It was the 857D that they added the optional DSP to. The 897 has always had the
DSP.
What I would like to know if anyone knows is can you change the roofing filter
without having to change the whole radio.

DE: Jimmy (WB8NBI)
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: g7guo@...
   To: FT897@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 5:48 PM
   Subject: Re: [FT897] Re: Differences???



   In a message dated 25/01/2005 19:50:53 GMT Standard Time,
   n0fqnd2@... writes:

   What  they did is added the optional DSP unit


   Did the 897 not always come with DSP then? Mine has it but it was not as an
   extra option.

   73, Simon G7GUO.



   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FT897/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     FT897-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, k9ztv <k9ztv@s...> wrote:
> Perhaps you had a reason for your comment.

You very well why.

You can have the last word. I'm done with this thread.

73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com

Perhaps you had a reason for your comment.

It hears everything my 1000D hears.

Your turn.

Kent  K9ZTV



whynotbecreative wrote:

>
> SOMEONE WROTE:
>
> > Even
> > with it's limitations, you can make this rig do just about anything
> > you
> > want if you know what you're doing.
>
> Perhaps you haven't noticed the signals you were missing.
>
> 73,
> --Alex KR1ST
> http://www.kr1st.com
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 26/01/2005 03:32:56 GMT Standard Time,
barrister54@... writes:

When you  charge one of the batteries on the 897, when it is done
charging (if the  radio is off) the red light goes out.  Is it OK to
leave the charger  connected to the battery or can this cause
overcharging in some  fashion.  Couldn't find anything in the manual.

de Roger  W6VZV



The charger detects when the battery is fully charged and shuts off. If you
try to charge an already charged battery it will quickly shut off again. So no
  worries.

73, Simon G7GUO



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

When you charge one of the batteries on the 897, when it is done
charging (if the radio is off) the red light goes out.  Is it OK to
leave the charger connected to the battery or can this cause
overcharging in some fashion.  Couldn't find anything in the manual.

de Roger W6VZV

--

Roger J. Buffington
Buffington & Bowling, LLP
Attorneys and Counselors-At-Law
rjbuffington@... (firm email address)
barrister54@... (home email address)
949.221.9660 (voice)
949.221.9661 (facsimile)

This message is confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege and the
work-product doctrine.  This message is not subject to discovery and is intended
only for the addressee.  If you have received this message in error, we request
that you delete it and contact our office.

SOMEONE WROTE:

> Even
> with it's limitations, you can make this rig do just about anything
> you
> want if you know what you're doing.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the signals you were missing.

73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com

A word about noise blankers . . .

Noise blankers should NEVER be used unless it is absolutely necessary to
cut pulse-type noise.  No noise blanker is effective on white noise
(background noise left over from the big bang).

ALL noise blankers will create "artifacts" (for lack of a better word)
in resonance with strongly keyed nearby signals.  This is not the fault
of the rig and occurs because of the very nature of noise blanker circuitry.

Finally, very strong RTTY stations were blasting away on the Tenth
Region NTS frequency (3.590) a few nights ago.  With an INRAD 300 cycle
filter and the DSP on 60 cycles, my non-D early production '897 was able
to slice and dice through them all for 100% copy of net stations.  Even
with it's limitations, you can make this rig do just about anything you
want if you know what you're doing.

73,

Kent  K9ZTV


> SOMEONE WROTE:
>
> Heck, even in uncrowded band conditions it's quite bad. I can copy a
> strong 599 CW signal 40kHz away (sounds like modulated noise), more if
> the NB is engaged, on 6 meters when there's virtually no one else around.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 25/01/2005 19:50:53 GMT Standard Time,
n0fqnd2@... writes:

What  they did is added the optional DSP unit


Did the 897 not always come with DSP then? Mine has it but it was not as an
extra option.

73, Simon G7GUO.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Lee, K4AQ" <Matt@H...> wrote:
>
>
> And here are some Full Page Advertisements, FT-897D/FT-857D/FC-
> 40/ATAS-25 Re: CQ Magazine, Page 9 (Dec-2004), Page 7 (Jan-2005); QST
> Magazine, Page 8 (Dec-2004/Jan-2005/Feb-2005):
>
> "Improved 1st IF Roofing Filter for enhanced operation in crowded
> bands." (FT-897D & FT-857D)


Heck, even in uncrowded band conditions it's quite bad. I can copy a
strong 599 CW signal 40kHz away (sounds like modulated noise), more if
the NB is engaged, on 6 meters when there's virtually no one else around.

Thanks for the pointers.

73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com

Thanks for that info, Jeff! IMD is horrible on this rig I have
especially with the NB engaged. Do you know the part number of the new
filter?

Indeed there are more changes between both models than advertized.
When you look at the schematics you'll also find differences in the
ALC circuit, and I'm sure there are other differences as well.

There are even differences in how the top cover is grounded. In mine
you find a piece of conducting foam sticking to the speaker and cover
which is supposed to touch the ground of a coaxial connection on the
PCB. Very scary as right nect to it are several ICs that can be
shorted by this foam. Not only that, as the foam ages it looses its
ability to sufficiently press against this connector. Double ouch! I
see that in other rigs they put the foam tape near the rear of the rig
across the shielding of some connectors.

If I had to make the choice, I'd spring for the extra 150 bucks and
get the latest model.

I'd also wonder where this so called extra batch comes from,
especially since it was rather hard to find an 897 just before the D
model came out. After almost a year all of a sudden someone has a
batch of the old model....

73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com


--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "bobmayerau" <bmayer@t...> wrote:
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Questions regarding the differences between the models appear
> frequently on this forum. One difference, I have noted, that has not
> been mentioned is the "D" model uses a 4-pole monolythic crystal
> filter(XF1001) in the receiver 1st IF while the older model only has
> a 2-pole filter. The 4-pole filter should significantly reduce IM
> interference and blocking from strong off channel signals.
>
> The below average IM performance of the early 897 had been mentioned
> in ham magazine reviews and on the air. I presume Yaesu took the
> oportunity to improve this in the "D" model but has not advertised
> it. Perhaps this was because there were still a lot of older models
> in the distribution chain.
>
>  73, Bob VK2BMU

The recent QST review of the FT-897D had the phrase (if memory serves
correctly) "and some circuit changes" with respect to differences with
the original 897.  I sent an email to Chip Margelli about this but never
received a reply.

73,

Kent  K9ZTV

>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And here are some Full Page Advertisements, FT-897D/FT-857D/FC-
40/ATAS-25 Re: CQ Magazine, Page 9 (Dec-2004), Page 7 (Jan-2005); QST
Magazine, Page 8 (Dec-2004/Jan-2005/Feb-2005):

"Improved 1st IF Roofing Filter for enhanced operation in crowded
bands." (FT-897D & FT-857D)

--
Matt, K4AQ
Atlanta, GA

--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "tgausmann" <ted@i...> wrote:
>
>
> This was mentioned in the November 2004 QST product review column
> when the ARRL reviewed the "D" models of the 857 and 897. Here's
the
> quote:
>
> As noted there were some
> changes in receiver performance. Yaesu
> has made an attempt to improve dynamic
> performance through a change in roofing
> filter design, resulting in a significant
> improvement in in wide-spaced dynamic
> range.
>
>
> Ted
> W4TLG

In a message dated 23/01/2005 19:06:58 GMT Standard Time, ted@...
writes:

This was  mentioned in the November 2004 QST product review column
when the ARRL  reviewed the "D" models of the 857 and 897. Here's the
quote:

As  noted there were some
changes in receiver performance. Yaesu
has made an  attempt to improve dynamic
performance through a change in  roofing
filter design, resulting in a significant
improvement in in  wide-spaced  dynamic
range.


Ted
W4TLG



Oh right, thankyou.

73,
Simon
G7GUO


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This was mentioned in the November 2004 QST product review column
when the ARRL reviewed the "D" models of the 857 and 897. Here's the
quote:

As noted there were some
changes in receiver performance. Yaesu
has made an attempt to improve dynamic
performance through a change in roofing
filter design, resulting in a significant
improvement in in wide-spaced dynamic
range.


Ted
W4TLG

In a message dated 22/01/2005 22:10:03 GMT Standard Time, bmayer@...
writes:

Questions regarding the differences between the models appear
frequently on this forum. One difference, I have noted, that has not
been mentioned is the "D" model uses a 4-pole monolythic crystal
filter(XF1001) in the receiver 1st IF while the older model only has
a  2-pole filter. The 4-pole filter should significantly reduce IM
interference and blocking from strong off channel signals.

The  below average IM performance of the early 897 had been mentioned
in ham  magazine reviews and on the air. I presume Yaesu took the
oportunity to  improve this in the "D" model but has not advertised
it. Perhaps this was  because there were still a lot of older models
in the distribution  chain.

73, Bob VK2BMU



Really?! If this the case then it is a major difference and I am suprised
nobody else has picked up on it and it has not been published anywhere  else!

73, Simon G7GUO.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jeff,

Questions regarding the differences between the models appear
frequently on this forum. One difference, I have noted, that has not
been mentioned is the "D" model uses a 4-pole monolythic crystal
filter(XF1001) in the receiver 1st IF while the older model only has
a 2-pole filter. The 4-pole filter should significantly reduce IM
interference and blocking from strong off channel signals.

The below average IM performance of the early 897 had been mentioned
in ham magazine reviews and on the air. I presume Yaesu took the
oportunity to improve this in the "D" model but has not advertised
it. Perhaps this was because there were still a lot of older models
in the distribution chain.

  73, Bob VK2BMU

--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Popa" <apopj@m...> wrote:
>
> Hello all, I just received an email from AES. They have a small
quantity of the FT-897's for
> sale. These are the older model, not the D series. According to
them, the ONLY differrence
> is the inclusion of 60 meters and TCXO. They say the old ones
always had DSP and that the
> finals are the same in the old and new. Can anyone tell me just
what the differences are? I
> don't need either of these features and at a savings of about
$150, it would be worth it to
> me to buy the old model.... Planning on going up this Saturday
(1/22/05) so a quick
> response would certainly be appreciated... Thanks, Jeff WB8QYT

I have an FT-897 purchased from AES in 2-2004 and it has no
problems.  The TCX0 stability chip might come in handy if you were to
use the radio outside in the winter time.  If not then it will serve
no purpose I can think of.  The FT-897 can be software/hardware
modified to work on 60m if one desires this.

73

Jim - ke4iza

AES is right, so long as the 897 non-Ds are late model, which they
surely are if AES is selling them.  Otherwise TXCO and 60M are the only
difference.  You can always put the TCXO in the 897 if you decide you
need it (not likely).  Otherwise its the same radio.

Early production 897s had some problems that Yaesu would fix under
warranty but none of the late ones do.  I got mine in Nov 2003 and it
had what appeared to be the latest firmware and no problems at all.

de Roger W6VZV

Jeff Popa wrote:

>Hello all, I just received an email from AES. They have a small quantity of the
FT-897's for
>sale. These are the older model, not the D series. According to them, the ONLY
differrence
>is the inclusion of 60 meters and TCXO. They say the old ones always had DSP
and that the
>finals are the same in the old and new. Can anyone tell me just what the
differences are? I
>don't need either of these features and at a savings of about $150, it would be
worth it to
>me to buy the old model.... Planning on going up this Saturday (1/22/05) so a
quick
>response would certainly be appreciated... Thanks, Jeff WB8QYT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--

Roger J. Buffington
Buffington & Bowling, LLP
Attorneys and Counselors-At-Law
rjbuffington@... (firm email address)
barrister54@... (home email address)
949.221.9660 (voice)
949.221.9661 (facsimile)

This message is confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege and the
work-product doctrine.  This message is not subject to discovery and is intended
only for the addressee.  If you have received this message in error, we request
that you delete it and contact our office.

Jeff,
The $150 is good money spent on an automatic antenna tuner or on a trip that
you can take the rig with.
73,
Norm, W3IZ
www.w3iz.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Popa" <apopj@...>
To: <FT897@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:31 PM
Subject: [FT897] Differences???


>
>
> Hello all, I just received an email from AES. They have a small quantity
of the FT-897's for
> sale. These are the older model, not the D series. According to them, the
ONLY differrence
> is the inclusion of 60 meters and TCXO. They say the old ones always had
DSP and that the
> finals are the same in the old and new. Can anyone tell me just what the
differences are? I
> don't need either of these features and at a savings of about $150, it
would be worth it to
> me to buy the old model.... Planning on going up this Saturday (1/22/05)
so a quick
> response would certainly be appreciated... Thanks, Jeff WB8QYT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That is exactly the difference.....no 60 meters and no TCXO otherwise they
are the same rig......

Kevin N0IRW

On 01/20/2005 09:31 PM, "Jeff Popa" <apopj@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hello all, I just received an email from AES. They have a small quantity of
> the FT-897's for
> sale. These are the older model, not the D series. According to them, the ONLY
> differrence
> is the inclusion of 60 meters and TCXO. They say the old ones always had DSP
> and that the
> finals are the same in the old and new. Can anyone tell me just what the
> differences are? I
> don't need either of these features and at a savings of about $150, it would
> be worth it to
> me to buy the old model.... Planning on going up this Saturday (1/22/05) so a
> quick
> response would certainly be appreciated... Thanks, Jeff WB8QYT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I believe that is 100% correct but am prepared to be shot down on this...

Howard, VK3DLH

--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Popa" <apopj@m...> wrote:
> According to them, the ONLY differrence
> is the inclusion of 60 meters and TCXO.

Hello all, I just received an email from AES. They have a small quantity of the
FT-897's for
sale. These are the older model, not the D series. According to them, the ONLY
differrence
is the inclusion of 60 meters and TCXO. They say the old ones always had DSP and
that the
finals are the same in the old and new. Can anyone tell me just what the
differences are? I
don't need either of these features and at a savings of about $150, it would be
worth it to
me to buy the old model.... Planning on going up this Saturday (1/22/05) so a
quick
response would certainly be appreciated... Thanks, Jeff WB8QYT