Glad you did this video. I actually decided to sell my FTDX101D and get the RGO. Not because of this video butg this is more confirmation that the new-fangled radios are somewhat overrated for the money invested in them. There is something very artificial about today's digital radio audio and noise filtering capabilities that I have been unable to embrace fully in daily use. My original 1970 FT-101 has none of these issues. We need more "big three" alternatives like the RGO One. 73 de Scott W1AL
@aj2isotadxing8 ай бұрын
It’s funny you mentioned this, I have a ftdx101 also and was thinking of selling also!!! This little rgo one is all I need
@n4hnhradio9 ай бұрын
Did you adjust the timing and depth for the 101 NB in its menu, to maximize the effectiveness? Can you check for degraded selectivity between the two radios with NB enabled? The NB usually degrades selectivity. A signal 5-6kHz away can bleed through with the NB enabled. It would be interesting to see if that is the case with the RGO. I’m very critical of DSP-based noise blankers. But all noise blankers only represent a temporary fix. Only outboard phase cancellation devices are effective without degrading selectivity.
@aj2isotadxing9 ай бұрын
The only other settings the 101 offers for NB adjustment are width and level of noise attenuation. Both settings didn’t seem to help much. I think it just comes down to hardware NB in the RGO vs DSP based NB in the 101. Same goes for roofing filters. Crystal mechanical filters seem to work better vs DSP based filters in my experience…
@douglasmcalexander52229 ай бұрын
That’s exactly right. I showed how the NB in my 1991 FT-890/AT beats the DSP noise blankers. But I was literally cursed at by a viewer and told to get off KZbin. I was told to learn how to use the newer radios. Obviously the viewer has not seen my full library of videos. Noise needs to be dealt with as close to the antenna as possible. DSP is too late in the game.