I agree - "CQ" magazine's reviews of equipment have become less than
useful, and in some cases misleading. I like the ARRL's test report
format, but even they occasionally leave things out that I would have
liked to have seen comments about. I don't know if CQ's reviewers are
handcuffed in what they can write, or if a "general impression" is all
they are able to provide. Either way, I don't find their writeups very
helpful in understanding a new piece of gear's high and low points, or
how it compares to the competition.
73, Duane AC5AA (but I like my Omni-VI+)
--
Duane A. Calvin "All statements are mine only, not my employer's."
dacalvin@us.ibm.com -or- dcalvin@austin.ibm.com
evenings: ac5aa@juno.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|