Conway Yee wrote:
> In a thread on the tentec reflector about the R-7000:
> >>...but after reading the QST review...
> >Well here it is from the horse's mouth. I was one of the two
> >stations that were involved with the on-the-air R7000 testing.
> >The article presents the R7000 in a pretty good light. It seemed
> >to be worken ok for Rick when he was testen it with me.
> >But...what he DID NOT mention in the article was the fact that
> >I asked him to switch over to his dipole, and let me see the
> >difference. Well it was about 15 DB stronger... the dipole, that
> >These comercially available antennas that look pretty are
> >typically a compromise. Personally, the only case where
> >I would use one of these factory made verticals would be if
> >I lived in an apartment, condo or sumthen like that,
> >and did not have the space for a full size antenna.
> There in lies the problem I have with the objectivity of QST
> reviews. (Although I have found no other magazine for any other
> type of gear any better.) I find that there are very few, if any,
> negative reviews. Nearly all reviews are various degrees of
> What is wrong with an objective assessment of what a antenna (or
> piece of equipment) can and can not do? How can I believe any
> positive review if I know that negative reviews are never made
Conway, QST has done many negative reviews over the years.
Sometimes, however, the negatives only apply to certain aspects
of the equipment. A few months ago I ruled out ALL HF mobile
rigs with detachable panels because of problems pointed out
by QST. These problems may not have been significant for some,
but for me they were important. In fact, I wound up with a
Scout while my son (an electrical engineer got a TS-50). They
served different purposes for each one of us.
QST is the only ham magazine I have felt I could trust,
meaning that I coulld at least buy an advertised product and
expect to receive it, and it would probably work.
QST has intervened for me with two companies. In the case of
a two meter Heathkit I actually received a phone call from
the company president in which he offered a full cash refund--
not their normal policy.
Anyone remember the sealed box represented to be some great
antenna breakthrough and advertised in various places. QST
had it x-rayed. It was empty!
73, Larry W3UIO (Remove the "_" spam reducer.)
> and that the objectivity of the positive reviews are in question?
> Is the editorial content of magazines compromised THAT much by
> advertising that objective reviews never make the grade?
> tnx es 73 de Conway Yee, N2JWQ
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com