register on my TS-2000.
When I compare it to my Kenwwod TM-281a 2 meter radio the signals are just as strong on the TM-281a's S meter. The mobile TM-281a has no pre amp setting. Same vertical 2 meter beam used to compare.
I do understand a stand alone HF or VHF radio will have the best performance vs a all band all mode like the TS-2000. I guess owning a all in one radio is a compromise.
I do prefer the Ts-2000 for looks and functionality over my TS-480 and TM-281a.
The transmit quality has been top notch with compliments on all modes used.
CW operation is great as well.
If I had to I still would buy another TS-2000 even with the issue I have with the receive.
Please understand a lack of S meter action is not an indication of a lack of sensitivity.
Don't fall for that observation.
I to have both the 480 and the 2000 and see the difference on an A-B test using a coax switch.
The 2000 is a 12 plus year old design such that the program it was given for S meter operation is not as aggressive on a 'curve' basis as all the newer radios.
BTW there is a program change that has been done to change the meter reading but it does not change the sensitivity of the receiver. It is not Kenwood derived or approved so it accomplishes nothing but a visual.
There are tests showing the 2000 has an S9 response to a signal in the 50 microvolt range that is consistent with the older receiver semi standards such as Collins.
S meter calibrations are still not to any adhered to standard across all mfgers.
Very often S meter actions are too aggressive if for no other reason than to get ahead of some other makes on the market in todays world for sales and bragging and attention.
Of course if your not awhere of this it makes the the 2000 look less sensitive when in fact it is not.
As an example of a stretch the other direction,; a station in the New England area 'consistently' night after night gives signal reports to European stations of 20 and 30 over 9s on 75m.
They all know just to take it with a grain of salt because few other can honestly give that kind of report.
Bottom line is use common sense. A flying S meter really means little as long as it's reasonable over the average of all the reports.
After all one could add another pre amplifier just to see the S meter higher but what would be accomplished that is worth anything except noise and possibly, over load and likely less selectivity?
There is nothing wrong with the 2000 except what is not 'seen'.
I hear the same signals every one else hears on the average discounting propagation effects.
Good luck.
Don't fall for that observation.
I to have both the 480 and the 2000 and see the difference on an A-B test using a coax switch.
The 2000 is a 12 plus year old design such that the program it was given for S meter operation is not as aggressive on a 'curve' basis as all the newer radios.
BTW there is a program change that has been done to change the meter reading but it does not change the sensitivity of the receiver. It is not Kenwood derived or approved so it accomplishes nothing but a visual.
There are tests showing the 2000 has an S9 response to a signal in the 50 microvolt range that is consistent with the older receiver semi standards such as Collins.
S meter calibrations are still not to any adhered to standard across all mfgers.
Very often S meter actions are too aggressive if for no other reason than to get ahead of some other makes on the market in todays world for sales and bragging and attention.
Of course if your not awhere of this it makes the the 2000 look less sensitive when in fact it is not.
As an example of a stretch the other direction,; a station in the New England area 'consistently' night after night gives signal reports to European stations of 20 and 30 over 9s on 75m.
They all know just to take it with a grain of salt because few other can honestly give that kind of report.
Bottom line is use common sense. A flying S meter really means little as long as it's reasonable over the average of all the reports.
After all one could add another pre amplifier just to see the S meter higher but what would be accomplished that is worth anything except noise and possibly, over load and likely less selectivity?
There is nothing wrong with the 2000 except what is not 'seen'.
I hear the same signals every one else hears on the average discounting propagation effects.
Good luck.
KM3F,
I have been very satisfied with my Ts-2000 and have learned to accept the S meter for what it is. I have stopped using the pre amp feature and have found the sensitivity to still be as good as my Ts-480. There is nothing the Ts-480 hears that my Ts-2000 can't. Both without using the pre amp feature.
I'm glad I bought it and use it daily.
I have been very satisfied with my Ts-2000 and have learned to accept the S meter for what it is. I have stopped using the pre amp feature and have found the sensitivity to still be as good as my Ts-480. There is nothing the Ts-480 hears that my Ts-2000 can't. Both without using the pre amp feature.
I'm glad I bought it and use it daily.
