Yaesu FT1XD (updated FT1D) vs. Yaesu FT-2DR, a comparison review
Just a personal opinion, Yaesu should’ve continued making a flagship digital radio with a keypad for easy APRS text input
Back in 2016, the Yaesu FT-2DR had been my first-ever digital portable radio. It was during the time when local hams were only starting to get bitten by the digital bug. It was the second-generation Fusion radio from Yaesu, having superseded the FT1 series before it.
While I liked the dual receiver and extensive feature set, my main complaints with the FT2 were the size and difficult text entry. The big touchscreen was also an accident waiting to happen. One wrong bump against a corner or a key scratch could end up cracking the (relatively) big LCD.
I thus got curious about the FT1DR, but at the time, that particular model was already discontinued. There had been an update, the FT1XD with improved GPS and performance, but in most markets, it was not very easy to acquire an FT1XD or FT1D for a good price.
As of May 2021, if you check prices online, hams and dealers are even selling it for a lot more than the FT-2DR — sometimes the asking price is the same as the price of an FT-3DR or even higher.
I told myself, one day I will get my hands on one of these. It’s the kind of blink-and-you’ll-miss-it rarity that the FT1 even sells for upwards of $400 on eBay — many even ask for higher prices than a brand new FT-3DR!
I got the chance to acquire a Yaesu FT1XD very recently from a friend who flew one in from Japan, and my unit is supposedly for the Japan Domestic Market, which has some limitations: First, it can only transmit from 144–146 MHz and 430–440 MHz (not even the entire 420–450!). It is also limited in terms of firmware updates. It cannot support the most recent updates with DG-ID and DP-ID capability.
I am writing this comparison between the FT1XD and the FT-2DR to share some of my observations. Unfortunately, I do not have an FT-3DR yet, so I cannot provide my comparisons with Yaesu’s newest flagship portable.
Battery performance
Battery power is the biggest drawback of the FT1 series vis-a-vis the FT2. K9EQ did some tests, and he found out that the FT1D drew significantly more current than the FT-2DR in most scenarios.
For example, digital or AMS standby on the FT1 drew around 3x as much current as with analog-only standby. The FT2 is much thriftier in power especially with digital or AMS standby, and even in dual receive.
Thus, I noticed that when I was on dual-standby and using AMS, my FT1 battery would get depleted in around 6–8 hours or so. In contrast, I would usually get around 16 hours standby time on my FT2. These are all with the same amount of digital QSOs (not scientific, but usually 5/5/90 duty cycle in the span of a day).
I noticed that my FT1 would get significantly warm during digital standby — perhaps due to the higher-than-usual current draw.
Note that the FT1XD comes packaged with the 2200 mAh SBR-14Li battery (affiliate link), much like the FT2 and FT3. Older FT-1D comes bundled with smaller 1100 mAH batteries.
One observation is that my FT1 had better tolerance for lower voltages. It would continue operating until the voltage finally dropped to below 6.6 volts, after which it would shut off. I remember that my FT2 would shut down by around 6.8 volts. But this is truly unhealthy for a Li-Ion battery! I recommend charging your Li-Ion batteries once they reach 7.0V at standby.
One workaround here would be to simply use analog-only monitor. Since I am familiar with the sound of a digital stream, I would then just switch to digital to listen in. Not an elegant solution, but it works for improving battery use.
It’s a good thing that the FT1 and FT2 series (along with the VX-8 and FT3) share the same battery platform. I usually charge spare batteries and swap them out — one batt-swap a day for each radio.
I usually use my FT1 for APRS and APRS messaging. On B-band receive only and with APRS on L1 setting beaconing every 30 minutes and doing moderate messaging throughout the day, the radio would last around 16 hours on a single charge.
More on that later, particularly under text entry.
The winner here: FT-2DR by a wide margin
Text entry and editing
Here’s where the FT1XD shines. One of my biggest complaints against the FT-2DR is the clunky touch-based text input. You think that with the device being developed in the late-2010s, Yaesu could have taken a page from iOS’ or Android’s user experience, but they did not. Text input on the FT2 (and reportedly the FT3) seems to be built by engineers and not UI experts. It works, but it takes you a zillion keypresses to accomplish simple messaging.
For example, on the FT2, there is no quick way to delete the contents of the message editing field, unless you also CLEAR ALL including the callsign information. Navigation is also very difficult. You cannot just touch a point on the text entry field and move the cursor there. You have to press the on-screen left and right buttons to move the cursor where you want to.
I used to press the delete key repeatedly until the screen was cleared. That was until I realized it was easier to start a reply from the Station List, since messages start out as blank (only with the target callsign).
And don’t even ask me how many times I accidentally pressed the M-TX button thus transmitting the message even when not yet ready.
I got used to messaging on the FT2, however, after a while. But this device is NOT built for messaging. That’s quite unfortunate because APRS messaging — and even C4FM’s own messaging platform —is underutilized but has a lot of potential.
On the FT1, you can clear the contents of the message field with just one key press. The FW key serves as backspace and also clears everything to the right of the cursor. You can also clear the message content only, callsign only, or the entire thing.
Navigating and typing text with the physical button is also much easier. I was in my late teens when SMS became popular with GSM phones— back then, I mastered multi-tap texting at speed with my Nokia 5110, 3210, 3310, 6210, etc.
Sure, TXTspeak is bad, but with only 67 characters per APRS message, and to save your energy with multitap, I’m sure people will be forgiving. Even Morse code has its own shortcuts.
It’s not just the typing that’s better. It’s the text-entry UI itself, including cursor navigation and reply handling.
The winner here: FT1XD hands-down (or is it fingers?)
Display
Never mind the washed-out and low-contrast screen of the FT2 compared to most modern smartphones, its screen is decidedly better than that of the FT1. You get much more information, and the readability is better. The fonts of the FT1 are just so small and thin, and the lighting is a bit too dark for my taste.
I sometimes check APRS messages on my FT1 when I wake up in the morning and have a hard time because my eyes haven’t adjusted to waking up yet. On the FT2, it’s much more readable. Imagine how better it would be on the FT3, with its colored higher-contrast screen.
One note: On both radios, channel name tags cannot be displayed on dual receive mode. You will need to be on single receive mode for this to be displayed. The FT2 has the advantage of displaying the time onscreen even with dual frequencies. With the FT1, you can only see the clock with single receive.
The FT3 supposedly solves this — you can see the name tag of your primary channel even on dual-receive mode.
And a particular gripe of mine, the capital U and V look the same on the FT1’s screen. DU and DV callsigns thus look the same unless you look more closely.
With the FT1, though, I need not worry about the screen getting scratched or cracked. FT2’s screen seems much more vulnerable to getting dinged against a corner or getting squeezed while inside a bag. I know someone whose screen cracked as it pressed against a key while in his bag. Replacement is cheap at around $30 (PhP1,500) and can be replaced DIY. But it’s a pain to have to do that.
Check out my DIY FT2 screen protector here.
The winner: FT-2DR for readability
Audio quality
Yaesu’s flagship radios seem to be performing poorly when it comes to audio quality. The FT-70DR has decidedly better audio than any of the FT1, FT2, and FT3 line. That being said, the audio quality on the FT1XD is better than that of the FT-2DR. FT1 has fuller, richer audio with wider dynamic range. FT2 seems a bit tinny.
FT3 reportedly has tinnier audio quality, maybe because of the water ingress protection. Some reportedly open the rubber plug that covers the speaker mic port to improve audio quality.
Winner: FT1XD (if you must ask, the FT-70DR does have superior audio)
GPS performance
I don’t particularly like broadcasting my location, but with APRS I have found tracking fascinating. I would usually set some ambiguity in my GPS positioning to have some semblance of privacy.
That being said, I have discovered that the FT1XD outperforms the FT-2DR’s GPS receiver by a very wide margin. My FT1XD would get a GPS lock within seconds of being turned on. Even while indoors, it will work, as long as I’m near a window or under a non-metallic roof. The FT2’s GPS will only work outdoors, and even then it takes a few minutes to get a lock.
There is no GPS indicator on the FT1, however, unlike with the FT2. With the FT2, there is an icon at the status bar at the top of the screen, and you can press DISP and tap once for GPS sync info. On the FT1, you can only check if it’s powered on or off under APRS settings, and you can check GPS status under the DISPLAY — GPS INFO menu.
Props to Yaesu for how they designed the GPS receiver on the FT1XD. It seems the biggest change from FT1 to FT1XD is the GPS, after all, as documented. I wonder why performance on FT2 degraded. I hope the FT3 performs better.
Winner: FT1XD (not applicable to the older FT1D)
Other observations
- DG-ID: My FT1XD is the JPN variant, and its firmware is dated circa 2016. This means it cannot support the latest DG-ID functionality, which basically acts as a “code squelch” for digital. There aren’t many use cases, but if you want your radio to remain silent until a transmission with the same DG-ID is heard, then set it with an RX code and make sure the other radio has the same TX code.
Radios with earlier firmware can do this by using the DIGITAL SQUELCH feature. Set it to BREAK and it can supposedly open the audio on the receiving radio regardless of RX DG-ID. Set it to CODE for both TX and RX code functionality. The only limitation is that you cannot have separate TX and RX codes on the older firmware. I notice that some repeaters handle digital squelch a bit differently (e.g, BREAK will not work but CODE will). - WIRES-X: FT1 does have WIRES-X controls, but you cannot use it in PDN or portable HRI mode like the FT2. Winner: FT2 if you use either of these modes.
- A-Band only digital. The FT1 supports C4FM on the A-band only. The FT2 supports it on both A and B-bands. It’s a great thing to have especially if you have access to several Fusion repeaters in your area or you want to use one band for repeater and another for hotspot operation. Winner: FT2.
- Indicator LED: The FT1 has three indicator LEDs: The white APRS notification LED, the A-band RX/TX LED and the B-band RX/TX LED. The FT2 combines these into a single LED at the upper part of the radio: Red for transmit, Green for A-band receive, Blue for B-band receive, and White for APRS message notifications. I prefer the separate notification LEDs, and the FT1’s lamp is actually quite big and bright. Winner: FT1.
- Internal bar antenna: The FT1XD has an internal bar antenna for better reception of broadcast AM. While the FT1 does not have SSB filters (like the Kenwood TH-F7) that let you listen into amateur radio HF transmissions, better AM receive might come in handy during emergency situations when broadcast news is important. Winner: FT1.
- Volume knob. The FT-2DR has separate knobs for selection and volume control. These are actually interchangeable depending on your preference. Meanwhile, with the FT1 series, you need to press the VOL sidekey and turn the knob to change volume — much like with the FT-70DR. This is a much-hated and much-debated feature I know. However, with the FT1, there is an option to enable “AUTO BACK” mode, which only requires pressing the VOL key only once and then the dial to adjust volume (after a few seconds, it goes back to standby). Winner: FT2 for ease of use.
- Lock option. Both radios can be locked and unlocked using a single press of the power button. Once you’ve grown used to the FT1, you will realize that the selector and volume knobs on the FT2 are very easy to actuate. Every touch of the screen will also engage the touchscreen. So you will definitely need to lock the FT2DR while not actively in use. Meanwhile, with the FT1, I find the need to lock it only when on my belt and when I’m walking about. Winner: FT1, because I think the FT2 has a mind of its own if you leave it unlocked.
- Package: The FT1XD includes the SCU-19 cable out of the box. The FT-2DR comes bundled with just a plain USB cable. The SCU-19 can be used to program the radio with ADMS. It can also be used for WIRES-X unde PDN or portable HRI mode (unfortunately, the FT1 does not support this). The supplied cable with the FT2 is just for firmware upgrades. Perhaps Yaesu stopped including it as a cost-saving measure. I think it’s a bonus not having to spend extra money for this accessory. Winner: FT1.
- Carrying case: The FT1 fits in the FT-70DR leatherette case.
- IP rating: Both radios are IP-X5 rated, meaning “Can resist a sustained, low-pressure water jet spray”. I feel more comfortable bringing my FT1XD as an outdoor radio than the FT-2DR, however.
Conclusion
This is a highly subjective opinion, as most reviews are, I think. It boils down to your preference.
Why the FT1 (choose the XD version and not the older D version)?
- Easier text entry
- Better GPS
- Better audio quality
- More rugged
Why the FT2?
- Better display
- WIRES-X PDN or portable HRI capability
- Better firmware update support
Asking prices for FT1 are actually close to brand new FT3DR prices, so I would say go for the newer one. I merely wanted to try the FT1 because I frequently send APRS messages, and because it’s practically a collector’s item now.
But if you ask me, should I buy an FT1XD or an FT-2DR, my answer would be “yes” (meaning both, if that interests you). There’s often a tradeoff when choosing between two similar things. It’s up to you which one suits you better.
Now my next project is getting an FT-3DR (affiliate link). No hurries on that, given cost considerations, and since I’m happy with my FT1XD, which is rare these days. But who knows?
Here’s the thing. I know a couple of hams who told me they would never sell or trade their FT1s — yes plural (perhaps due to the rarity or the usability). That speaks a lot about the value of this radio.
Additional photos
