On 30 Apr 2002 at 7:48, Tom Rauch wrote:
>
> Perhaps the 9000 amplifier needed some distortion. Many people
> actually like a little distortion in certain music passages.
>
No, I don't think that was it. We were not building guitar
amps where some "fuzz" and other stuff is the norm. We were
building High Fidelity amplifiers where the company officials
wanted the most faithful reproduction possible. See below for
more on this slightly off topic matter.
> Liking a certain "sound", however, is nothing like comparing dynamic
> range, signal-to-noise ratios, or selectivity in a communications
> system.
>
What I said in my earlier post was "...It seems to me that both
measured and subjective observations are useful in evaluating a
radio, IF the subjective observations are honest and
qualified..."
A communications system is about communications. In our case
on CW, SSB, FM and AM, mostly by sound. So sound is
important. Digital modes are another matter. To me, a radio
that sounds wonderful but collapses whenever another signal
comes on the band is just as useless as one that holds up well
on a crowded band but sounds horrible. The dynamic range,
selectivity, etc can be measured and do indeed provide useful
information about a radio. But the sound, the feel, yes, even
the appearance of a radio......items that cannot be
measured......also contribute to it's usefulness and users
satisfaction.
As I've said before, I have over a dozen radios available to me.
Many of them are not Ten Tec's, and most of them are more
costly than my Pegasus and Jupiter. But for some reason I
cannot explain, I find myself almost always using either the
Pegasus or the Jupiter. And I think that is the ultimate
verdict. Put various radios at the disposal of a user and see
which one he or she gravitates toward after becoming familiar
with each, and that will tell you better than anything else how
good that radio is for that person.
In the case of our Sherwood equipment, we had two major
sources of independent analysis. Consumer Union and Hirsch-
Houck Labs. In both cases, the reviewers made meaningful
measurements of the equipment being reviewed and they also
made very good comments, subjective comments, as well.
Although we did not always agree with the subjective
comments, we considered them both honest and qualified to
make such comments since they thoroughly understood the
issues surrounding High Fidelity sound reproduction.
We are halfway there in amateur radio with the ARRL and
RSGB measurements. I think it would be useful if we could
find some independent organization with the qualifications to
do the subjective part.
-73-
-Lee-
|